&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
2013 VGP:
EPA's Response to Public Comments
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water Permits Division
Office of Wastewater Management
Office of Water
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
March 28, 2013
-------
FOREWORD
This document provides responses to all comments submitted on EPA's 2013 Vessel
General Permit (VGP). EPA's Notice of Proposed Permit Issuance was published in the Federal
Register on December 8, 2011 (76 FR 76716). Submitted comments are available electronically
through http://www.regulations.sov by searching Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 and
in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room. The telephone number for the
Water Docket is (202) 566-2426 and the telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744. The Water Docket assigned a unique Document Control Number (DCN) to each
comment submittal.
To organize the comments and to facilitate EPA's responses, EPA classified comment
submittals received by general topic. The Table of Contents provides the complete list of topics
covered by the comments. If a specific comment submittal addressed multiple general topics,
EPA subdivided the submittal by general topic. Comments or portions of comments assigned to
general topics are referred to as comment excerpts. All of the individual comment excerpts
classified to a specific general topic are reproduced within the chapter or subchapter
corresponding to that topic, ordered by DCN and comment except number. EPA's response to
each comment excerpt is provided immediately following the comment excerpt, or in essay form
at the beginning of a chapter or subchapter. While EPA endeavored to be accurate and consistent
in assigning comment excerpts to general topics, some excerpts may have been misclassified and
some have content which overlaps multiple general topics. Accordingly, readers may need to
read this entire document to obtain EPA's complete response regarding a given general topic.
EPA has provided a Comment Response Index in this document to assist commenters in
locating EPA's responses their comments. The Comment Response Index includes four parts.
Parti lists the comment submittals ordered by Affiliate Name, providing a cross reference to the
DCN(s) associated with that commenter. Part 2 lists comment submittals ordered by DCN,
identifying the comment excerpts and their assigned general topics. Part 3 lists comment
submittals that were not included in this comment response document because (1) the submittal
was a cover letter that did not contain any comments, (2) the submittal was a duplicate submittal,
or (3) the submittal was a document reference that may or may not be copyrighted. Part 4 lists
comments that EPA received as part of two letter writing campaigns (i.e., a form letter). EPA
provided responses to each of these form letters once, rather than responding to each form letter
individually. Exceptions include portions of form letters consisting of unique text, which EPA
addressed individually; these exceptions are identified in Part 4 and are also listed in Part 2 of the
Comment Response Index.
EPA notes that many commenters raised similar or related issues. To assist commenters,
EPA's comment responses often indicate where in this document or elsewhere in the record (e.g.,
fact sheet or economic analysis) the commenter may find additional information or related
responses to the specific issue raised by that comment. Notwithstanding these selective cross-
references, EPA notes that the full record and response to comments for this permit consists of
all relevant information found throughout the response to comment document, permit, fact sheet,
and other supporting documentation. EPA thus cautions commenters to read all of these
materials to ensure that they are viewing the full Agency response to the issue raised.
i
-------
The primary contacts regarding questions or comments on this document are:
Ryan Albert (202) 564-0763 (telephone)
Juhi Saxena (202) 564-0719 (telephone)
Kathryn Kelley (202) 566-7004 (telephone)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wastewater Management
Mail Code 4203M
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
vgp@EPA.gov
ii
-------
Table of Contents
Page
FOREWORD i
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate
Name 1
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN 18
Comment Submittal Index Part 3: Comment Submittals Not Included in the
Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN 80
Comment Submittal Index Part 4: Comment Submittals Identified as Part of a
Letter Writing Campaign, Ordered by DCN 106
1. General Stakeholder 114
2. Eligible Vessels and Discharges 148
3. Permit Term 186
4. Permit Background 195
4.1 2008 VGP 196
5. Compliance and Enforcement 197
6. Definitions 202
6.1 Biodegradable 203
6.2 Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants 206
6.3 Voyage 225
6.4 Other Definitions 227
7. Administrative Requirements 239
7.1 NOIs 245
7.2 PARI Form 255
7.3 Routine Visual Inspections 258
7.4 Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections 266
7.5 Comprehensive Annual Vessel Inspections 275
7.6 Drydock Inspections 277
7.7 Recordkeeping (Except Ballast Water) 282
7.8 Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water) 295
7.9 General Monitoring (Not Discharge Specific) 311
7.10 Annual Report 312
7.11 Combined Annual Report 322
7.12 Training 324
7.13 Corrective Actions 326
7.14 Responsible Parties 329
iii
-------
8. Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels 331
9. Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges 341
9.1 Ballast Water 346
9.1.1 Numeric Limits for Organisms and Microorganisms 479
9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control 551
9.1.3 Unmanned, Unpowered Barges 645
9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers 651
9.1.5 Short Distance Voyage Vessels 706
9.1.6 New Lakers 719
9.1.7 Interim Requirements 720
9.1.8 Additional Data Sources 728
9.1.9 California Performance Standards 732
9.1.10 Monitoring 754
9.1.11 Biocide Discharge Limits and Biocides Not Authorized by VGP 803
9.1.12 Permit Modification 816
9.1.13 Management Measures 830
9.1.14 Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements 850
9.1.15 Recordkeeping and Reporting 869
9.1.16 STEP 875
9.1.17 Potable Water 876
9.1.18 On Shore Treatment 895
9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking 906
9.2 Bilgewater 932
9.3 Graywater 955
9.3.1 Storage Capacity 955
9.3.2 Soaps and Detergents 956
9.3.3 Management Practices 957
9.3.4 Sewage 963
9.3.5 Great Lakes 966
9.3.6 Monitoring 967
9.4 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater 978
9.4.1 Treatment Standards 980
9.4.2 Continuous Monitoring 986
9.4.3 Quarterly Monitoring 987
9.5 Fish Hold Effluent 994
9.6 Oil-to-Sea Interfaces 1010
9.7 Underwater Ship Husbandry 1042
9.8 All Other Discharge Categories 1048
10. Water Quality Based Effluent Limits 1094
10.1 Ballast Water 1102
10.1.1 Narrative Limit Applicable to Ballast Water 1142
10.1.2 Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment 1160
11. Vessel Class-Specific Requirements 1192
11.1 Large Cruise Ships 1192
11.2 Medium Cruise Ships 1204
11.3 Large Ferries 1221
iv
-------
12. 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements 1224
13. Economics 1262
14. Consistency with International or USCG Regulations (Except Ballast
Water) 1289
15. Miscellaneous/Other 1294
16. Misfiled Comment 1304
V
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate Name
Affiliate Name
Commenler Name
Documenl Control Number
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section
Michelle Bonnett, Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0534-A2
Alaska Trailers Association
Dale Kelley, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0509-A1
Alfa Laval
Tobias Mattsson, Marine Engineer, Portfolio Manager, Parts
& Service, Marine & Diesel Equipment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0465-A2
Alfa Laval
Tobias Mattsson, Marine Engineer, Portfolio Manager, Parts
& Service, Marine & Diesel Equipment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0465-A3
Alfa Laval
Tobias Mattsson, Marine Engineer, Portfolio Manager, Parts
& Service, Marine & Diesel Equipment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0465-A4
Alfa Laval
Tobias Mattsson, Marine Engineer, Portfolio Manager, Parts
& Service, Marine & Diesel Equipment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0465-A5
Algoma Central Corporation
Algis Vanagas, Senior Vice-President Technical
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1
Alliance for the Great Lakes
Alliance for the Great Lakes from the January 23, 2012 Public
Meeting
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0468
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0577
Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0564-A2
Alliance for the Great Lakes, Great Lakes United,
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, Nat. Res. Defense Council,
Nw. Envtl. Advocates
Anonymous
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578
Allied Transportation Company
Jeffrey E. Parker, Vice President, Operations
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0539-A2
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
David Connor, Water Quality Specialist
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0489-A1
American Chemet Corporation
William H. Shropshire, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0473-A1
American Chemical Technologies, Inc.
Mark D. Latunski, Lab Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0522-A1
American Chemical Technologies, Incorporated
James R. Kovanda, Vice President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0538-A1
American Cruise Lines, Inc. (ACL)
Timothy J. Beebe, Vice President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0477-A1
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
Tim Sizemore, Manager Waterway Regulatory Programs
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0631-A2
American Great Lakes Ports Association
Steven A. Fisher, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0545-A2
1
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate Name (Continued)
Affiliate Name
Commenler Name
Documenl Control Number
American River Transportation Company (ARTCO)
Matthew French, Port Engineer
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0551- A 1
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
Dr. W. Ron DeHaven, CEO and Executive Vice President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0470-A1
Amherst Madison, Inc.
William R. Barr, Vice President Safety & Compliance
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0524-A1
Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)
Abby Schneider, Federal Legislative Representative
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0498-A1
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
Brennan Marine
Adam Binsfeld
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0518-Al
Brennan Marine Inc.
Adam Binsfeld
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0484-A1
California State Lands Commission
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0575-A2
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0554-A2
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0554-A3
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA)
(Association des Armateurs Canadiens)
Bruce Bowie, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0540-A2
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA)
(Association des Armateurs Canadiens)
Bruce Bowie, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0540-A3
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA)
(Association des Armateurs Canadiens)
Bruce Bowie, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0540-A4
Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
William S. Murphy
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Canal Barge Company's Northern Operation
Canal Barge Company's Northern Operation at the January 23,
2012 Public Meeting
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0469
Center for Research on Aquatic Bioinvasions et al.
Dr. Andrew Cohen, Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0487-A1
Cetacean Marine Inc
Glenn R Germaine, President/CEO
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0667-A1
Chamber of Marine Commerce (CMC)
Raymond W. Johnston, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0541-A2
Chamber of Shipping of America
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE)
Brian P. Smith, Program and Communications Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0553-A1
2
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate Name (Continued)
Affiliate Name
Commenler Name
Documenl Control Number
Compass Water Solutions
Dan Grommersch, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0519-A1
Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (CT DEEP)
Oswald Inglese, Jr., Director, Water Permitting and
Enforcement Division
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0523-A1
Consultative Shipping Group (CSG)
Andreas Nordseth, Chairman
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0478-A1
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A1
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0530-A2
Dann Marine Towing
Christian LaPense
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
Dann Ocean Towing, Inc.
Randy Trapp, Safety, Security Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0558-A1
Ecochlor, Inc.
Tom Perlich, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0480-A1
Educational Tall Ship
Captain Alan Olson, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0570-A1
Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association
(EGCSA)
Donald Gregory, Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0571-A2
Fednav Limited
Marc Gagnon, Director, Government Affairs & Regulatory
Compliance
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0559-A2
Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Robert D. Alverson, Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0819-A1
Flagship Niagara League
Walter P. Rybka, Senior Captain
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0795-A1
Flagship Niagara League, Inc.
Wesley W. Heerssen, Jr., Captain, SSV Niagara
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0546-A2
Foss Maritime Company
Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and
Governmental Affairs
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0560-A2
Freezer Longline Coalition (FLC)
Kenny Down, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0461-A1
Friends of the Earth
Marcie Keever, Oceans & Vessels Project Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0494-A1
Garden State Seafood Association
Gregory DiDomenico
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0467
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0574-A2
Government of Canada
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A1
3
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate Name (Continued)
Affiliate Name
Commenler Name
Document Control Number
Government of Canada
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0479-A2
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
David A. Ullrich, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0563-A2
Great Lakes Commission
Tim Eder, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0528-A1
Great Lakes Commission
Tim Eder, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0528-A2
Great Lakes Commission (GLC)
Tim Eder, Executive Director and Katherine Glassner-
Shwayder, Senior Project Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0562-A2
Great Lakes Environmental Law Center
Nick Schroeck, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0535-A2
Hamworthy Krystallon Ltd.
Lee Bracegirdle, Marine Technical Advisor
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0435-A1
Hornbeck Offshore Services
Timothy D. Sullivan, Manager of Regulatory Affairs and
Environmental Compliance
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0502-A1
House of Representatives, Congress of the United
States
Congressman Andy Harris
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0569-A2
Hyde Marine
Mark Riggio, Product Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
IDEXX Laboratories, Inc
Patsy Root, Senior Regulatory Affairs Specialist
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0526-A1
Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited (ICTU)
Edward L. Michael, Chairman
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0565-A1
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM)
Bruno Pigott, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Water
Quality
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0515-A1
Ingram Barge Company
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et
al.
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0550-A2
Kernel USA Inc
David Hawkins, General Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0792-A1
Key Lakes, Inc.
Captain William C. Peterson, General Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0613-A1
Lake Carriers Association
James H. I. Weakley, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0527-A2
Lake Carriers Association
James H. I. Weakley, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0527-A4
4
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate Name (Continued)
Affiliate Name
Commenler Name
Document Control Number
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians,
Natural Resource Department
Douglas W. Craven, Director, Natural Resource Department
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0433-A1
Lynx Educational Foundation
Jeffrey Woods, Director of Operations
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0796-A1
Maersk Line
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Director, Environment &
Sustainability
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0513-A1
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
Roger Harris, Senior Vice President - Operations
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0488-A1
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
(MEDEP)
Pamela Parker, Vessel Discharges, Division of Water Quality
Management
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0628-A2
Maine Windjammer Cruises
Captain Ray Williamson, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0614-A1
Marin Audubon Society
Barbara Salzman, Co-Chair Conservation Committee and Phil
Peterson, Co-Chair, Conservation Committee
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0434-A1
Marine Lubricants
Oliver Ferguson, Technical Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0798-A1
Marmac, LLC., McDonough Marine Service
Patrick Stant, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0627-A2
McNational, Inc.
Russell E. Painter, Regulatory Affairs Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0481- A 1
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ)
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0450-A1
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ)
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0450-A2
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ)
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0450-A3
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ)
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0536-A2
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ)
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0536-A3
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ)
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A4
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ)
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0536-A5
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Kate Frantz
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0521-A2
5
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate Name (Continued)
Affiliate Name
Commenler Name
Document Control Number
MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Scott Strand, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0573-A2
National Park Service, United States Department of
the Interior
Gary Rosenlieb, Acting Chief
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0742-A2
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0491- A 1
New York City Law Department
Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law Division
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0598-A2
New York Department of Environmental
Conservation
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0449-A1
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0497-A1
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0497-A4
None
Public Hearing Oral Comments by WSC's Doug Schneider.
January 11, 2012
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0441
None
January 11, 2012 Public Hearing Oral Comments by PVA's
Jennifer Wilk and Ed Welch
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0443
None
Public Hearing Oral Comments by AWO's Jennifer Carpenter.
January 11, 2012
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444
None
Public Hearing Oral Comments by ACA's John Hopewell.
January 10, 2012
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0445
None
Public Meeting Oral Comment by Illinois Marine Towing
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0452
None
Alan (no surname provided)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0458
None
Anonymous
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1
None
J. Johnson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0506
None
Anonymous
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0517
None
T. Aylsworth
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0579-A1
None
C. Scholz
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
6
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate Name (Continued)
Affiliate Name
Commenler Name
Document Control Number
None
M. Covello
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0581-A1
None
0. Booth
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0582-A1
None
M. Mackai
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0584-A1
None
N. Russell
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0585-A1
None
L. Kain
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0587-A1
None
D. Balin
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0588-A1
None
J. Wilson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0590-A1
None
M. Helming
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0591- A 1
None
M. Lees
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0592-A1
None
D. Greene
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0593-A1
None
M. Pickett
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0594-A1
None
L. Weingart
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0595-A1
None
G. Bargerstock
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0596-A1
None
Z. Strickland
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0601-A1
None
B. Mittelstaedt
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0602-A1
None
D. Dobrzyn
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0603-A1
None
D. Stevens
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0604-A1
None
D. Broadway
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0605-A1
None
P. Bloink
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0606-A1
None
C. Carson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0607-A1
None
J. Mcintosh
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0609-A1
None
B. Tuttle
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0610-A1
None
A. Dale
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0615-A1
1
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate Name (Continued)
Affiliate Name
Commenler Name
Document Control Number
None
J. Buchman
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0616-A1
None
P. and B. Noeldner
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0617-A1
None
Y. Ruben
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0618-A1
None
J. Erney
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0619-A1
None
J. Horkulic
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0620-A1
None
D. Ross
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0621-A1
None
B. Ray
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0622-A1
None
M. Wilson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0623-A1
None
D. Lavender
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0625-A1
None
P. Fischer
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0635-A1
None
J. G. Garey
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0636-A1
None
Y. Wootten
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0637-A1
None
P. Andler
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0638-A1
None
S. West
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0639-A1
None
D. Rhomberg
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0640-A1
None
J. Okazaki
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0641-A1
None
E. Hursh
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0642-A1
None
S. Secrest
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0643-A1
None
T. McKinney
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0644-A1
None
P. A. Johnson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0645-A1
None
B. Vosburg-Bluem
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0646-A1
None
A. Case
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0647-A1
None
S. Knudstrup
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0648-A1
8
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate Name (Continued)
Affiliate Name
Commenler Name
Document Control Number
None
C. VandePolder
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0649-A1
None
S. Ebershoff-Coles
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0650-A1
None
J. Whitney
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0651- A 1
None
C. Spencer
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0652-A1
None
J. Beecher
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0653-A1
None
B. Pinti
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0654-A1
None
P. Baker
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0656-A1
None
J. Thompson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0657-A1
None
P. Clemo
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0658-A1
None
L. Wilkinson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0659-A1
None
A. I. Aurelio
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0660-A1
None
L. Strain
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0661-A1
None
L. Shuman
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0663-A1
None
P. Heithaus
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0664-A1
None
G. and P. Holcomb
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0665-A1
None
Dr. J. Nicholson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0666-A1
None
M. Scott
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0668-A1
None
V. Snider
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0670-A1
None
J. DiNardo
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0671- A 1
None
J. Sherman
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0673-A1
None
G. Pearson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0674-A1
None
S. Teel
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0675-A1
None
C. Lasecki
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0676-A1
9
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate Name (Continued)
Affiliate Name
Commenler Name
Document Control Number
None
Dr. B. Schwartz
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0678-A1
None
P. Donnelly
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0679-A1
None
W. Stroessner
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0680-A1
None
W. Stroessner
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0681- A 1
None
W. Stroessner
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0682-A1
None
W. Stroessner
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0683-A1
None
J. Rothenberg
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0685-A1
None
E. Schultz
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0686-A1
None
A. Eastham
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0687-A1
None
C. Grubb
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0688-A1
None
B. Liberacki
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0689-A1
None
L. Adams
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0690-A1
None
K. Robbins
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0691- A 1
None
T. Swedberg
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0692-A1
None
T. Cannon
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0693-A1
None
M. Jackson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0694-A1
None
M. Zwicker
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0695-A1
None
K. Linn
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0696-A1
None
C. Francis
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0697-A1
None
K. Simonik
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0698-A1
None
N. Sorlie
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0700-A1
None
P. Turon
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0701-A1
None
J. Tannehill
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0703-A1
10
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate Name (Continued)
Affiliate Name
Commenler Name
Document Control Number
None
Dr. J. Mendoza
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0704-A1
None
Dr. S. Keil
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0705-A1
None
I. Senn
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0706-A1
None
N. Price
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0707-A1
None
G. Opem
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0708-A1
None
C. Jolliff
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0709-A1
None
A. Lucchini
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0710-A1
None
D. Murphy
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0711-A1
None
R. Stiefel
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0712-A1
None
K. Smith
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0713-A1
None
C. Caldie
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0714-A1
None
H. Santiago
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0715-A1
None
S. Saari
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0716-A1
None
S. Long
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0717-A1
None
M. Leven
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0718-A1
None
G. Crouse
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0720-A1
None
B. Oilman
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0721-A1
None
C. Litweiler
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0725-A1
None
C. Fries
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0726-A1
None
D. Mcintosh
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0727-A1
None
P. Wormley
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0728-A1
None
A. Stroh
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0729-A1
None
L. Swider
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0730-A1
11
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate Name (Continued)
Affiliate Name
Commenler Name
Document Control Number
None
J. A. Bule
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0731-A1
None
C. Wagner
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0732-A1
None
J. Smith
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0733-A1
None
M. Guest
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0734-A1
None
F. Canonizado
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0735-A1
None
A. Mahan
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0737-A1
None
B. Birnbaum
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0738-A1
None
C. Yeany
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0739-A1
None
B. Wallick
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0740-A1
None
Dr. R. Sherding
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0741-A1
None
B. Imam
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0743-A1
None
K. Arellanes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0744-A1
None
E. Olsen
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0745-A1
None
G. Prevost
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0746-A1
None
P. Wilson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0747-A1
None
K. Moore
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0748-A1
None
D. Niergarth
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0750-A1
None
P. Haumann
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0753-A1
None
J. MacArthur
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0754-A1
None
C. Azan
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0755-A1
None
C. Maciel
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0756-A1
None
J. Davis
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0759-A1
None
P. Orr
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0763-A1
12
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate Name (Continued)
Affiliate Name
Commenler Name
Document Control Number
None
E. Litten
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0764-A1
None
D. Moderacki
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0765-A1
None
R. Atkin
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0766-A1
None
M. Maxson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0768-A1
None
D. Hart
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0769-A1
None
C. Newhouse, Ph.D.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0770-A1
None
C. Fletcher
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0771- A 1
None
A. Eilenberg
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0772-A1
None
L. Alexander
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0773-A1
None
T. Murcko
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0774-A1
None
Dr. A. Agarwal
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0775-A1
None
R. Gilbert
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0776-A1
None
RS. Stoner
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0777-A1
None
M. Coe
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0778-A1
None
L. P. Kolb
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0779-A1
None
D. Gordon-Brown
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0781-A1
None
L. Hau
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0783-A1
None
D. Selvaggio
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0785-A1
None
Leveta Fisher
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0786-A1
None
V. Smith
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0787-A1
None
S.McLelland
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0788-A1
None
G. Gabel
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0789-A1
None
J. Stephenson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0791- A 1
13
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate Name (Continued)
Affiliate Name
Commenler Name
Documenl Control Number
None
C. McVie
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0793-A1
None
B. Menkes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0799-A1
None
R. Grande
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0800-A1
None
M. H. Watson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0801-A1
None
M. Florey
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0802-A1
None
T. Lucas
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0803-A1
None
K. Shair
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0804-A1
None
J. Y. Doesschate
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0805-A1
None
C. Rabbit
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0806-A1
None
R. Mowday
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0807-A1
None
F. Quail
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0808-A1
None
E. Monis
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0810-A1
None
L. Berling
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0811-A1
None
R. Bertrand
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0812- A1
None
S. Sweeney
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0813-A1
None
Dr. K. R. Crocker
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0814-A1
None
S. Brown
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0815-A1
None
D., D., D., and B. Poole
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0816- A1
None
A. Benjamin
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0817-A1
North Star Maritime, Inc.
Robert C. North, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0567-A2
Northwest Environmental Advocates
Holley Horrell, Mills Legal Clinic
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0576-A2
Offshore Marine Service Association
Sarah K. Branch, Director of Government Relations
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0474-A1
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Sarah Branch, Director, Government Relations
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0760-A1
14
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate Name (Continued)
Affiliate Name
Commenler Name
Documenl Control Number
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR),
Environmental Services Section
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0542- A2
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR),
Environmental Services Section
James Zehringer, Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0544-A2
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Water Quality
Beth Moore, General Permit Coordinator
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0537-A1
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
John Berge, Vice President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0508-A1
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Edmund B. Welch
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0510-A1
Patriot Maritime Compliance, LLC
Whitney Leake
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0447
Pole Star Group
Richard Doherty, Representative
GP and the draft SVGP con
Pride of Baltimore, Inc.
Jan C. Miles, Captain, Acting Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0599-A2
Rand Logistics, Inc.
H. Clayton Cook, Jr., Counsel, Seward & Kissel LLP on
behalf of Joseph W. McHugh, Jr., Vice President & Chief
Financial Officer
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0568-A2
Rock the Earth
Marc A. Ross, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0547-A2
Rowan Companies, Inc.
T. Lapene
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0475
San Francisco Baykeeper
Abigail Blodgett, Legal Fellow
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0549-A2
Sause Bros
Cory Sause, Environmental Coordinator
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0482-A1
Save Lake Superior Association
LeRoger Lind, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0483-A1
Sea Education Association
Captain David A. Bank, Director, Marine Operations
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0552-A2
Shipping Federation of Canada
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
Sportfishing Association of California
Ken Franke
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0503
State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural
Resources (DLNR)
Dr. Guy Kaulukukui, Acting Administrator
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0572-A2
Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI)
Yoshiaki Gonno, Naval Architect, Technical Development
Group
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0464-A2
15
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate Name (Continued)
Affiliate Name
Commenler Name
Document Control Number
Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI)
Yoshiaki Gonno, Naval Architect, Technical Development
Group
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0464-A4
Tabor Academy.
James E. Geil
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0532-A2
Tall Ships America
Bert Rogers, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0557-A2
Terresolve Technologies
Mark Miller, Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0499-A1
Terresolve Technologies
Donald Sweeney, Vice President of Finance
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0512-A1
The American Coatings Association (ACA)
Marie Hobson, Counsel, Government Affairs and John
Hopewell, Assistant Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0490-A2
The American Coatings Association (ACA)
Marie Hobson, Counsel, Government Affairs and John
Hopewell, Assistant Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0490-A3
The American Waterways Operators
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
The At-sea Processors Association (APA)
Stephanie Madsen, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0460-A2
The Baltic and International Maritime Council
(BIMCO)
Michael Lund, Chief Maritime Politics and Economics
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0548-A1
The Great Lakes Towing Company and Great Lakes
Shipyard
Gregg A. Thauvette, Vice President, Operations
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0520-A1
The Interlake Steamship Company
Mark W. Barker, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0516-A1
The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation
Terence F. Bowles, President and CEO
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0555-A2
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0752-A2
Tole Mour Corporation
Mark Waddington, Director CIMI Tall Ship Expedition
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0556-A1
United Catcher Boats (UCB) and Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
Brent Paine, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0630-A2
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Mark Vinsel, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
United States Great Lakes Shipping Association
(USGLSA)
Stuart T. Theis, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0797-A1
US Army Corps of Engineers
Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0632-A2
16
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 1: Comment Submittals, Ordered by Affiliate Name (Continued)
Affiliate Name
Commenler Name
Document Control Number
V. Ships Leisure
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2
VapCor Inc.
Angus P. Kennedy, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0492-A1
Vickers Oils
Peter Vickers, Chairman & Managing Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0514-A1
Victor Marine
Antony Chan, Engineering Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0780-A1
Wartsila Finland Oy
Jussi Kreula
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0451- A 1
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Dawn Kristof Champney, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0629-A2
Water Quality Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology (ECY)
Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0794-A2
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Cathy Stepp, Secretary
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0531-A2
World Shipping Council (WSC)
Douglas B. Schneider
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1
ZF Marine, LLC
R. Graff
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0440
17
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0433-A1
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Natural Resource Department
Douglas W. Craven, Director, Natural Resource Department, Little Traverse Bay Bands of
Odawa Indians
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
Section 9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0434-A1
Marin Audubon Society
Barbara Salzman, Co-Chair Conservation Committee and Phil Peterson, Co-Chair,
Conservation Committee, Marin Audubon Society
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0435-A1
Hamworthy Krystallon Ltd.
Lee Bracegirdle, Marine Technical Advisor, Hamworthy Krystallon Ltd.
2
Section 9.4.1 Treatment Standards
Section 9.4.3 Quarterly Monitoring
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0440
ZF Marine, LLC
R. Graff
1
Section 6.1 Biodegradable
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0441
Public Hearing Oral Comments by WSC's Doug Schneider. January 11, 2012
4
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0443
January 11, 2012 Public Hearing Oral Comments by PVA's Jennifer Wilk and Ed Welch
General Stakeholder
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Misfiled Comment
Misfiled Comment
Short Distance Voyage Vessels
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
Training
Section
1
Section
12
Section
16
Section
16
Section
9.1.5
Section
9.1.1
Section
7.7
Section
7.12
18
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444
Public Hearing Oral Comments by AWO's Jennifer Carpenter. January 11, 2012
5
Section 2 Eligible vessels and discharges
Section 2 Eligible vessels and discharges
Section 9.1.5 Short Distance Voyage Vessels
Section 7 Administrative Requirements
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0445
Public Hearing Oral Comments by ACA's John Hopewell. January 10, 2012
1
Section 9.8 All Other Discharge Categories
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Number of Excerpts:
24
EXCERPT 1
Section 1
General Stakeholder
EXCERPT 2
Section 1
General Stakeholder
EXCERPT 3
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 4
Section 10.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 5
Section 10.1.1
Narrative Limit Applicable to Ballast Water
EXCERPT 6
Section 10.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 7
Section 10.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 8
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
EXCERPT 9
Section 10.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 10
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 11
Section 4
Permit Background
EXCERPT 12
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 13
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 14
Section 10.1.2
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
EXCERPT 15
Section 9.1.9
California Performance Standards
EXCERPT 16
Section 10.1.2
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
EXCERPT 17
Section 10.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 18
Section 9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
EXCERPT 19
Section 5
Compliance and Enforcement
EXCERPT 20
Section 9.1.10
Monitoring
EXCERPT 21
Section 9.1.15
Recordkeeping and Reporting
EXCERPT 22
Section 5
Compliance and Enforcement
EXCERPT 23
Section 9.1.11
Biocide Discharge Limits and Biocides Not Authorized by VGP
EXCERPT 24
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0447
Patriot Maritime Compliance, LLC
Whitney Leake, on behalf of Patriot Maritime Compliance, LLC
4
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 7.10 Annual Report
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.2 Bilgewater
19
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0449-A1
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, New York Department of Environmental Conservation
4
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 9.1.9 California Performance Standards
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0450-A1
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
William Creal, Chief, Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ)
4
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 10.1 Ballast Water
Section 9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0450-A2
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
William Creal, Chief, Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ)
2
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
Section 10.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0450-A3
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
William Creal, Chief, Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ)
6
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 10 Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
Section 9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 9.1.6 New Lakers
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 10.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0451- A 1
Wartsila Finland Oy
Jussi Kreula, Wartsila Finland Oy
2
Section 9.4.1 Treatment Standards
Section 9.4.3 Quarterly Monitoring
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0452
Public Meeting Oral Comment by Illinois Marine Towing
2
Section 7 Administrative Requirements
Section 2 Eligible vessels and discharges
20
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0458
Alan (no surname provided)
1
Section 6.4 Other Definitions
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0460-A2
The At-sea Processors Association (APA)
Stephanie Madsen, Executive Director, At-sea Processors Association (APA)
3
Section 1 General Stakeholder
Section 1 General Stakeholder
Section 1 General Stakeholder
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0461-A1
Freezer Longline Coalition (FLC)
Kenny Down, Executive Director, Freezer Longline Coalition (FLC)
4
Section 1 General Stakeholder
Section 1 General Stakeholder
Section 1 General Stakeholder
Section 1 General Stakeholder
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0464-A2
Sumitomo Fleavy Industries (SFH)
Yoshiaki Gonno, Naval Architect, Technical Development Group, Sumitomo Fleavy
Industries (SFH), Marine&Engineering Co.,Ltd.
5
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
Section 9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.10 Monitoring
Section 9.1.10 Monitoring
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0464-A4
Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SFH)
Yoshiaki Gonno, Naval Architect, Technical Development Group, Sumitomo Heavy
Industries (SHI), Marine&Engineering Co.,Ltd.
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0465-A2
Alfa Laval
Tobias Mattsson, Marine Engineer, Portfolio Manager, Parts & Service, Marine & Diesel
Equipment, Alfa Laval Tumba AB
1
Section 9.2 Bilgewater
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0465-A3
Alfa Laval
Tobias Mattsson, Marine Engineer, Portfolio Manager, Parts & Service, Marine & Diesel
Equipment, Alfa Laval Tumba AB
1
Section 9.2 Bilgewater
21
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0465-A4
Alfa Laval
Tobias Mattsson, Marine Engineer, Portfolio Manager, Parts & Service, Marine & Diesel
Equipment, Alfa Laval Tumba AB
1
Section 9.2 Bilgewater
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0465-A5
Alfa Laval
Tobias Mattsson, Marine Engineer, Portfolio Manager, Parts & Service, Marine & Diesel
Equipment, Alfa Laval Tumba AB
1
Section 9.2 Bilgewater
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0467
Garden State Seafood Association
Gregory DiDomenico, Garden State Seafood Association
1
Section 1 General Stakeholder
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0468
Comment Collected from Alliance for the Great Lakes from the January 23, 2012 Public
Meeting
1
Section 11.3 Large Ferries
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0469
Oral Comments from Canal Barge Company's Northern Operation at the January 23, 2012
Public Meeting
4
Section 2
Section 9.1.1
Section 9.1.17
Section 12
Eligible vessels and discharges
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Potable Water
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0470-A1
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
Dr. W. Ron DeHaven, CEO and Executive Vice President, American Veterinary Medical
Association (AVMA)
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0472
Pole Star Group
Richard Doherty, Representative, Pole Star Group
1
Section 9.1.10 Monitoring
22
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0473-A1
American Chemet Corporation
William H. Shropshire, President, American Chemet Corporation
1
Section 9.8 All Other Discharge Categories
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0474-A1
Offshore Marine Service Association
Sarah K. Branch, Director of Government Relations, Offshore Marine Service Association
(OMSA)
6
Section 1
Section 9.1
Section 15
Section 9.1.19
Section 12
Section 7.4
General Stakeholder
Ballast Water
Miscellaneous/Other
USCG Rulemaking
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0475
Rowan Companies, Inc.
T. Lapene
1
Section 9.1.17 Potable Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0477-A1
American Cruise Lines, Inc. (ACL)
Timothy J. Beebe, Vice President, American Cruise Lines, Inc. (ACL)
6
Section 11.2 Medium Cruise Ships
Section 13 Economics
Section 11.2 Medium Cruise Ships
Section 11.2 Medium Cruise Ships
Section 11.2 Medium Cruise Ships
Section 11.2 Medium Cruise Ships
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0478-A1
Consultative Shipping Group (CSG)
Andreas Nordseth, Chairman, Consultative Shipping Group (CSG)
5
Section 14 Consistency with International or USCG Regulations (Except Ballast
Water)
Section 9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.1.12 Permit Modification
Section 9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A1
Government of Canada
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of Canada, Government of Canada
2
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
Section 14 Consistency with International or USCG Regulations (Except Ballast
Water)
23
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
12
EXCERPT 1
Section
12
EXCERPT 2
Section
9.1.9
EXCERPT 3
Section
9.1.1
EXCERPT 4
Section
9.1.9
EXCERPT 5
Section
9.1.2
EXCERPT 6
Section
9.1.1
EXCERPT 8
Section
10.1.2
EXCERPT 9
Section
10.1.2
EXCERPT 10
Section
9.1.9
EXCERPT 11
Section
9.1.1
EXCERPT 12
Section
9.1
EXCERPT 13
Section
9.1.2
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0479-A2
Government of Canada
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of Canada, Government of Canada
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
California Performance Standards
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
California Performance Standards
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
California Performance Standards
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Ballast Water
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0480-A1
Ecochlor, Inc.
Tom Perlich, President, Ecochlor, Inc.
5
Section 9.1.10 Monitoring
Section 9.1.11 Biocide Discharge Limits and Biocides Not Authorized by VGP
Section 10.1.2 Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
Section 9.1.10 Monitoring
Section 9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0481- A 1
McNational, Inc.
Russell E. Painter, Regulatory Affairs Manager, McNational, Inc.
6
Section 1 General Stakeholder
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.1.14 Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
Section 9.3.6 Monitoring
Section 9.1.12 Permit Modification
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0482-A1
Sause Bros
Cory Sause, Environmental Coordinator, Sause Bros
EXCERPT 1
Section 1
General Stakeholder
EXCERPT 2
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
EXCERPT 3
Section 9.1.3
Unmanned, Unpowered Barges
EXCERPT 4
Section 7
Administrative Requirements
EXCERPT 5
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
EXCERPT 6
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
EXCERPT 7
Section 9.3.6
Monitoring
EXCERPT 8
Section 9.1.12
Permit Modification
24
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0483-A1
Save Lake Superior Association
LeRoger Lind, President, Save Lake Superior Association
6
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
Section 9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0484-A1
Brennan Marine Inc.
Adam Binsfeld, Brennan Marine Inc.
2
Section 2 Eligible vessels and discharges
Section 7.10 Annual Report
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Affiliate:
Chamber of Shipping of America
Commenter:
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of Shipping of America
Number of Excerpts:
41
EXCERPT 1
Section 1
General Stakeholder
EXCERPT 2
Section 9.1.19
USCG Rulemaking
EXCERPT 3
Section 1
General Stakeholder
EXCERPT 4
Section 7.1
NOIs
EXCERPT 5
Section 9.1.12
Permit Modification
EXCERPT 6
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 7
Section 9.2
Bilgewater
EXCERPT 8
Section 9.1.13
Management Measures
EXCERPT 9
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 10
Section 9.1.10
Monitoring
EXCERPT 11
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 12
Section 9.1.7
Interim Requirements
EXCERPT 13
Section 10.1.2
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
EXCERPT 14
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
EXCERPT 15
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
EXCERPT 16
Section 9.3.6
Monitoring
EXCERPT 17
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
EXCERPT 18
Section 9.3.4
Sewage
EXCERPT 19
Section 9.4.1
Treatment Standards
EXCERPT 20
Section 7.13
Corrective Actions
EXCERPT 21
Section 7.4
Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
EXCERPT 22
Section 7.10
Annual Report
EXCERPT 23
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
EXCERPT 24
Section 3
Permit Term
EXCERPT 25
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 26
Section 7.7
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 27
Section 9.2
Bilgewater
EXCERPT 28
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
EXCERPT 29
Section 9.1.13
Management Measures
EXCERPT 30
Section 9.1.11
Biocide Discharge Limits and Biocides Not Authorized by VGP
EXCERPT 31
Section 9.1.17
Potable Water
EXCERPT 32
Section 6.3
Voyage
25
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
EXCERPT 33
EXCERPT 34
EXCERPT 35
EXCERPT 36
EXCERPT 37
EXCERPT 38
EXCERPT 39
EXCERPT 40
EXCERPT 41
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
EXCERPT 13
EXCERPT 14
EXCERPT 15
EXCERPT 16
EXCERPT 17
EXCERPT 18
EXCERPT 19
EXCERPT 20
EXCERPT 21
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
Section
9.1.3
Section
9.1.1
Section
9.1.1
Section
10.1
Section
7.8
Section
7.11
Section
9.3.3
Section
10.1.2
Section
9.6
Unmanned, Unpowered Barges
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Ballast Water
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
Combined Annual Report
Management Practices
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
Ingram Barge Company
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, Chief Legal Officer and
Secretary, Ingram Barge Company
21
Section 1
General Stakeholder
Section 1
General Stakeholder
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.3
Unmanned, Unpowered Barges
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.2
Bilgewater
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
Section 9.1.5
Short Distance Voyage Vessels
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
Section 9.3.1
Storage Capacity
Section 9.3.6
Monitoring
Section 7.4
Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
Section 7.6
Drydock Inspections
Section 7.7
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
Section 7.2
PARI Form
Section 7.10
Annual Report
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
Section 9.1.12
Permit Modification
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
Section 3
Permit Term
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0487-A1
Center for Research on Aquatic Bioinvasions et al.
Dr. Andrew Cohen, Director, Center for Research on Aquatic Bioinvasions et al.
1
Section 9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0488-A1
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
Roger Harris, Senior Vice President - Operations, Magnolia Marine Transport Company
8
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
Section 7.3
Routine Visual Inspection
Section 7.10
Annual Report
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
Section 9.3.6
Monitoring
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
26
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1.12 Permit Modification
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0489-A1
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
David Connor, Water Quality Specialist, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
1
Section 16 Misfiled Comment
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 5
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0490-A2
The American Coatings Association (ACA)
Marie Hobson, Counsel, Government Affairs and John Hopewell, Assistant Director,
Environmental Affairs, American Coatings Association (ACA)
4
Section 9.8 All Other Discharge Categories
Section 16 Misfiled Comment
Section 16 Misfiled Comment
Section 9.8 All Other Discharge Categories
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0490-A3
The American Coatings Association (ACA)
Marie Hobson, Counsel, Government Affairs and John Hopewell, Assistant Director,
Environmental Affairs, American Coatings Association (ACA)
2
Section 9.8 All Other Discharge Categories
Section 9.8 All Other Discharge Categories
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0491- A 1
Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes
et al.
Number of Excerpts:
17
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 2
Section 9
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 3
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 4
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 5
Section 10
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 6
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 7
Section 10
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 8
Section 9.1.10
Monitoring
EXCERPT 9
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 10
Section 9.1.9
California Performance Standards
EXCERPT 11
Section 9.1.18
On Shore Treatment
EXCERPT 12
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 13
Section 10.1.1
Narrative Limit Applicable to Ballast Water
EXCERPT 14
Section 9.1.10
Monitoring
EXCERPT 15
Section 10.1.2
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
EXCERPT 16
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 17
Section 15
Miscellaneous/Other
27
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
EXCERPT 13
EXCERPT 14
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0492-A1
VapCor Inc.
Angus P. Kennedy, President, VapCor Inc.
1
Section 6.2 Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1
Algoma Central Corporation
Algis Vanagas, Senior Vice-President Technical, Algoma Central Corporation
14
Section 3
Permit Term
Section 9.1.12
Permit Modification
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
Section 9.2
Bilgewater
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.1.13
Management Measures
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 9.1.7
Interim Requirements
Section 9.1.19
USCG Rulemaking
Section 6.2
Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
Section 9.4.1
Treatment Standards
Section 9.4.3
Quarterly Monitoring
Section 9.1.19
USCG Rulemaking
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0494-A1
Friends of the Earth
Marcie Keever, Oceans & Vessels Project Director, Friends of the Earth
1
Section 11.1 Large Cruise Ships
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1
Anonymous Public Comment
10
Section 1
General Stakeholder
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
Section 9.1.18
On Shore Treatment
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.10
Monitoring
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 9.1.7
Interim Requirements
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
Section 9.5
Fish Hold Effluent
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
Dann Marine Towing
Christian LaPense, Dann Marine Towing
16
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 9.1.5 Short Distance Voyage Vessels
28
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
EXCERPT 5
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
EXCERPT 6
Section 7.10
Annual Report
EXCERPT 7
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 8
Section 7.2
PARI Form
EXCERPT 9
Section 7.7
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 10
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
EXCERPT 11
Section 9.3.6
Monitoring
EXCERPT 12
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
EXCERPT 13
Section 9.1.12
Permit Modification
EXCERPT 14
Section 3
Permit Term
EXCERPT 15
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
EXCERPT 16
Section 7.6
Drydock Inspections
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0497-A1
Affiliate:
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Commenter:
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, State of New York Department of Environmental
Conservation
Number of Excerpts:
11
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 2
Section 13
Economics
EXCERPT 3
Section 1
General Stakeholder
EXCERPT 4
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 5
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 6
Section 9.2
Bilgewater
EXCERPT 7
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 8
Section 10
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 9
Section 9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
EXCERPT 10
Section 9.2
Bilgewater
EXCERPT 11
Section 10.1.2
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0497-A4
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, State of New York Department of Environmental
Conservation
1
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0498-A1
Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)
Abby Schneider, Federal Legislative Representative, Association of California Water
Agencies (ACWA)
1
Section 9.1.9 California Performance Standards
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0499-A1
Terresolve Technologies
Mark Miller, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Terresolve Technologies
3
Section 6.2 Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
Section 9.6 Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
Section 14 Consistency with International or USCG Regulations (Except Ballast
Water)
29
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
Affiliate:
Ingram Barge Company
Commenter:
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Number of Excerpts:
19
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
EXCERPT 2
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
EXCERPT 3
Section 1
General Stakeholder
EXCERPT 4
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
EXCERPT 5
Section 9.2
Bilgewater
EXCERPT 6
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
EXCERPT 7
Section 9.1.5
Short Distance Voyage Vessels
EXCERPT 8
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
EXCERPT 9
Section 9.3.1
Storage Capacity
EXCERPT 10
Section 9.3.6
Monitoring
EXCERPT 11
Section 7.4
Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
EXCERPT 12
Section 7.6
Drydock Inspections
EXCERPT 13
Section 7.7
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 14
Section 7.2
PARI Form
EXCERPT 16
Section 7.10
Annual Report
EXCERPT 17
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 18
Section 9.1.12
Permit Modification
EXCERPT 19
Section 3
Permit Term
EXCERPT 20
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT!
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
17
1
Section 1
General Stakeholder
2
Section 13
Economics
3
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
4
Section 13
Economics
5
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
6
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
7
Section 9.3.6
Monitoring
8
Section 9.2
Bilgewater
9
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
10
Section 13
Economics
11
Section 7.10
Annual Report
12
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
13
Section 7.2
PARI Form
14
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
15
Section 7.6
Drydock Inspections
16
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
17
Section 1
General Stakeholder
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0502-A1
Hornbeck Offshore Services
Timothy D. Sullivan, Manager of Regulatory Affairs and Environmental Compliance,
Hornbeck Offshore Operators, LLC
6
Section 9.1.14 Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
Section 10.1.2 Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
Section 7.7 Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
30
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.2 Bilgewater
Section 9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0503
Sportfishing Association of California
Ken Franke, Sportfishing Association of California
1
Section 9.5 Fish Flold Effluent
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
25
1
Section 1
General Stakeholder
2
Section 1
General Stakeholder
3
Section 8
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels
4
Section 7.7
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
5
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
6
Section 8
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels
7
Section 8
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels
8
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
9
Section 9.2
Bilgewater
10
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
11
Section 9.1.18
On Shore Treatment
12
Section 9.1.19
USCG Rulemaking
13
Section 9.1.17
Potable Water
14
Section 7.1
NOIs
15
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
16
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
17
Section 9.3.3
Management Practices
18
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
19
Section 9.5
Fish Flold Effluent
20
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
21
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
22
Section 7.6
Drydock Inspections
23
Section 1
General Stakeholder
24
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
25
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
22
1
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
2
Section 1
General Stakeholder
3
Section 9.3.3
Management Practices
4
Section 9.5
Fish Hold Effluent
5
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
6
Section 9.5
Fish Hold Effluent
7
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
8
Section 13
Economics
9
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
10
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
31
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
EXCERPT 11
Section 8
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels
EXCERPT 12
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
EXCERPT 13
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
EXCERPT 14
Section 7.7
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 15
Section 13
Economics
EXCERPT 16
Section 16
Misfiled Comment
EXCERPT 17
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 18
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
EXCERPT 19
Section 7.3
Routine Visual Inspection
EXCERPT 20
Section 7.4
Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
EXCERPT 21
Section 7.7
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 22
Section 3
Permit Term
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0506
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. Johnson
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
Affiliate:
The American Waterways Operators
Commenter:
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National Advocacy, The American Waterways
Operators
Number of Excerpts:
21
EXCERPT 1
Section 1
General Stakeholder
EXCERPT 2
Section 1
General Stakeholder
EXCERPT 3
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
EXCERPT 4
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
EXCERPT 6
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 7
Section 9.1.3
Unmanned, Unpowered Barges
EXCERPT 8
Section 9.1.9
California Performance Standards
EXCERPT 9
Section 9.1.5
Short Distance Voyage Vessels
EXCERPT 10
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
EXCERPT 11
Section 7.10
Annual Report
EXCERPT 12
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 13
Section 7.2
PARI Form
EXCERPT 14
Section 7.7
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 15
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
EXCERPT 16
Section 9.3.6
Monitoring
EXCERPT 17
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
EXCERPT 18
Section 9.1.12
Permit Modification
EXCERPT 19
Section 3
Permit Term
EXCERPT 20
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
EXCERPT 21
Section 7.6
Drydock Inspections
EXCERPT 22
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0508-A1
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
John Berge, Vice President, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
9
Section 9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limits for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
Section 9.1.10 Monitoring
32
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
EXCERPT 13
EXCERPT 14
EXCERPT 15
EXCERPT 16
EXCERPT 17
EXCERPT 18
EXCERPT 19
EXCERPT 20
Section 10.1.2 Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
Section 9.1.9 California Performance Standards
Section 9.6 Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
Section 3 Permit Term
Section 7.1 NOIs
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0509-A1
Alaska Trailers Association
Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trailers Association (ATA)
11
Section 1
General Stakeholder
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
Section 9.5
Fish Hold Effluent
Section 1
General Stakeholder
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
Section 16
Misfiled Comment
Section 1
General Stakeholder
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
Section 13
Economics
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
Section 1
General Stakeholder
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0510-A1
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Edmund B. Welch, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
1
Section 9.3.4 Sewage
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of Canada, Government of Canada
General Stakeholder
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
California Performance Standards
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Existing Confined Lakers
Numeric Limits for Organisms and Microorganisms
Monitoring
On Shore Treatment
Potable Water
Ballast Water
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
Biocide Discharge Limits and Biocides Not Authorized by VGP
Short Distance Voyage Vessels
Ballast Water
Ballast Water
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Ballast Water
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
20
Section
1
Section
9.1.1
Section
9.1.9
Section
9.1.2
Section
9.1.4
Section
9.1.1
Section
9.1.10
Section
9.1.18
Section
9.1.17
Section
9.1
Section
10.1.2
Section
9.1.14
Section
9.1.11
Section
9.1.5
Section
9.1
Section
9.1
Section
9.1.2
Section
9.1
Section
10.1.2
Section
10.1.2
33
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
EXCERPT 13
EXCERPT 14
EXCERPT 15
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0512-A1
Terresolve Technologies
Donald Sweeney, Vice President of Finance, Terresolve Technologies
6
Section 9.6 Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
Section 6.2 Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
Section 6.1 Biodegradable
Section 6.2 Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
Section 9.6 Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
Section 14 Consistency with International or USCG Regulations (Except Ballast
Water)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0513-A1
Maersk Line
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Director, Environment & Sustainability, Maerks Line North
America Liner Operations
14
Section 1
General Stakeholder
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
Section 9.1.17
Potable Water
Section 9.1.19
USCG Rulemaking
Section 5
Compliance and Enforcement
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
Section 9.1.10
Monitoring
Section 9.3.6
Monitoring
Section 10.1.2
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
Section 9.4.3
Quarterly Monitoring
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
Section 9.1.19
USCG Rulemaking
Section 9.2
Bilgewater
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0514-A1
Vickers Oils
Peter Vickers, Chairman & Managing Director, Vickers Oils
12
Section 9.6 Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
Section 9.6 Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
Section 6.2 Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
Section 6.1 Biodegradable
Section 6.2 Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
Section 7.7 Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
Section 9.6 Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
Section 6.2 Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
Section 6.1 Biodegradable
Section 6.2 Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
Section 6.2 Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
Section 7.7 Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
34
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0515-A1
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)
Bruno Pigott, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Water Quality, Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM)
3
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
Section 9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
Section 15 Miscellaneous/Other
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0516-A1
The Interlake Steamship Company
Mark W. Barker, President, Interlake Steamship
5
Section 9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
Section 13 Economics
Section 9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
Section 13 Economics
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0517
Anonymous Public Comment
2
Section 9.1.3 Unmanned, Unpowered Barges
Section 7.4 Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0518-A1
Brennan Marine
Adam Binsfeld, Brennan Marine
2
Section 2 Eligible vessels and discharges
Section 7.10 Annual Report
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0519-A1
Compass Water Solutions
Dan Grommersch, President, Compass Water Solutions
1
Section 9.2 Bilgewater
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0520-A1
The Great Lakes Towing Company and Great Lakes Shipyard
Gregg A. Thauvette, Vice President, Operations, The Great Lakes Towing Company and
Great Lakes Shipyard
6
Section 7.1
NOIs
Section 7.2
PARI Form
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
Section 9.1.5
Short Distance Voyage Vessels
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
Section 1
General Stakeholder
35
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0521-A2
Kate Frantz, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
5
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
Section 9.1.10 Monitoring
Section 10.1.2 Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0522-A1
American Chemical Technologies, Inc.
Mark D. Latunski, Lab Manager, American Chemical Technologies, Inc.
1
Section 6.2 Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0523-A1
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP)
Oswald Inglese, Jr., Director, Water Permitting and Enforcement Division, Connecticut
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP)
4
Section 7.1 NOIs
Section 9.3.3 Management Practices
Section 9.1.11 Biocide Discharge Limits and Biocides Not Authorized by VGP
Section 9.4.1 Treatment Standards
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0524-A1
Amherst Madison, Inc.
William R. Barr, Vice President Safety & Compliance, Amherst Madison, Inc.
12
Section 1
General Stakeholder
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 7
Administrative Requirements
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 7.10
Annual Report
Section 9.3.6
Monitoring
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
Section 7.10
Annual Report
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
Section 7.7
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
Section 3
Permit Term
Section 7.6
Drydock Inspections
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
Shipping Federation of Canada
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping Federation of Canada
28
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.1.9
California Performance Standards
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
Section 9.1.19
USCG Rulemaking
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 7.1
NOIs
36
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
EXCERPT 13
EXCERPT 14
EXCERPT 15
EXCERPT 16
EXCERPT 17
EXCERPT 18
EXCERPT 19
EXCERPT 20
EXCERPT 21
EXCERPT 22
EXCERPT 23
EXCERPT 24
EXCERPT 25
EXCERPT 26
EXCERPT 27
EXCERPT 28
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT
1
EXCERPT
2
EXCERPT
3
EXCERPT
4
EXCERPT
5
EXCERPT
6
EXCERPT
7
EXCERPT
8
EXCERPT
10
EXCERPT
11
EXCERPT
12
EXCERPT
13
EXCERPT
14
EXCERPT
15
EXCERPT
16
EXCERPT
17
EXCERPT
18
EXCERPT
19
EXCERPT
20
EXCERPT
21
EXCERPT
22
Section
9.1.12
Section
7.8
Section
9.2
Section
9.1
19
Section
9.1
14
Section
9.1
13
Section
9.1
1
Section
9.1
2
Section
9.1
10
Section
9.1
11
Section
9.1
17
Section
9.1
15
Section
9.1
1
Section
9.1
2
Section
9.1
7
Section
10.1.2
Section
9.6
Section
9.4.3
Section
12
Section
3
Section
9.1.14
Permit Modification
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
Bilgewater
USCG Rulemaking
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
Management Measures
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Monitoring
Biocide Discharge Limits and Biocides Not Authorized by VGP
Potable Water
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Interim Requirements
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
Quarterly Monitoring
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Permit Term
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0526-A1
IDEXX Laboratories, Inc
Patsy Root, Senior Regulatory Affairs Specialist, IDEXX Laboratories
2
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.3.6 Monitoring
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0527-A2
Lake Carriers Association
James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
34
Section 1
General Stakeholder
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
Section 9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
Section 7.4
Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
Section 9.1.12
Permit Modification
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 13
Economics
Section 1
General Stakeholder
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
Section 9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
Section 9.1.6
New Lakers
Section 9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
Section 7.4
Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
Section 3
Permit Term
Section 9.1.12
Permit Modification
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
Section 9.2
Bilgewater
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
37
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
EXCERPT 23
EXCERPT 24
EXCERPT 25
EXCERPT 26
EXCERPT 27
EXCERPT 28
EXCERPT 29
EXCERPT 30
EXCERPT 31
EXCERPT 32
EXCERPT 33
EXCERPT 34
EXCERPT 35
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
Section 9.1.13 Management Measures
Section 9.1.11 Biocide Discharge Limits and Biocides Not Authorized by VGP
Section 9.1.5 Short Distance Voyage Vessels
Section 9.1.3 Unmanned, Unpowered Barges
Section 9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 10.1 Ballast Water
Section 7.8 Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
Section 7.11 Combined Annual Report
Section 6.2 Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
Section 6.3 Voyage
Section 9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0527-A4
Lake Carriers Association
James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0528-A1
Great Lakes Commission
Tim Eder, Executive Director, Great Lakes Commission
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0528-A2
Great Lakes Commission
Tim Eder, Executive Director, Great Lakes Commission
6
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
Section 10.1.2 Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
Section 9.1.13 Management Measures
Section 9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A1
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health Programs, Cruise Lines
International Association (CLIA)
3
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
Section 14 Consistency with International or USCG Regulations (Except Ballast
Water)
Section 9.1.17 Potable Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0530-A2
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health Programs, Cruise Lines
International Association (CLIA)
57
Section 2 Eligible vessels and discharges
Section 5 Compliance and Enforcement
38
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
EXCERPT 3
Section 7.1
NOIs
EXCERPT 4
Section 10
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 5
Section 7
Administrative Requirements
EXCERPT 7
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
EXCERPT 8
Section 9.1.13
Management Measures
EXCERPT 9
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 10
Section 9.1.10
Monitoring
EXCERPT 11
Section 9.1.11
Biocide Discharge Limits and Biocides Not Authorized by VGP
EXCERPT 12
Section 9.1.15
Recordkeeping and Reporting
EXCERPT 13
Section 9.1.18
On Shore Treatment
EXCERPT 14
Section 9.1.17
Potable Water
EXCERPT 15
Section 9.1.19
USCG Rulemaking
EXCERPT 16
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
EXCERPT 17
Section 9.7
Underwater Ship Husbandry
EXCERPT 18
Section 9.4.1
Treatment Standards
EXCERPT 19
Section 9.4.3
Quarterly Monitoring
EXCERPT 20
Section 9.4.2
Continuous Monitoring
EXCERPT 21
Section 7.13
Corrective Actions
EXCERPT 22
Section 7.3
Routine Visual Inspection
EXCERPT 23
Section 6.3
Voyage
EXCERPT 24
Section 7.3
Routine Visual Inspection
EXCERPT 25
Section 7.5
Comprehensive Annual Vessel Inspections
EXCERPT 26
Section 7.6
Drydock Inspections
EXCERPT 27
Section 7.7
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 28
Section 9.1.15
Recordkeeping and Reporting
EXCERPT 29
Section 7.10
Annual Report
EXCERPT 30
Section 11.2
Medium Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 31
Section 9.3.6
Monitoring
EXCERPT 32
Section 11.1
Large Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 33
Section 11.2
Medium Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 34
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 35
Section 6.3
Voyage
EXCERPT 36
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
EXCERPT 37
Section 3
Permit Term
EXCERPT 38
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
EXCERPT 39
Section 15
Miscellaneous/Other
EXCERPT 40
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
EXCERPT 41
Section 9.2
Bilgewater
EXCERPT 42
Section 11.1
Large Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 43
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
EXCERPT 44
Section 9.1.9
California Performance Standards
EXCERPT 45
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
EXCERPT 46
Section 9.1.11
Biocide Discharge Limits and Biocides Not Authorized by VGP
EXCERPT 47
Section 9.1.15
Recordkeeping and Reporting
EXCERPT 48
Section 9.1.17
Potable Water
EXCERPT 49
Section 9.1.9
California Performance Standards
EXCERPT 50
Section 10.1.2
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
EXCERPT 51
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
EXCERPT 52
Section 7.7
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 54
Section 11.1
Large Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 55
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 56
Section 15
Miscellaneous/Other
EXCERPT 57
Section 9.4
Exhaust Gas Scrub her Washwater
39
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
EXCERPT 58 Section 9.4 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater
EXCERPT 59 Section 9.6 Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT!
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0531-A2
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconson Department of Natural Resources
20
1
Section 1
General Stakeholder
2
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
3
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
4
Section 9.1.19
USCG Rulemaking
5
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
6
Section 9.1.7
Interim Requirements
7
Section 9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
8
Section 10.1
Ballast Water
9
Section 10.1
Ballast Water
10
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
11
Section 5
Compliance and Enforcement
12
Section 9.1.16
STEP
13
Section 9.1.3
Unmanned, Unpowered Barges
14
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
15
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
16
Section 9.1.13
Management Measures
17
Section 9.1.10
Monitoring
18
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
19
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
20
Section 15
Miscellaneous/Other
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0532-A2
Tabor Academy.
James E. Geil, Tabor Academy
1
Section 2 Eligible vessels and discharges
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1
World Shipping Council (WSC)
Douglas B. Schneider, World Shipping Council (WSC)
14
1
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
2
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
3
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
4
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
5
Section 9.1.10
Monitoring
6
Section 10.1.2
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
7
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
8
Section 9.4.1
Treatment Standards
9
Section 9.4.3
Quarterly Monitoring
10
Section 3
Permit Term
11
Section 7.1
NOIs
17
Section 13
Economics
18
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
19
Section 9.1.19
USCG Rulemaking
40
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0534-A2
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water
Quality Section
Michelle Bonnett, Director, Division of Water, Water Quality Section, Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
12
1
Section 1
General Stakeholder
2
Section 7.9
General Monitoring (Not Discharge Specific)
3
Section 9
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
4
Section 7.12
Training
5
Section 9.1.7
Interim Requirements
6
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
7
Section 9.5
Fish Hold Effluent
8
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
9
Section 11.1
Large Cruise Ships
10
Section 11.2
Medium Cruise Ships
11
Section 11.3
Large Ferries
12
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0535-A2
Great Lakes Environmental Law Center
Nick Schroeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center
11
1
Section 1
General Stakeholder
2
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
4
Section 4.1
2008 VGP
5
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
6
Section 9.1.9
California Performance Standards
7
Section 10.1.2
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
8
Section 9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
9
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
11
Section 10.1.2
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
12
Section 16
Misfiled Comment
13
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0536-A2
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ)
10
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 2
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
EXCERPT 3
Section 1
General Stakeholder
EXCERPT 4
Section 16
Misfiled Comment
EXCERPT 5
Section 10.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 6
Section 10.1.2
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
EXCERPT 7
Section 10.1.2
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
EXCERPT 8
Section 9.1.10
Monitoring
EXCERPT 9
Section 10.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 10
Section 9.3.5
Great Lakes
41
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0536-A3
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ)
2
Section 10.1 Ballast Water
Section 10.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536- A4
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ)
3
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.10 Monitoring
Section 10.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0536-A5
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ)
1
Section 10.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0537-A1
Beth Moore, General Permit Coordinator, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Water Quality
3
Section 10.1.2 Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
Section 9.5 Fish Hold Effluent
Section 16 Misfiled Comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0538-A1
American Chemical Technologies, Incorporated
James R. Kovanda, Vice President, American Chemical Technologies, Inc.
1
Section 9.6 Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0539-A2
Allied Transportation Company
Jeffrey E. Parker, Vice President, Operations, Allied Transportation Company
5
Section 1 General Stakeholder
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 7.3 Routine Visual Inspection
Section 7.8 Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
42
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
EXCERPT 13
EXCERPT 14
EXCERPT 15
EXCERPT 16
EXCERPT 17
EXCERPT 18
EXCERPT 19
EXCERPT 20
EXCERPT 21
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0540-A2
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadiens)
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadiens)
17
Section 9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
Section 9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 9.1.13
Management Measures
Section 9.1.7
Interim Requirements
Section 13
Economics
Section 9.1.12
Permit Modification
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
Section 7.1
NOIs
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
Section 7.4
Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.1.19
USCG Rulemaking
Section 1
General Stakeholder
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0540-A3
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadiens)
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadiens)
8
Section 3 Permit Term
Section 9.1.12 Permit Modification
Section 9.1.14 Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
Section 9.2 Bilgewater
Section 9.1.14 Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
Section 9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 9.1.9 California Performance Standards
Section 10.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0540-A4
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadiens)
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadiens)
1
Section 9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0541-A2
Chamber of Marine Commerce (CMC)
Raymond W. Johnston, President, Chamber of Marine Commerce (CMC)
10
Section 9.1.19
USCG Rulemaking
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
Section 13
Economics
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.19
USCG Rulemaking
43
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
EXCERPT 7 Section 9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
EXCERPT 8 Section 9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
EXCERPT 9 Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
EXCERPT 10 Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0542-A2
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Environmental Services Section
James Zehringer, Director, Environmental Services Section, Ohio Department of Natural
Resources (ODNR)
3
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
Section 7 Administrative Requirements
Section 13 Economics
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0544-A2
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Environmental Services Section
James Zehringer, Director, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Environmental
Services Section
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0545-A2
American Great Lakes Ports Association
Steven A. Fisher, Executive Director, American Great Lakes Ports Association
10
Section 1 General Stakeholder
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
Section 9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
Section 10.1.2 Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
Section 9.1.12 Permit Modification
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0546-A2
Flagship Niagara League, Inc.
Wesley W. Heerssen, Jr., Captain, SSV Niagara, Flagship Niagara League, Inc.
1
Section 2 Eligible vessels and discharges
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0547-A2
Rock the Earth
Marc A. Ross, Executive Director, Rock the Earth
6
EXCERPT 1
Section
11.1
Large Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 2
Section
9.2
Bilgewater
EXCERPT 3
Section
11.1
Large Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 4
Section
11.2
Medium Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 5
Section
11.1
Large Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 6
Section
7
Administrative Requirements
44
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
EXCERPT 13
EXCERPT 14
EXCERPT 15
EXCERPT 16
EXCERPT 17
EXCERPT 18
EXCERPT 19
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0548-A1
The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Michael Lund, Chief Maritime Politics and Economics, The Baltic and International
Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Section
9.1
Section
14
Section
9.1.1
Section
14
Section
9.1.10
Section
9.1.2
Section
14
Section
12
Ballast Water
Consistency with International or USCG Regulations (Except Ballast
Water)
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Consistency with International or USCG Regulations (Except Ballast
Water)
Monitoring
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Consistency with International or USCG Regulations (Except Ballast
Water)
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0549-A2
San Francisco Baykeeper
Abigail Blodgett, Legal Fellow, San Francisco Baykeeper
7
Section 1
General Stakeholder
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
Section 9.7
Underwater Ship Husbandry
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 8
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0550-A2
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA)
on behalf of Izaak Walton League's Great Lakes Committee et al.
19
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
Section 9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
Section 9.1.9
California Performance Standards
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.1.13
Management Measures
Section 9.1.9
California Performance Standards
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.9
California Performance Standards
Section 9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 9.1.10
Monitoring
Section 9.1.11
Biocide Discharge Limits and Biocides Not Authorized by VGP
Section 9.1.10
Monitoring
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
Section 10.1.2
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
45
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
EXCERPT 13
EXCERPT 14
EXCERPT 15
EXCERPT 16
EXCERPT 17
EXCERPT 18
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0551- A 1
American River Transportation Company (ARTCO)
Matthew French, Port Engineer American River Transportation Company (ARTCO)
2
Section 9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 7 Administrative Requirements
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0552-A2
Sea Education Association
Captain David A. Bank, Director, Marine Operations, Sea Education Association
1
Section 2 Eligible vessels and discharges
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0553-A1
Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE)
Brian P. Smith, Program and Communications Director, Citizens Campaign for the
Environment (CCE)
5
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
Section 5 Compliance and Enforcement
Section 10.1.2 Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0554-A2
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs, Canada Steamship Lines
International (CSLI)
General Stakeholder
USCG Rulemaking
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
USCG Rulemaking
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels
All Other Discharge Categories
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Monitoring
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Potable Water
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Interim Requirements
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
18
Section
1
Section
9.1.19
Section
9.1.2
Section
9.1.19
Section
9.1.2
Section
8
Section
9.8
Section
9.1.2
Section
9.1.1
Section
9.1.14
Section
9.1.1
Section
9.1.2
Section
9.1.10
Section
9.1.15
Section
9.1.17
Section
9.1.2
Section
9.1.7
Section
9.6
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0554-A3
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs, Canada Steamship Lines
International (CSLI)
7
Section 3 Permit Term
46
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
Section 9.1.12 Permit Modification
Section 7.12 Training
Section 9.1.14 Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.9 California Performance Standards
Section 10.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0555-A2
The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation
Terence F. Bowles, President and CEO, The St. Lawrence Seaway Management
Corporation (SLSMC)
1
Section 1 General Stakeholder
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0556-A1
Tole Mour Corporation
Mark Waddington, Director CIMI Tall Ship Expedition, Tole Mour Corporation
1
Section 2 Eligible vessels and discharges
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0557-A2
Tall Ships America
Bert Rogers, Executive Director, Tall Ships America
1
Section 2 Eligible vessels and discharges
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0558-A1
Dann Ocean Towing, Inc.
Randy Trapp, Safety, Security Manager, Dann Ocean Towing, Inc.
5
Section 1 General Stakeholder
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 13 Economics
Section 9.1.14 Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0559-A2
Fednav Limited
Marc Gagnon, Director, Government Affairs & Regulatory Compliance, Fednav Limited
8
General Stakeholder
General Stakeholder
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Ballast Water
USCG Rulemaking
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
USCG Rulemaking
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section
1
Section
1
Section
9.1.1
Section
9.1
Section
9.1.19
Section
9.1.1
Section
9.1.19
Section
12
47
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
EXCERPT 13
EXCERPT 14
EXCERPT 15
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0560-A2
Foss Maritime Company
Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and Governmental Affairs, Foss Maritime
Company
Q
y
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
Section 7.10
Annual Report
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
Section 9.3.6
Monitoring
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
Section 3
Permit Term
Section 1
General Stakeholder
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2
V. Ships Leisure
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent, V. Ships Leisure
15
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
Section 9.2
Bilgewater
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
Section 9.1.13
Management Measures
Section 9.1.10
Monitoring
Section 9.1.17
Potable Water
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
Section 9.3.2
Soaps and Detergents
Section 7.10
Annual Report
Section 11.1
Large Cruise Ships
Section 11.2
Medium Cruise Ships
Section 11.2
Medium Cruise Ships
Section 6.2
Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
Section 7.1
NOIs
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0562-A2
Great Lakes Commission (GLC)
Tim Eder, Executive Director and Katherine Glassner-Shwayder, Senior Project Manager,
Great Lakes Commission (GLC)
6
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
Section 10.1.2 Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
Section 9.1.13 Management Measures
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0563-A2
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
David A. Ullrich, Executive Director, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
1
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
48
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0564-A2
Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Alliance for the Great
Lakes, et al.
7
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
Section 10.1 Ballast Water
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 1 General Stakeholder
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 10.1.2 Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0565-A1
Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited (ICTU)
Edward L. Michael, Chairman, Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited (ICTU)
2
Section 9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Section 9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0567-A2
North Star Maritime, Inc.
Robert C. North, President, North Star Maritime, Inc.
3
Section 9.2 Bilgewater
Section 9.1.10 Monitoring
Section 10.1.2 Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0568-A2
Rand Logistics, Inc.
H. Clayton Cook, Jr., Counsel, Seward & Kissel LLP on behalf of Joseph W. McHugh, Jr.,
Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, Rand Logistics, Inc.
5
Section 9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
Section 9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
Section 13 Economics
Section 9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
Section 9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0569-A2
House of Representatives, Congress of the United States
Congressman Andy Harris, House of Representatives, Congress of the United States
1
Section 13 Economics
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0570-A1
Educational Tall Ship
Captain Alan Olson, Executive Director, Educational Tall Ship
1
Section 2 Eligible vessels and discharges
49
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0571-A2
Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association (EGCSA)
Donald Gregory, Director, Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association (EGCSA)
2
Section 9.4.1 Treatment Standards
Section 9.4.3 Quarterly Monitoring
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0572-A2
State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR)
Dr. Guy Kaulukukui, Acting Administrator, State of Hawaii Department of Land and
Natural Resources (DLNR)
5
Section 12 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 9.7 Underwater Ship Husbandry
Section 16 Misfiled Comment
Section 9.7 Underwater Ship Husbandry
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0573-A2
MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Scott Strand, Executive Director, MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Number of Excerpts:
16
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 2
Section 9.1.12
Permit Modification
EXCERPT 3
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
EXCERPT 4
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
EXCERPT 5
Section 9.1.13
Management Measures
EXCERPT 6
Section 9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
EXCERPT 7
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
EXCERPT 8
Section 9.1.9
California Performance Standards
EXCERPT 9
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 10
Section 9.1.18
On Shore Treatment
EXCERPT 11
Section 9.1.17
Potable Water
EXCERPT 12
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 13
Section 9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
EXCERPT 14
Section 9.1.7
Interim Requirements
EXCERPT 15
Section 10.1.2
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
EXCERPT 16
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0574-A2
Affiliate: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
Commenter: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
Number of Excerpts:
19
EXCERPT 1
Section 5
Compliance and Enforcement
EXCERPT 2
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 3
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
EXCERPT 4
Section 9
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 5
Section 8
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels
EXCERPT 6
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
EXCERPT 7
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
EXCERPT 8
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
EXCERPT 9
Section 9.3.3
Management Practices
EXCERPT 10
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
EXCERPT 11
Section 9.5
Fish Hold Effluent
50
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
EXCERPT 12
Section 7.3
Routine Visual Inspection
EXCERPT 13
Section 7.4
Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
EXCERPT 14
Section 7.5
Comprehensive Annual Vessel Inspections
EXCERPT 15
Section 7.7
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 16
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
EXCERPT 17
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
EXCERPT 18
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
EXCERPT 19
Section 7.7
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0575-A2
Affiliate:
California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Commenter:
Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director, California Wetfish Producers Association
(CWPA)
Number of Excerpts:
16
EXCERPT 1
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
EXCERPT 2
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
EXCERPT 3
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
EXCERPT 4
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
EXCERPT 5
Section 13
Economics
EXCERPT 6
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
EXCERPT 7
Section 9.5
Fish Hold Effluent
EXCERPT 8
Section 7.3
Routine Visual Inspection
EXCERPT 9
Section 7.4
Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
EXCERPT 10
Section 7.5
Comprehensive Annual Vessel Inspections
EXCERPT 11
Section 7.7
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 12
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
EXCERPT 13
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
EXCERPT 14
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
EXCERPT 15
Section 7
Administrative Requirements
EXCERPT 16
Section 8
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0576-A2
Affiliate:
Northwest Environmental Advocates
Commenter:
Holley Horrell, Mills Legal Clinic on behalf of Northwest Environmental Advocates
Number of Excerpts:
15
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 2
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 3
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 4
Section 10.1.1
Narrative Limit Applicable to Ballast Water
EXCERPT 5
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 6
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 7
Section 9.1.18
On Shore Treatment
EXCERPT 8
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 9
Section 10.1.1
Narrative Limit Applicable to Ballast Water
EXCERPT 10
Section 9.1.10
Monitoring
EXCERPT 11
Section 9.1.5
Short Distance Voyage Vessels
EXCERPT 12
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
EXCERPT 13
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 14
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 15
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
51
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0577
Affiliate:
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Commenter:
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO, Alliance for the Great Lakes et al. (Part 1 of 2)
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Alliance for the Great Lakes, Great Lakes United, Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, Nat. Res. Defense
Council, Nw. Envtl. Advocates
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1.8 Additional Data Sources
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0579-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
T. Aylsworth
Number of Excerpts:
2
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
EXCERPT 2
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
C. Scholz
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 3
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0581-Al
Affiliate:
Commenter:
M. Covello
Number of Excerpts:
2
EXCERPT 2
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
EXCERPT 5
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0582-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
O. Booth
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0584-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
M. Mackai
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0585-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
N. Russell
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
52
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0587-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
L. Kain
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0588-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
D. Balin
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0590-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. Wilson
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0591- A 1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
M. Helming
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0592-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
M. Lees
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0593-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
D. Greene
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0594-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
M. Pickett
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0595-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
L. Weingart
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0596-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
G. Bargerstock
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
53
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0598-A2
New York City Law Department
Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law Division, New York City Law Department
Number of Excerpts:
10
EXCERPT 1
Section
2
Eligible vessels and discharges
EXCERPT 2
Section
7.1
NOIs
EXCERPT 3
Section
9.1.12
Permit Modification
EXCERPT 4
Section
9.1.13
Management Measures
EXCERPT 5
Section
9.1.17
Potable Water
EXCERPT 6
Section
9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 7
Section
9.1.5
Short Distance Voyage Vessels
EXCERPT 8
Section
7.10
Annual Report
EXCERPT 9
Section
7.2
PARI Form
EXCERPT 10
Section
16
Misfiled Comment
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0599-A2
Pride of Baltimore, Inc.
Jan C. Miles, Captain, Acting Executive Director, Pride of Baltimore, Inc.
1
Section 2 Eligible vessels and discharges
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0601-A1
Z. Strickland
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0602-A1
B. Mittelstaedt
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0603-A1
D. Dobrzyn
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0604-A1
D. Stevens
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0605-A1
D. Broadway
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
54
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0606-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
P. Bloink
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0607-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
C. Carson
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0609-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. Mcintosh
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0610-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
B. Tuttle
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612- A2
Affiliate:
Hyde Marine
Commenter:
Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Number of Excerpts:
27
EXCERPT 1
Section 3
Permit Term
EXCERPT 2
Section 7.1
NOIs
EXCERPT 3
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 4
Section 9.1.12
Permit Modification
EXCERPT 5
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 6
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
EXCERPT 7
Section 9.2
Bilgewater
EXCERPT 8
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
EXCERPT 9
Section 9.1.13
Management Measures
EXCERPT 10
Section 9.1.11
Biocide Discharge Limits and Biocides Not Authorized by VGP
EXCERPT 11
Section 9.1.17
Potable Water
EXCERPT 12
Section 9.1.5
Short Distance Voyage Vessels
EXCERPT 13
Section 9.1.3
Unmanned, Unpowered Barges
EXCERPT 14
Section 9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
EXCERPT 15
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 16
Section 9.1.9
California Performance Standards
EXCERPT 17
Section 10.1.2
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
EXCERPT 18
Section 10.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 19
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 20
Section 7.11
Combined Annual Report
EXCERPT 21
Section 6
Definitions
EXCERPT 22
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
EXCERPT 23
Section 9.1.13
Management Measures
EXCERPT 24
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
EXCERPT 25
Section 9.1.10
Monitoring
55
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
EXCERPT 26
Section 9.1.15 Recordkeeping and Reporting
EXCERPT 27
Section 11.1 Large Cruise Ships
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0613-A1
Affiliate:
Key Lakes, Inc.
Commenter:
Captain William C. Peterson, General Manager, Key Lakes, Inc.
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0614-A1
Affiliate:
Maine Windjammer Cruises
Commenter:
Captain Ray Williamson, Executive Director, Maine Windjammer Cruises
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 2 Eligible vessels and discharges
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0615-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
A. Dale
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0616-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. Buchman
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0617-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
P. and B. Noeldner
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 1 General Stakeholder
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0618-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Y. Ruben
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1.1 Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0619-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. Erney
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0620-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. Horkulic
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
56
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0621-A1
D. Ross
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0622-A1
B. Ray
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0623-A1
M. Wilson
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0625-A1
D. Lavender
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0627-A2
Marmac, LLC., McDonough Marine Service
Patrick Stant, President, Marmac, LLC, McDonough Marine Service
11
Section 1
General Stakeholder
Section 7.1
NOIs
Section 7.14
Responsible Parties
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
Section 9.1.3
Unmanned, Unpowered Barges
Section 7.3
Routine Visual Inspection
Section 7.1
NOIs
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
Section 9.1.3
Unmanned, Unpowered Barges
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0628-A2
Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP)
Pamela Parker, Vessel Discharges, Division of Water Quality Management, Maine
Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP)
Section
1
Section
9.1.19
Section
9.1.1
Section
9.1.11
Section
9.1.19
Section
9.1.7
Section
9.3.3
Section
9.7
General Stakeholder
USCG Rulemaking
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Biocide Discharge Limits and Biocides Not Authorized by VGP
USCG Rulemaking
Interim Requirements
Management Practices
Underwater Ship Husbandry
57
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0629-A2
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
28
1
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
2
Section 3
Permit Term
3
Section 7.1
NOIs
4
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
5
Section 9.1.12
Permit Modification
6
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
7
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
8
Section 9.2
Bilgewater
9
Section 9.1.14
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
10
Section 9.1.13
Management Measures
11
Section 9.1.11
Biocide Discharge Limits and Biocides Not Authorized by VGP
12
Section 9.1.17
Potable Water
13
Section 9.1.5
Short Distance Voyage Vessels
14
Section 9.1.3
Unmanned, Unpowered Barges
15
Section 9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
16
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
17
Section 9.1.9
California Performance Standards
18
Section 10.1.2
Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
19
Section 9.1.15
Recordkeeping and Reporting
20
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
21
Section 7.11
Combined Annual Report
22
Section 6
Definitions
23
Section 9.1.19
USCG Rulemaking
24
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
25
Section 9.1.10
Monitoring
26
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
27
Section 9.1.12
Permit Modification
28
Section 9.1.2
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0630-A2
United Catcher Boats (UCB) and Pacific Seafood Processors Association (PSPA)
Brent Paine, Executive Director, United Catcher Boats (UCB) and Glenn Reed, President,
Pacific Seafood Processors Association (PSPA)
13
1
Section 7.1
NOIs
2
Section 9
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
3
Section 9.2
Bilgewater
4
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
5
Section 9.1.7
Interim Requirements
6
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
7
Section 9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
8
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
9
Section 9.7
Underwater Ship Husbandry
10
Section 9.5
Fish Hold Effluent
11
Section 10
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
12
Section 7.13
Corrective Actions
13
Section 7.7
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
58
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
EXCERPT 13
EXCERPT 14
EXCERPT 15
EXCERPT 16
EXCERPT 17
EXCERPT 18
EXCERPT 19
EXCERPT 20
EXCERPT 21
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0631-A2
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
Tim Sizemore, Manager Waterway Regulatory Programs, American Electric Power River
Operations (AEP)
9
Section 1
General Stakeholder
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Section 1
General Stakeholder
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
Section 9.1.1
Numeric Limit for Organisms and Microorganisms
Section 7.10
Annual Report
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
Section 5
Compliance and Enforcement
Section 12
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0632-A2
US Army Corps of Engineers
Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers
Section
9.2
Bilgewater
Section
9.1.13
Management Measures
Section
9.1.4
Existing Confined Lakers
Section
9.1.13
Management Measures
Section
9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
Section
9.6
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
Section
9.3.3
Management Practices
Section
9.3.4
Sewage
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
California State Lands Commission
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine Invasive Species Program,
Marine Facilities Division, California State Lands Commission
California Performance Standards
General Stakeholder
Ballast Water
All Other Discharge Categories
Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Monitoring
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Short Distance Voyage Vessels
Unmanned, Unpowered Barges
All Other Discharge Categories
All Other Discharge Categories
All Other Discharge Categories
Underwater Ship Flusbandry
Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
Comprehensive Annual Vessel Inspections
Drydock Inspections
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
General Stakeholder
All Other Discharge Categories
31
Section
9.1.9
Section
1
Section
10.1
Section
9.8
Section
9.1.14
Section
9.1.2
Section
9.1.2
Section
9.1.10
Section
9.1.15
Section
9.1.5
Section
9.1.3
Section
9.8
Section
9.8
Section
9.8
Section
9.7
Section
7.4
Section
7.5
Section
7.6
Section
7.7
Section
1
Section
9.8
59
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
EXCERPT 22
Section 9.1.8 Additional Data Sources
EXCERPT 23
Section 9.8 All Other Discharge Categories
EXCERPT 24
Section 9.1.8 Additional Data Sources
EXCERPT 25
Section 9.8 All Other Discharge Categories
EXCERPT 26
Section 9.1.8 Additional Data Sources
EXCERPT 27
Section 9.8 All Other Discharge Categories
EXCERPT 28
Section 9.1.8 Additional Data Sources
EXCERPT 29
Section 9.8 All Other Discharge Categories
EXCERPT 30
Section 9.1.8 Additional Data Sources
EXCERPT 32
Section 10.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0635-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
P. Fischer
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0636-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. G. Garey
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0637-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Y. Wootten
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0638-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
P. Andler
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0639-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
S. West
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0640-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
D. Rhomberg
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0641-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. Okazaki
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
60
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0642-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
E. Hursh
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0643-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
S. Secrest
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0644-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
T. McKinney
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0645-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
P. A. Johnson
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0646-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
B. Vosburg-Bluem
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0647-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
A. Case
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0648-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
S. Knudstrup
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0649-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
C. VandePolder
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0650-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
S. Ebershoff-Coles
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
61
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0651- A 1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. Whitney
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0652-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
C. Spencer
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0653-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. Beecher
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0654-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
B. Pinti
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0656-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
P. Baker
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0657-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. Thompson
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0658-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
P. Clemo
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0659-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
L. Wilkinson
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0660-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
A. I. Aurelio
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
62
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0661-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
L. Strain
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0663-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
L. Shuman
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0664-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
P. Heithaus
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0665-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
G. and P. Holcomb
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0666-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Dr. J. Nicholson
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0667-A1
Affiliate:
Cetacean Marine Inc
Commenter:
Glenn R Germaine, President/CEO, Cetacean Marine Inc
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1.17 Potable Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0668-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
M. Scott
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0670-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
V. Snider
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0671- A 1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. DiNardo
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
63
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0673-A1
J. Sherman
1
Section 9.6 Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0674-A1
G. Pearson
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0675-A1
S. Teel
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0676-A1
C. Lasecki
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0678-A1
Dr. B. Schwartz
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0679-A1
P. Donnelly
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0680-A1
W. Stroessner
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0681- A 1
W. Stroessner
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0682-A1
W. Stroessner
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
64
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0683-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
W. Stroessner
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0685-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. Rothenberg
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0686-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
E. Schultz
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0687-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
A. Eastham
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0688-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
C. Grubb
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0689-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
B. Liberacki
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0690-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
L. Adams
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0691- A 1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
K. Robbins
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0692-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
T. Swedberg
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
65
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0693-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
T. Cannon
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0694-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
M. Jackson
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0695-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
M. Zwicker
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0696-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
K. Linn
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0697-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
C. Francis
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0698-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
K. Simonik
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0700-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
N. Sorlie
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0701-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
P. Turon
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0703-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. Tannehill
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
66
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0704-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Dr. J. Mendoza
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0705-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Dr. S. Keil
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0706-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
I. Senn
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0707-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
N. Price
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0708-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
G. Opem
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0709-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
C. Jolliff
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0710-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
A. Lucchini
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0711-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
D. Murphy
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0712-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
R. Stiefel
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
67
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0713-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
K. Smith
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0714-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
C. Caldie
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0715-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
H. Santiago
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0716-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
S. Saari
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0717-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
S. Long
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0718-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
M. Leven
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0720-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
G. Crouse
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0721-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
B. Oilman
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0725-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
C. Litweiler
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
68
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0726-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
C. Fries
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0727-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
D. Mcintosh
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0728-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
P. Wormley
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0729-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
A. Stroh
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0730-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
L. Swider
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0731-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. A. Bule
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0732-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
C. Wagner
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0733-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. Smith
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0734-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
M. Guest
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
69
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0735-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
F. Canonizado
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0737-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
A. Mahan
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0738-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
B. Birnbaum
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0739-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
C. Yeany
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0740-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
B. Wallick
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0741-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Dr. R. Sherding
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0742-A2
Affiliate:
National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior
Commenter:
Gary Rosenlieb, Acting Chief, National Park Service Water Resources Division, United
States Department of the Interior
Number of Excerpts:
8
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 2
Section 9.1.13 Management Measures
EXCERPT 3
Section 10.1 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 4
Section 9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
EXCERPT 5
Section 9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 6
Section 9.1.13 Management Measures
EXCERPT 7
Section 9.1.10 Monitoring
EXCERPT 8
Section 9.1.13 Management Measures
70
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0743-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
B. Imam
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0744-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
K. Arellanes
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0745-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
E. Olsen
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0746-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
G. Prevost
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0747-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
P. Wilson
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0748-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
K. Moore
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0750-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
D. Niergarth
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0752-A2
Affiliate:
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
Commenter:
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
Number of Excerpts:
19
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 2
Section 10.1 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 3
Section 9.1.7 Interim Requirements
EXCERPT 4
Section 6.4 Other Definitions
EXCERPT 5
Section 7.1 NOIs
EXCERPT 6
Section 15 Miscellaneous/Other
EXCERPT 7
Section 7.8 Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast
EXCERPT 8
Section 8 Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels
71
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
EXCERPT 9
Section 9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
EXCERPT 10
Section 9.1.13 Management Measures
EXCERPT 11
Section 9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
EXCERPT 12
Section 15 Miscellaneous/Other
EXCERPT 13
Section 9.3.6 Monitoring
EXCERPT 14
Section 9.1.17 Potable Water
EXCERPT 15
Section 9.1.13 Management Measures
EXCERPT 16
Section 6.4 Other Definitions
EXCERPT 17
Section 15 Miscellaneous/Other
EXCERPT 18
Section 16 Misfiled Comment
EXCERPT 19
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0753-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
P. Haumann
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0754-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. MacArthur
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0755-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
C. Azan
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0756-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
C. Maciel
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0759-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. Davis
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0760-A1
Affiliate:
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Commenter:
Sarah Branch, Director, Government Relations, Offshore Marine Service Association
(OMSA)
Number of Excerpts:
5
EXCERPT 1
Section 5 Compliance and Enforcement
EXCERPT 2
Section 9.1.17 Potable Water
EXCERPT 3
Section 7.4 Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
EXCERPT 4
Section 1 General Stakeholder
EXCERPT 5
Section 9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
72
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0763-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
P. Orr
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0764-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
E. Litten
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0765-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
D. Moderacki
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0766-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
R. Atkin
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0768-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
M. Maxson
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0769-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
D. Hart
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0770-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
C. Newhouse, Ph.D.
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0771- A 1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
C. Fletcher
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0772-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
A. Eilenberg
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
73
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0773-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter: L. Alexander
Number of Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1 Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0774-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter: T. Murcko
Number of Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1 Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0775-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter: Dr. A. Agarwal
Number of Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1 Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0776-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter: R. Gilbert
Number of Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1 Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0777-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter: RS. Stoner
Number of Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1 Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0778-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter: M. Coe
Number of Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1 Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0779-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter: L. P. Kolb
Number of Excerpts: 3
EXCERPT 1 Section 9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
EXCERPT 2 Section 9.1.10 Monitoring
EXCERPT 3 Section 9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0780-A1
Affiliate: Victor Marine
Commenter: Antony Chan, Engineering Manager, Victor Marine
Number of Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1 Section 9.2 Bilgewater
74
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0781-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
D. Gordon-Brown
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0783-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
L. Hau
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0785-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
D. Selvaggio
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0786-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Leveta Fisher
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0787-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
V. Smith
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0788-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
S.McLelland
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0789-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
G. Gabel
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0791- A 1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
J. Stephenson
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0792-A1
Affiliate:
Kernel USA Inc
Commenter:
David Hawkins, General Manager, Kernel USA Inc
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.6 Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
75
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
EXCERPT 13
EXCERPT 14
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
DCN:
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Number of Excerpts:
EXCERPT 1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0793-A1
C. McVie
1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0794-A2
Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY)
Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section Manager, Water Quality Program,
Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY)
401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
General Stakeholder
Large Cruise Ships
Large Ferries
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
All Other Discharge Categories
Management Practices
Fish Flold Effluent
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
Corrective Actions
Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Large Cruise Ships
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0795-A1
Flagship Niagara League
Walter P. Rybka, Senior Captain, Flagship Niagara League
1
Section 2 Eligible vessels and discharges
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0796-A1
Lynx Educational Foundation
Jeffrey Woods, Director of Operations, Lynx Educational Foundation
1
Section 2 Eligible vessels and discharges
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0797-A1
United States Great Lakes Shipping Association (USGLSA)
Stuart T. Theis, Executive Director, United States Great Lakes Shipping Association
(USGLSA)
4
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
Section 9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
Section 9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
14
Section
12
Section
9
Section
1
Section
11.1
Section
11.3
Section
7.8
Section
9.8
Section
9.3.3
Section
9.5
Section
10
Section
7.13
Section
7.4
Section
9.1.15
Section
11.1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0798-A1
Marine Lubricants
Oliver Ferguson, Technical Manager, Marine Lubricants
3
Section 6.2 Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
76
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
EXCERPT 2 Section 6.2 Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
EXCERPT 3 Section 6.2 Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0799-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter: B. Menkes
Number of Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1 Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0800-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter: R. Grande
Number of Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1 Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0801-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter: M. H. Watson
Number of Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1 Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0802-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter: M. Florey
Number of Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1 Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0803-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter: T. Lucas
Number of Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1 Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0804-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter: K. Shair
Number of Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1 Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0805-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter: J. Y. Doesschate
Number of Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1 Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0806-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter: C. Rabbit
Number of Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1 Section 9.1 Ballast Water
77
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0807-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
R. Mowday
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0808-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
F. Quail
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0810-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
E. Monis
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0811-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
L. Berling
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0812- A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
R. Bertrand
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0813-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
S. Sweeney
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0814-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
Dr. K. R. Crocker
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0815-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
S. Brown
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0816- A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
D., D., D., and B. Poole
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1 Ballast Water
78
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 2: Comment Submittals, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0817-A1
Affiliate:
Commenter:
A. Benjamin
Number of Excerpts:
1
EXCERPT 1
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
DCN:
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0819-A1
Affiliate:
Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Commenter:
Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Number of Excerpts:
32
EXCERPT 1
Section 1
General Stakeholder
EXCERPT 2
Section 9.5
Fish Flold Effluent
EXCERPT 3
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
EXCERPT 4
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 5
Section 9.5
Fish Flold Effluent
EXCERPT 6
Section 7.3
Routine Visual Inspection
EXCERPT 7
Section 1
General Stakeholder
EXCERPT 8
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
EXCERPT 9
Section 1
General Stakeholder
EXCERPT 10
Section 9.3.3
Management Practices
EXCERPT 11
Section 9.5
Fish Flold Effluent
EXCERPT 12
Section 13
Economics
EXCERPT 13
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
EXCERPT 14
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
EXCERPT 15
Section 2
Eligible vessels and discharges
EXCERPT 16
Section 8
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels
EXCERPT 17
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
EXCERPT 18
Section 6.4
Other Definitions
EXCERPT 19
Section 7
Administrative Requirements
EXCERPT 20
Section 13
Economics
EXCERPT 21
Section 16
Misfiled Comment
EXCERPT 22
Section 7.8
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 23
Section 9.8
All Other Discharge Categories
EXCERPT 24
Section 7.3
Routine Visual Inspection
EXCERPT 25
Section 7.4
Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
EXCERPT 26
Section 7.7
Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
EXCERPT 27
Section 3
Permit Term
EXCERPT 28
Section 1
General Stakeholder
EXCERPT 29
Section 16
Misfiled Comment
EXCERPT 30
Section 7.10
Annual Report
EXCERPT 31
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
EXCERPT 32
Section 9.1
Ballast Water
79
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason I'or Kxclusion from the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0400
None
Anonymous public comment
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0433
Little Traverse Bay Bands of
Odawa Indians, Natural Resource
Department
Douglas W. Craven, Director, Natural
Resource Department
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0434
Marin Audubon Society
Barbara Salzman, Co-Chair Conservation
Committee and Phil Peterson, Co-Chair,
Conservation Committee
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0435
Hamworthy Krystallon Ltd.
Lee Bracegirdle, Marine Technical
Advisor
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0446
Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC)
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program
Attorney
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0448
California State Lands
Commission and New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Maurya B. Falkner, Marine Invasive
Species Program Manager, Marine
Facilities Division
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0448-A1
California State Lands
Commission and New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Maurya B. Falkner, Marine Invasive
Species Program Manager, Marine
Facilities Division
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0449
New York Department of
Environmental Conservation
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0450
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
William Creal, Chief, Water Resources
Division
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0451
Wartsila Finland Oy
Jussi Kreula
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0460
The At-sea Processors Association
(APA)
Stephanie Madsen, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0460-A1
The At-sea Processors Association
(APA)
Stephanie Madsen, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0461
Freezer Longline Coalition (FLC)
Kenny Down, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
80
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0464
Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI)
Yoshiaki Gonno, Naval Architect,
Technical Development Group
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0464-A1
Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI)
Yoshiaki Gonno, Naval Architect,
Technical Development Group
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0464-A3
Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI)
Yoshiaki Gonno, Naval Architect,
Technical Development Group
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0465
Alfa Laval
Tobias Mattsson, Marine Engineer,
Portfolio Manager, Parts & Service,
Marine & Diesel Equipment
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0465-A1
Alfa Laval
Tobias Mattsson, Marine Engineer,
Portfolio Manager, Parts & Service,
Marine & Diesel Equipment
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0466
Massman Construction Co.
Danny R. Morton, CRP, ARM
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0470
American Veterinary Medical
Association (AVMA)
Dr. W. Ron DeHaven, CEO and
Executive Vice President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0472-A1
Pole Star Group
Richard Doherty, Representative
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0473
American Chemet Corporation
William H. Shropshire, President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0474
Offshore Marine Service
Association
Sarah K. Branch, Director of Government
Relations
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0476
Pole Star Group
Richard Doherty
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0476-A1
Pole Star Group
Richard Doherty
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0477
American Cruise Lines, Inc. (ACL)
Timothy J. Beebe, Vice President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0478
Consultative Shipping Group
(CSG)
Andreas Nordseth, Chairman
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0479
Government of Canada
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0480
Ecochlor, Inc.
Tom Perlich, President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0481
McNational, Inc.
Russell E. Painter, Regulatory Affairs
Manager
No Comment - Cover Page
81
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0482
Sause Bros
Cory Sause, Environmental Coordinator
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0483
Save Lake Superior Association
LeRoger Lind, President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0484
Brennan Marine Inc.
Adam Binsfeld
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0485
Chamber of Shipping of America
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime
Affairs
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0486
Ingram Barge Company
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice
President, Human Resources, Chief Legal
Officer and Secretary
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0487
Center for Research on Aquatic
Bioinvasions et al.
Dr. Andrew Cohen, Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0488
Magnolia Marine Transport
Company
Roger Harris, Senior Vice President -
Operations
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0489
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
David Connor, Water Quality Specialist
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0490
The American Coatings
Association (ACA)
Marie Hobson, Counsel, Government
Affairs and John Hopewell, Assistant
Director, Environmental Affairs
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0490-A1
The American Coatings
Association (ACA)
Marie Hobson, Counsel, Government
Affairs and John Hopewell, Assistant
Director, Environmental Affairs
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0490-A4
The American Coatings
Marie Hobson, Counsel, Government
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Association (ACA)
Affairs and John Hopewell, Assistant
Director, Environmental Affairs
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0491
Natural Resources Defense
Council et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and Chief
Executive Officer (CEO)
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0492
VapCor Inc.
Angus P. Kennedy, President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0493
Algoma Central Corporation
Algis Vanagas, Senior Vice-President
Technical
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0494
Friends of the Earth
Marcie Keever, Oceans & Vessels Project
Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0495
None
Anonymous Public Comment
No Comment - Cover Page
82
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0496
Dann Marine Towing
Christian LaPense
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0497
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0497-A2
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0497-A3
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0498
Association of California Water
Agencies (ACWA)
Abby Schneider, Federal Legislative
Representative
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0499
Terresolve Technologies
Mark Miller, Chief Executive Officer
(CEO)
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0500
Ingram Barge Company
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice
President Human Resources
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
Ingram Barge Company
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice
President Human Resources
No Comment - Duplicate of Comment
0486-A1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0501
Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
William S. Murphy
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0502
Hornbeck Offshore Services
Timothy D. Sullivan, Manager of
Regulatory Affairs and Environmental
Compliance
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0504
At Sea Processors Association
(APA) et al.
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0505
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Mark Vinsel, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0507
The American Waterways
Operators
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice
President-National Advocacy
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0508
Pacific Merchant Shipping
Association (PMSA)
John Berge, Vice President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0509
Alaska Trailers Association
Dale Kelley, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0510
Passenger Vessel Association
(PVA)
Edmund B. Welch
No Comment - Cover Page
83
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0511
Government of Canada, Embassy
of Canada
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0512
Terresolve Technologies
Donald Sweeney, Vice President of
Finance
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0513
Maersk Line
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Director,
Environment & Sustainability
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0514
Vickers Oils
Peter Vickers, Chairman & Managing
Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0515
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
(IDEM)
Bruno Pigott, Assistant Commissioner,
Office of Water Quality
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0516
The Interlake Steamship Company
Mark W. Barker, President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0518
Brennan Marine
Adam Binsfeld
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0519
Compass Water Solutions
Dan Grommersch, President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0520
The Great Lakes Towing Company
and Great Lakes Shipyard
Gregg A. Thauvette, Vice President,
Operations
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0521
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Kate Frantz
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0521-A1
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Kate Frantz
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0522
American Chemical Technologies,
Inc.
Mark D. Latunski, Lab Manager
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0523
Connecticut Department of Energy
and Environmental Protection (CT
DEEP)
Oswald Inglese, Jr., Director, Water
Permitting and Enforcement Division
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0524
Amherst Madison, Inc.
William R. Barr, Vice President Safety &
Compliance
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0525
Shipping Federation of Canada
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental
Affairs
No Comment - Cover Page
84
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0525-A2
Shipping Federation of Canada
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental
Affairs
No Comment - Duplicate of Comment
0525-A1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0526
IDEXX Laboratories, Inc
Patsy Root, Senior Regulatory Affairs
Specialist
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0527
Lake Carriers' Association
James H. I. Weakley, President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A1
Lake Carriers Association
James H. I. Weakley, President
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0527-A3
Lake Carriers Association
James H. I. Weakley, President
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0527-A5
Lake Carriers Association
James H. I. Weakley, President
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0528
Great Lakes Commission
Tim Eder, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0529
Shipping Federation of Canada
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental
Affairs
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0529-A1
Shipping Federation of Canada
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental
Affairs
No Comment - Duplicate of Comment
0525-A1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0530
Cruise Lines International
Association (CLIA)
Charles V. Darr, Director of
Environmental and Health Programs
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0531
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Cathy Stepp, Secretary
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0531-A1
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Cathy Stepp, Secretary
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0532
Tabor Academy.
James E. Geil
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0532-A1
Tabor Academy.
James E. Geil
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533
World Shipping Council (WSC)
Douglas B. Schneider
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0534
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
(ADEC), Division of Water, Water
Quality Section
Michelle Bonnett, Director, Division of
Water, Water Quality Section
No Comment - Cover Page
85
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
ANiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0534-A1
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
(ADEC), Division of Water, Water
Quality Section
Michelle Bonnett, Director, Division of
Water, Water Quality Section
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0535
Great Lakes Environmental Law
Center
Nick Schroeck, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0535-A1
Great Lakes Environmental Law
Center
Nick Schroeck, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0536
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
William Creal, Chief Water Resources
Division
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A1
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
William Creal, Chief Water Resources
Division
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0537
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Beth Moore, General Permit Coordinator
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0538
American Chemical Technologies,
Incorporated
James R. Kovanda, Vice President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0539
Allied Transportation Company
Jeffrey E. Parker, Vice President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0539-A1
Allied Transportation Company
Jeffrey E. Parker, Vice President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0540
Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs
Canadiens)
Bruce Bowie, President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A1
Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs
Canadiens)
Bruce Bowie, President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0541
Chamber of Marine Commerce
(CMC)
Raymond W. Johnston, President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0541-A1
Chamber of Marine Commerce
(CMC)
Raymond W. Johnston, President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0542
Ohio Department of Natural
Resources (ODNR),
Environmental Services Section
James Zehringer, Director,
Environmental Services Section
No Comment - Cover Page
86
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
ANiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0542-A1
Ohio Department of Natural
Resources (ODNR),
Environmental Services Section
James Zehringer, Director,
Environmental Services Section
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0543
Rand Logistics, Inc.
H. Clayton Cook, Jr., Counsel, Seward &
Kissel LLP on behalf of Joseph W.
McHugh, Jr., Vice President & Chief
Financial Officer
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0543-A1
Rand Logistics, Inc.
H. Clayton Cook, Jr., Counsel, Seward &
Kissel LLP on behalf of Joseph W.
McHugh, Jr., Vice President & Chief
Financial Officer
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0543-A2
Rand Logistics, Inc.
H. Clayton Cook, Jr., Counsel, Seward &
Kissel LLP on behalf of Joseph W.
McHugh, Jr., Vice President & Chief
Financial Officer
No Comment - Duplicate of Comment
0568-A2
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0544
Ohio Department of Natural
Resources (ODNR),
Environmental Services Section
James Zehringer, Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0544-A1
Ohio Department of Natural
Resources (ODNR),
Environmental Services Section
James Zehringer, Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0545
American Great Lakes Ports
Association
Steven A. Fisher, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0545-A1
American Great Lakes Ports
Association
Steven A. Fisher, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0545-A3
American Great Lakes Ports
Association
Steven A. Fisher, Executive Director
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0546
Flagship Niagara League, Inc.
Wesley W. Heerssen, Jr., Captain, SSV
Niagara
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0546-A1
Flagship Niagara League, Inc.
Wesley W. Heerssen, Jr., Captain, SSV
Niagara
No Comment - Cover Page
87
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
ANiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0547
Rock the Earth
Marc A. Ross, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0547-A1
Rock the Earth
Marc A. Ross, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0548
The Baltic and International
Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Michael Lund, Chief Maritime Politics
and Economics
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0549
San Francisco Baykeeper
Abigail Blodgett, Legal Fellow
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0549-A1
San Francisco Baykeeper
Abigail Blodgett, Legal Fellow
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0550
Izaak Walton League of America,
Inc. (IWLA), et al.
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program
Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A1
Izaak Walton League of America,
Inc. (IWLA), et al.
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program
Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0551
American River Transportation
Company (ARTCO)
Matthew French, Port Engineer
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0552
Sea Education Association
Captain David A. Bank, Director, Marine
Operations
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0552-A1
Sea Education Association
Captain David A. Bank, Director, Marine
Operations
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0553
Citizens Campaign for the
Environment (CCE)
Brian P. Smith, Program and
Communications Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0554
Canada Steamship Lines
International (CSLI)
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an
Industry Affairs
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554-A1
Canada Steamship Lines
International (CSLI)
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an
Industry Affairs
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0555
The St. Lawrence Seaway
Management Corporation
Terence F. Bowles, President and CEO
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0555-A1
The St. Lawrence Seaway
Management Corporation
Terence F. Bowles, President and CEO
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0555-A3
The St. Lawrence Seaway
Management Corporation
Terence F. Bowles, President and CEO
No Comment - Duplicate of Comment
0541-A2
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0556
Tole Mour Corporation
Mark Waddington, Director CIMI Tall
Ship Expedition
No Comment - Cover Page
88
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
ANiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0557
Tall Ships America
Bert Rogers, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0557-A1
Tall Ships America
Bert Rogers, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0558
Dann Ocean Towing, Inc.
Randy Trapp, Safety, Security Manager
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0559
Fednav Limited
Marc Gagnon, Director, Government
Affairs & Regulatory Compliance
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0559-A1
Fednav Limited
Marc Gagnon, Director, Government
Affairs & Regulatory Compliance
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0560
Foss Maritime Company
Susan Hayman, Vice President,
Environmental and Governmental Affairs
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0560-A1
Foss Maritime Company
Susan Hayman, Vice President,
Environmental and Governmental Affairs
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0561
V. Ships Leisure
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine
Superintendent
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A1
V. Ships Leisure
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine
Superintendent
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0562
Great Lakes Commission (GLC)
Tim Eder, Executive Director and
Katherine Glassner-Shwayder, Senior
Project Manager
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0562-A1
Great Lakes Commission (GLC)
Tim Eder, Executive Director and
Katherine Glassner-Shwayder, Senior
Project Manager
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0562-A3
Great Lakes Commission (GLC)
Tim Eder, Executive Director and
Katherine Glassner-Shwayder, Senior
Project Manager
No Comment - Duplicate of Comment
0562-A3
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0563
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Cities Initiative
David A. Ullrich, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0563-A1
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Cities Initiative
David A. Ullrich, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0564
Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and Chief
Executive Officer (CEO)
No Comment - Cover Page
89
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0564-A1
Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and Chief
Executive Officer (CEO)
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0565
Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited
(ICTU)
Edward L. Michael, Chairman
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0567
North Star Maritime, Inc.
Robert C. North, President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0567-A1
North Star Maritime, Inc.
Robert C. North, President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0568
Rand Logistics, Inc.
H. Clayton Cook, Jr., Counsel, Seward &
Kissel LLP on behalf of Joseph W.
McHugh, Jr., Vice President & Chief
Financial Officer
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0568-A1
Rand Logistics, Inc.
H. Clayton Cook, Jr., Counsel, Seward &
Kissel LLP on behalf of Joseph W.
McHugh, Jr., Vice President & Chief
Financial Officer
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0569
House of Representatives,
Congress of the United States
Congressman Andy Harris
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0569-A1
House of Representatives,
Congress of the United States
Congressman Andy Harris
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0570
Educational Tall Ship
Captain Alan Olson, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0571
Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems
Association (EGCSA)
Donald Gregory, Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0571- A 1
Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems
Association (EGCSA)
Donald Gregory, Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0572
State of Hawaii Department of
Land and Natural Resources
(DLNR)
Dr. Guy Kaulukukui, Acting
Administrator
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0572-A1
State of Hawaii Department of
Land and Natural Resources
(DLNR)
Dr. Guy Kaulukukui, Acting
Administrator
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0573
MN Center for Environmental
Advocacy, et al.
Scott Strand, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
90
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A1
MN Center for Environmental
Advocacy, et al.
Scott Strand, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0574
Garden State Seafood Association
(GSSA)
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive
Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574-A1
Garden State Seafood Association
(GSSA)
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive
Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0575
California Wetfish Producers
Association (CWPA)
Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive
Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A1
California Wetfish Producers
Association (CWPA)
Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive
Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0576
Northwest Environmental
Advocates
Holley Horrell
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A1
Northwest Environmental
Advocates
Holley Horrell
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0577-A1
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Duplicate of Comment
0491-A1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0578-A1
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A10
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
All
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A12
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A13
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A14
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A16
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
91
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A17
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A18
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A19
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-A2
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A20
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A21
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A22
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A23
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A24
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A25
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A26
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A27
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A28
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A29
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-A3
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
92
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A30
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A31
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A32
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A33
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A34
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A35
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A36
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A37
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A38
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A39
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0578-A4
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A40
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A41
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A42
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A43
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
93
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
ANiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A44
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A45
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A46
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A47
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A48
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A49
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-A5
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A50
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A51
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A52
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A53
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A54
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A55
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A56
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-
A57
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
94
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-A6
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-A7
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-A8
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0578-A9
Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Joel Brammeier, President and CEO
No Comment - Copyrighted and/or
Additional Reference
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0579
None
T. Aylsworth
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0580
None
C. Scholz
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0581
None
M. Covello
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0582
None
O. Booth
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0583
None
G. Root
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0584
None
M. Mackai
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0585
None
N. Russell
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0586
None
B. Pero
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0587
None
L. Kain
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0588
None
D. Balin
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0589
None
L. Gritter
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0590
None
J. Wilson
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0591
None
M. Helming
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0592
None
M. Lees
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0593
None
D. Greene
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0594
None
M. Pickett
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0595
None
L. Weingart
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0596
None
G. Bargerstock
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0597
None
B. Toshalis
No Comment - Cover Page
95
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Document Control Number
ANiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0598
New York City Law Department
Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law
Division
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0598-A1
New York City Law Department
Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law
Division
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0599
Pride of Baltimore, Inc.
Jan C. Miles, Captain, Acting Executive
Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0599-A1
Pride of Baltimore, Inc.
Jan C. Miles, Captain, Acting Executive
Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0600
None
S. Matash
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0601
None
Z. Strickland
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0602
None
B. Mittelstaedt
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0603
None
D. Dobrzyn
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0604
None
D. Stevens
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0605
None
D. Broadway
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0606
None
P. Bloink
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0607
None
C. Carson
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0608
None
M. Reader
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0609
None
J. Mcintosh
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0610
None
B. Tuttle
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612
Hyde Marine
Mark Riggio, Product Manager
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A1
Hyde Marine
Mark Riggio, Product Manager
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0613
Key Lakes, Inc.
Captain William C. Peterson, General
Manager
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0614
Maine Windjammer Cruises
Captain Ray Williamson, Executive
Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0615
None
A. Dale
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0616
None
J. Buchman
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0617
None
P. and B. Noeldner
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0618
None
Y. Ruben
No Comment - Cover Page
96
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
ANiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0619
None
J. Erney
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0620
None
J. Horkulic
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0621
None
D. Ross
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0622
None
B. Ray
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0623
None
M. Wilson
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0624
None
L. Chastain
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0625
None
D. Lavender
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0627
Marmac, LLC., McDonough
Marine Service
Patrick Stant, President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0627-A1
Marmac, LLC., McDonough
Marine Service
Patrick Stant, President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0628
Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
(MEDEP)
Pamela Parker, Vessel Discharges,
Division of Water Quality Management
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0628-A1
Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
(MEDEP)
Pamela Parker, Vessel Discharges,
Division of Water Quality Management
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0629
Water and Wastewater Equipment
Manufacturers Association, Inc.
(WWEMA)
Dawn Kristof Champney, President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A1
Water and Wastewater Equipment
Manufacturers Association, Inc.
(WWEMA)
Dawn Kristof Champney, President
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0630
United Catcher Boats (UCB) and
Pacific Seafood Processors
Association (PSPA)
Brent Paine, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0630-A1
United Catcher Boats (UCB) and
Pacific Seafood Processors
Association (PSPA)
Brent Paine, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
97
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Document Control Number
ANiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0631
American Electric Power River
Operations (AEP)
Tim Sizemore, Manager Waterway
Regulatory Programs
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0631- A 1
American Electric Power River
Operations (AEP)
Tim Sizemore, Manager Waterway
Regulatory Programs
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0632
US Army Corps of Engineers
Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program
Manager
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0632-A1
US Army Corps of Engineers
Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program
Manager
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633
California State Lands
Commission
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program
Manager, Marine Invasive Species
Program, Marine Facilities Division
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A1
California State Lands
Commission
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program
Manager, Marine Invasive Species
Program, Marine Facilities Division
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0634
None
M. L. Spina
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0635
None
P. Fischer
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0636
None
J. G. Garey
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0637
None
Y. Wootten
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0638
None
P. Andler
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0639
None
S. West
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0640
None
D. Rhomberg
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0641
None
J. Okazaki
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0642
None
E. Hursh
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0643
None
S. Secrest
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0644
None
T. McKinney
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0645
None
P. A. Johnson
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0646
None
B. Vosburg-Bluem
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0647
None
A. Case
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0648
None
S. Knudstrup
No Comment - Cover Page
98
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
ANiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0649
None
C. VandePolder
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0650
None
S. Ebershoff-Coles
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0651
None
J. Whitney
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0652
None
C. Spencer
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0653
None
J. Beecher
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0654
None
B. Pinti
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0655
None
D. Hammes
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0656
None
P. Baker
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0657
None
J. Thompson
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0658
None
P. Clemo
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0659
None
L. Wilkinson
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0660
None
A. I. Aurelio
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0661
None
L. Strain
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0662
None
L. Swanson
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0663
None
L. Shuman
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0664
None
P. Heithaus
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0665
None
G. and P. Holcomb
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0666
None
Dr. J. Nicholson
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0667
Cetacean Marine Inc
Glenn R Germaine, President/CEO
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0668
None
M. Scott
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0669
None
D. Nelson
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0670
None
V. Snider
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0671
None
J. DiNardo
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0672
None
A. Wolf
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0673
None
J. Sherman
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0674
None
G. Pearson
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0675
None
S. Teel
No Comment - Cover Page
99
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
ANiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0676
None
C. Lasecki
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0677
None
A. McNear
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0678
None
Dr. B. Schwartz
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0679
None
P. Donnelly
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0680
None
W. Stroessner
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0681
None
M. R. Loffelman
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0682
None
B. C. Spada
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0683
None
D. Waldron
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0684
None
R. Koch
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0685
None
J. Rothenberg
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0686
None
E. Schultz
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0687
None
A. Eastham
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0688
None
C. Grubb
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0689
None
B. Liberacki
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0690
None
L. Adams
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0691
None
K. Robbins
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0692
None
T. Swedberg
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0693
None
T. Cannon
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0694
None
M. Jackson
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0695
None
M. Zwicker
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0696
None
K. Linn
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0697
None
C. Francis
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0698
None
K. Simonik
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0699
None
K. Weir
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0700
None
N. Sorlie
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0701
None
P. Turon
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0702
None
J. Piekarski
No Comment - Cover Page
100
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0703
None
J. Tannehill
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0704
None
Dr. J. Mendoza
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0705
None
Dr. S. Keil
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0706
None
I. Senn
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0707
None
N. Price
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0708
None
G. Opem
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0709
None
C. Jolliff
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0710
None
A. Lucchini
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0711
None
D. Murphy
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0712
None
R. Stiefel
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0713
None
K. Smith
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0714
None
C. Caldie
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0715
None
H. Santiago
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0716
None
S. Saari
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0717
None
S. Long
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0718
None
M. Leven
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0719
None
D. Briol
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0720
None
G. Crouse
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0721
None
B. Oilman
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0722
None
G. Krantzberg
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0723
National Wildlife Federation
Action Fund
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by
National Wildlife Federation Action Fund
(494)
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0724
Alliance for the Great Lakes
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by
Alliance for the Great Lakes (4628)
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0725
None
C. Litweiler
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0726
None
C. Fries
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0727
None
D. Mcintosh
No Comment - Cover Page
101
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
ANiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0728
None
P. Wormley
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0729
None
A. Stroh
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0730
None
L. Swider
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0731
None
J. A. Bule
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0732
None
C. Wagner
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0733
None
J. Smith
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0734
None
M. Guest
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0735
None
F. Canonizado
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0736
None
K. Hollinrake
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0737
None
A. Mahan
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0738
None
B. Birnbaum
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0739
None
C. Yeany
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0740
None
B. Wallick
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0741
None
Dr. R. Sherding
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0742
National Park Service, United
States Department of the Interior
Gary Rosenlieb, Acting Chief
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0742-A1
National Park Service, United
States Department of the Interior
Gary Rosenlieb, Acting Chief
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0743
None
B. Imam
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0744
None
K. Arellanes
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0745
None
E. Olsen
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0746
None
G. Prevost
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0747
None
P. Wilson
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0748
None
K. Moore
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0749
None
M. Dochoda
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0750
None
D. Niergarth
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0751
None
J. Munro
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0752
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist
No Comment - Cover Page
102
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A1
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0753
None
P. Haumann
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0754
None
J. MacArthur
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0755
None
C. Azan
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0756
None
C. Maciel
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0757
None
E. Anderson
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0758
None
S. Dickman
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0759
None
J. Davis
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0760
Offshore Marine Service
Association (OMSA)
Sarah Branch, Director, Government
Relations
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0761
None
M. Rogers
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0762
None
L. Oostendorp
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0763
None
P. Orr
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0764
None
E. Litten
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0765
None
D. Moderacki
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0766
None
R. Atkin
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0767
None
B. Camp
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0768
None
M. Maxson
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0769
None
D. Hart
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0770
None
C. Newhouse, Ph.D.
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0771
None
C. Fletcher
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0772
None
A. Eilenberg
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0773
None
L. Alexander
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0774
None
T. Murcko
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0775
None
Dr. A. Agarwal
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0776
None
R. Gilbert
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0777
None
RS. Stoner
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0778
None
M. Coe
No Comment - Cover Page
103
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0779
None
L. P. Kolb
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0780
Victor Marine
Antony Chan, Engineering Manager
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0780- A2
Victor Marine
Antony Chan, Engineering Manager
No Comment - Duplicate of Comment
0472-A1
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0780-A3
Victor Marine
Antony Chan, Engineering Manager
No Comment - Duplicate of Comment
0528-A5
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0781
None
D. Gordon-Brown
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0782
None
J. D. Hug
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0783
None
L. Hau
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0784
None
T. Meldrum
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0785
None
D. Selvaggio
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0786
None
Leveta Fisher
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0787
None
V. Smith
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0788
None
S.McLelland
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0789
None
G. Gabel
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0790
None
K. Koutalis
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0791
None
J. Stephenson
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0792
Kernel USA Inc
David Hawkins, General Manager
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0793
None
C. McVie
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0794
Water Quality Program,
Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECY)
Bill Moore, Program Development
Services Section Manager
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0794-A1
Water Quality Program,
Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECY)
Bill Moore, Program Development
Services Section Manager
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0795
Flagship Niagara League
Walter P. Rybka, Senior Captain
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0796
Lynx Educational Foundation
Jeffrey Woods, Director of Operations
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0797
United States Great Lakes
Shipping Association (USGLSA)
Stuart T. Theis, Executive Director
No Comment - Cover Page
104
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 3:
Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commcntcr Name
Reason lor Kxclusion I'rom the
Comment Response Document
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0798
Marine Lubricants
Oliver Ferguson, Technical Manager
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0799
None
B. Menkes
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0800
None
R. Grande
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0801
None
M. H. Watson
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0802
None
M. Florey
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0803
None
T. Lucas
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0804
None
K. Shair
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0805
None
J. Y. Doesschate
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0806
None
C. Rabbit
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0807
None
R. Mowday
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0808
None
F. Quail
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0809
None
Dr. R. Sampath
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0810
None
E. Monis
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0811
None
L. Berling
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0812
None
R. Bertrand
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0813
None
S. Sweeney
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0814
None
Dr. K. R. Crocker
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0815
None
S. Brown
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0816
None
D., D., and B. Poole
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0817
None
A. Benjamin
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0818
None
Dr. P. Schultz
No Comment - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0819
Fishing Vessel Owners'
Association (FVOA)
Robert D. Alverson, Manager,
No Comment - Cover Page
105
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 4:
Comment Submittals Identified as Part of a Letter Writing Campaign, Ordered by DCN
Document Control Number
Letter Writing
Campaign
Comment Response Location
Does the Comment Include
l nic|ue Language?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0581-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0582-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0583-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0584-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0585-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0586-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0587-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0588-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0589-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0590-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0591- A 1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0592-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0593-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0594-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0595-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0596-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0597-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0600-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0601-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0602-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0603-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0604-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0605-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0606-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0607-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
106
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 4:
Comment Submittals Identified as Part of a Letter Writing Campaign, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Letter Writing
Campaign
Comment Response Location
Does the Comment Include
I nique Language?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0608-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 - A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0609-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0610-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0615-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0616-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0617-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0618-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0619-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0620-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0621-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0622-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0623-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0624-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0625-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0634-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0635-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0636-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0637-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0638-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0639-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0640-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0641-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0642-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0643-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0644-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0645-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0646-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
107
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 4:
Comment Submittals Identified as Part of a Letter Writing Campaign, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Letter Writing
Campaign
Comment Response Location
Does the Comment Include
I nique Language?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0647-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0648-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0649-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0650-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0651- A 1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0652-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0653-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0654-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0655-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0656-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0657-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0658-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0659-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0660-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0661-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0662-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0663-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0664-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0665-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0666-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0668-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0669-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0670-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0671- A 1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0672-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0674-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0675-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
108
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 4:
Comment Submittals Identified as Part of a Letter Writing Campaign, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Letter Writing
Campaign
Comment Response Location
Does the Comment Include
I nique Language?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0676-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0677-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0678-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0679-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0680-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0681- A 1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0682-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0683-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0684-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0685-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0686-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0687-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0688-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0689-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0690-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0691- A 1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0692-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0693-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0694-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0695-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0696-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0697-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0698-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0699-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0700-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0701-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0702-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
109
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 4:
Comment Submittals Identified as Part of a Letter Writing Campaign, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Letter Writing
Campaign
Comment Response Location
Does the Comment Include
I nique Language?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0703-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0704-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0705-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0706-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0707-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0708-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0709-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0710-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0711-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0712-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0713-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0714-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0715-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0716-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0717-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0718-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0719-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0720-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0721-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0722-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0723-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0724-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0725-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0726-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0727-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0728-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0729-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
110
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 4:
Comment Submittals Identified as Part of a Letter Writing Campaign, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Letter Writing
Campaign
Comment Response Location
Does the Comment Include
I nique Language?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0730-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0731-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0732-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0733-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0734-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0735-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0736-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0737-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0738-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0739-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0740-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0741-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0743-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0744-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0745-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0746-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0747-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0748-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0749-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0750-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0751- A 1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0753-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0754-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0755-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0756-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0757-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0758-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
111
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 4:
Comment Submittals Identified as Part of a Letter Writing Campaign, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Letter Writing
Campaign
Comment Response Location
Does the Comment Include
I nique Language?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0759-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0761-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0762-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0763-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0764-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0765-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0766-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0767-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0768-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0769-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0770-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0771- A 1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0772-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0773-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0774-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0775-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0776-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0777-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0778-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0781-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0782-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0783-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0784-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0785-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0786-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0787-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0788-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
112
-------
Comment Submittal Index Part 4:
Comment Submittals Identified as Part of a Letter Writing Campaign, Ordered by DCN (Continued)
Document Control Number
Letter Writing
Campaign
Comment Response Location
Does the Comment Include
I nique Language?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0789-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0790-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0791- A 1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0793-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0799-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0800-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0801-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0802-A1
Alliance for Great Lakes
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0803-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0804-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0805-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0806-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0807-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0808-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0809-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0810-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0811-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0812- A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0813-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0814-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0815-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0816- A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0817-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
Yes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0818-A1
National Wildlife Federation
See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 -0581 -A1
No
113
-------
1. General Stakeholder
Commenter Name:
January 11, 2012 Public Hearing Oral Comments by PVA's
Jennifer Wilk and Ed Welch
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443
1
No
Comment: A general permit continues to be the way to go.
PVA appreciated EPA's decision several years ago to issue an industry-wide permit rather than
imposing a permitting requirement on each individual covered vessel. Furthermore, it was an
appropriate decision by EPA to choose not to impose any permitting fee. The proposed revised
VGP and the draft SVGP continue this policy choice, and PVA agrees with this approach.
PVA understands that EPA must begin now to develop the SVGP. However, PVA is working to
convince Congress to enact legislation extending the current exemption. If that occurs, the need
for the SVGP will evaporate.
Response: EPA agrees general permits are more administratively efficient and appropriate for
most vessel permittees; however, cases may arise where individual permits are appropriate for
certain vessels. Congressional activity regarding the P.L. 110-299 moratorium is beyond the
scope of this action.
Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Comment: Dear U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Please accept the following attached documents into the above-captioned docket, which are
letters submitted to EPA regarding the Vessel General Permit by the Natural Resources Defense
Council ("NRDC") and other environmental organizations:
1. September 16, 2011, letter to EPA regarding the draft Vessel General Permit.
2. August 9, 2011, letter to EPA regarding numeric limits for ballast water discharges.
3. December 31, 2010, letter to EPA regarding EPA listening session, suggestions for next
Vessel General Permit.
NRDC incorporates by reference each of these past submissions and hereby resubmits them as
comments on the new draft Vessel General Permit. In addition to these submissions, NRDC
anticipates submitting a new set of written comments on the draft Vessel General Permit to the
docket during the public comment period.
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
1
No
114
-------
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. The three documents, submitted as exhibits to
this cover letter, have been considered and are directly responded to throughout this response to
comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
2
No
Comment: We write in advance of our meeting with EPA's political management regarding the
next draft of the Vessel General Permit to express in writing our primary reasons for our belief
that the Agency is unlikely to establish appropriate effluent limits and compliance timeframes for
ballast water for the Draft Next VGP. Due to time and resource constraints, we are unable to
respond fully at this time to what was presented to us during our telephone meeting with EPA on
August 30, 2011; this letter is not intended to be exhaustive of all of our comments and reactions
to that meeting. There are three major areas of concern in particular, however, that we would like
to raise with you at this time.
Response: EPA acknowledges this comment, which was prepared in advance of a meeting this
commenter held with EPA.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie Madsen, Executive Director, At-sea Processors
Association (APA)
The At-sea Processors Association (APA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0460-A2
1
No
Comment: The At-sea Processors Association ("APA") respectfully requests a forty-five day
extension of the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") public comment period on the
Draft 2013 NPDES Vessel General Permit ("VGP") that would authorize discharges incidental to
the normal operation of non-military and non-recreational vessels greater than or equal to 79 feet
in length. 76 Fed. Reg. 76,716 (Dec. 8, 2011).
Response: EPA was unable to extend the comment period; however, the Agency notes that the
75-day comment period for today's permit exceeds the 30-day minimum prescribed by the
NPDES permit regulations (40 CFR 124.10(b)); EPA gave the additional time in recognition of
the complexity of today's permitting action and to allow a broad array of stakeholders,
including industry and communities, an opportunity to provide feedback.
115
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie Madsen, Executive Director, At-sea Processors
Association (APA)
The At-sea Processors Association (APA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0460-A2
2
No
Comment: As you are aware, while most vessels have already been subject to the incidental
discharge requirements of the 2008 VGP, Congressional legislation generally exempted fishing
vessels from complying with these requirements, with the exception of ballast water discharges.
Following the expiration of this exemption, fishing vessels may be subject to the numerous
effluent limits and requirements proposed in the Draft 2013 VGP. These new measures could
have a significant effect on the operation and maintenance of fishing vessels.
Response: In late July 2008, Congress enacted legislation to exempt discharges incidental to
the normal operation of certain types of vessels from the need to obtain an NPDES permit. That
legislation included a temporary moratorium on NPDES permitting for discharges subject to the
40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion from (1) commercial fishing vessels (as defined in 46 U.S.C. § 2101
and regardless of size) and (2) those other non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. S.
3298, Pub. L. 110-299 (July 31, 2008). The statute's NPDES permitting moratorium ran for a
two-year period beginning on its July 31, 2008, enactment date, during which time EPA studied
the relevant discharges and submitted a report to Congress. This moratorium was subsequently
extended to December 18, 2013, by P.L. 111-215 and to December 18, 2014 by P.L. 112-213.
In addition, the statute's NPDES permitting moratorium does not extend to ballast water
discharges. The expiration date of the permit occurs after the expiration of the moratorium,
therefore EPA has included commercial fishing vessels 79 feet or larger under the 2013 VGP.
In addition, the incremental costs that are understood to result from the inclusion of all
commercial fishing vessels 79 feet or larger under the 2013 VGP were included in EPA's
economic analysis, which is included in the docket for this permit (US EPA, 2012, Economic
and Benefits Analysis of the Final 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie Madsen, Executive Director, At-sea Processors
Association (APA)
The At-sea Processors Association (APA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0460-A2
3
No
Comment: Given the timing of the comment period, December 8 through February 21, fishing
vessel owners and operators have not had adequate time to review and assess the new measures
proposed in the Draft 2013 VGP. The pollock fishing season typically starts in late January each
year. Prior to that time, vessel owners and operators are focused on a variety of fishing-related
tasks, such as vessel maintenance and supply, crew and personnel issues, and other operational
and logistical activities, to prepare for the start of the fishing season. In addition, vessel owners
116
-------
must compile and submit reports and data necessary to comply with other permits, such as the
NPDES General Permit for Offshore Seafood Processors in Alaska.
Based on these intervening activities, APA respectfully requests that EPA extend the public
comment period by forty-five days, until April 6, 2012, to allow for adequate review and
response. Because the Draft 2013 VGP is not scheduled to go into effect until December 19,
2013, such an extension should not affect EPA's ability to consider and respond to comments
and the ability of regulated vessels to achieve compliance in a timely manner.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0460-A2, excerpt 1
and excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kenny Down, Executive Director, Freezer Longline
Coalition (FLC)
Freezer Longline Coalition (FLC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0461-A1
1
No
Comment: The Freezer Longline Coalition ("FLC") respectfully requests a forty-five day
extension of the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") public comment period on the
Draft 2013 NPDES Vessel General Permit ("VGP) that would authorize discharges incidental to
the normal operation of non-military and non-recreational vessels greater than or equal to 79 feet
in length. 76 Fed. Reg. 76,716 (Dec. 8, 2011).
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0460-A2, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kenny Down, Executive Director, Freezer Longline
Coalition (FLC)
Freezer Longline Coalition (FLC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0461-A1
2
No
Comment: The Freezer Longline Coalition ("FLC") respectfully requests a forty-five day
extension of the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") public comment period on the
Draft 2013 NPDES Vessel General Permit ("VGP) that would authorize discharges incidental to
the normal operation of non-military and non-recreational vessels greater than or equal to 79 feet
in length. 76 Fed. Reg. 76,716 (Dec. 8, 2011).
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0460-A2, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Kenny Down, Executive Director, Freezer Longline
Coalition (FLC)
117
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Freezer Longline Coalition (FLC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0461-A1
3
No
Comment: Congressional legislation has exempted fishing vessels from complying with these
requirements with the exception of ballast water discharges. Following the expiration of this
exemption in 2013 the FLC vessels may be subject to the requirements proposed in the Draft
2013 VGP. These new measures will have a significant effect on the operation and maintenance
of member vessels in the Freezer Longline Coalition.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0460-A2, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kenny Down, Executive Director, Freezer Longline
Coalition (FLC)
Freezer Longline Coalition (FLC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0461-A1
4
No
Comment: Given the short timing of the comment period, December 8th through February 21st,
fishing vessel owners and operators have not had adequate time to review and assess the new
measures proposed in the Draft 2013 VGP. The Longline fishing season started on January 1st
2012 and we are currently in the middle of our most important season of the year with many of
the decision makers in our fleet working overtime to see the season is a success and a few of the
owners are at sea on board the vessels. Prior to the season starting, vessel owners and operators
focus on a variety of fishing related tasks, such as vessel maintenance and supply, crew and
personnel issues, and other operational and logistical activities, to prepare for the start of the
fishing season. In addition, vessel owners must compile and submit reports and data necessary to
comply with other permits, such as the NPDES General Permit for Offshore Seafood Processors
in Alaska.
Based on the timing, far from our control the FLC respectfully requests that EPA extend the
public comment period by forty-five days, until April 6, 2012, to allow us to fully absorb the
proposed regulations and formulate well thought out comments. Because the Draft 2013 VGP is
not scheduled to go into effect until December 19th, 2013, such an extension should not affect
EPA's ability to consider and respond to comments and the ability of regulated vessels to
achieve compliance in a timely manner.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0460-A2, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Gregory DiDomenico, Garden State Seafood Association
Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0467
118
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: The Garden State Seafood Association respectfully requests a forty-five day
extension of the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") public comment period on the
Draft 2013 NPDES Vessel General Permit ("VGP") that would authorize discharges incidental to
the normal operation of non-military and non-recreational vessels greater than or equal to 79 feet
in length.
As you are aware, while most vessels have already been subject to the incidental discharge
requirements of the 2008 VGP, Congressional legislation generally exempted fishing vessels
from complying with these requirements, with the exception of ballast water discharges.
Following the expiration of this exemption, fishing vessels may be subject to the numerous
effluent limits and requirements proposed in the Draft 2013 VGP. These new measures could
have a significant effect on the operation and maintenance of fishing vessels.
Given the timing of the comment period, December 8 through February 21, fishing vessel
owners and operators have not had adequate time to review and assess the new measures
proposed in the Draft 2013 VGP.
Based on these intervening activities, APA respectfully requests that EPA extend the public
comment period by forty-five days, until April 6, 2012, to allow for adequate review and
response. Because the Draft 2013 VGP is not scheduled to go into effect until December 19,
2013, such an extension should not affect EPA's ability to consider and respond to comments
and the ability of regulated vessels to achieve compliance in a timely manner.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-046Q-A2, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Sarah K. Branch, Director of Government Relations,
Comment: The Offshore Marine Service Association is the national trade association
representing the owners and operators of US.-Flag vessels that support the offshore energy
sector. OMSA's members include more than 100 vessel operating companies, representing
roughly 1,200 vessels that carry the equipment, supplies and workers in support of the
exploration and development of offshore oil and gas resources in the Gulf of Mexico. OMSA
vessel operators have been in compliance with the VGP via a comprehensive guidance program
that we developed for the offshore workboat industry, the majority of which also hold Notice of
Intents (NOI).
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Offshore Marine Service Association
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0474-A1
1
No
119
-------
Following the promulgation of the VGP in February 2009, we developed our own guidance and
Best Management Practices (BMP) for minimizing the same incidental discharges that our
operators have been safely managing for decades. Compliance with the VGP is an on-going
learning process and we appreciate the EPA's support in making compliance in the future as
seamless as possible.
Response: EPA acknowledges and appreciates commenters efforts to provide outreach and
education activities assisting your membership.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Russell E. Painter, Regulatory Affairs Manager,
McNational, Inc.
McNational, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1
1
No
Comment: We would like to thank the Environmental Protection Agency for the opportunity to
comment on the draft general permit. We hope the next VGP will continue to protect the
waterways that we live and work on and streamline the requirements of the previous permit, and
hope it will not impose unnecessary paperwork burdens on permittees, impose unnecessary
regulatory burdens that don't address real pollution risks, or set operationally or economically
infeasible discharge standards.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's support for the VGP.
Commenter Name: Cory Sause, Environmental Coordinator, Sause Bros
Commenter Affiliation: Sause Bros
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0482-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this VGP draft permit. Sause Bros
is hopeful that the new VGP will continue to protect the waterways on which we operate; we are
also hopeful that it will help streamline the requirements of the previous permit. However, Sause
Bros remains firm in its belief that the new permit should NOT impose unnecessary paperwork
burdens on permittees or set operationally or economically infeasible discharge standards.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's support for the VGP.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
120
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the EPA for the significant
outreach and education program the agency has undertaken to provide information to
stakeholders on the current and proposed VGP. The maritime industry has benefited greatly by
the scheduled hearings, public meetings and webcasts as well as from the ability to pose
questions to the VGP team via the EPA vessel discharges website. Information is power and the
efforts of EPA to provide critical information has facilitated implementation of programs put in
place by vessel owners/operators. We also appreciate the efforts of EPA during this second
iteration of the VGP to attempt to coordinate discussions with states in an attempt to make state
401 certifications as nationally consistent as possible. While we recognize that some states will
continue to impose unachievable standards regardless of facts due to political expediency, we
expect that the majority of states will benefit from the information sharing that EPA has
coordinated which will inform their decisions on requirements which they will include in their
401 certifications.
Second, to state the obvious, shipping is global and there is the strongest need for international
consistency of requirements. At the very least there is a critical need for national consistency.
While we understand the unfortunate situation created by the Clean Water Act and the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals decision, where states collectively can create a patchwork quilt of requirements
in their 401 certifications, which is binding upon EPA, we strongly urge the agency to work with
Congress in correcting this situation. Even the authors of the Clean Air Act recognized the need
for differing regulatory structures between stationary sources and mobile sources and created two
separate titles within that statute to reflect that logic. In that case, noting that motor vehicles were
likely to travel across state lines, it was readily recognized that one set of motor vehicle emission
requirements (excepting the "California car") dictated a need for a nationally consistent standard
to facilitate the continued manufacture of vehicles for the US marketplace. In addition, it was
recognized that the public needed the certainty and assurance to know that regardless of where
they drove their vehicle in the US, they would be compliant with the law. The issue is no
different for ships trading in US waters.
Third, and again an issue which cannot be remedied by the agency and will require
Congressional action, we again note that the NPDES program was never designed to be applied
to mobile sources, in spite of and with due respect to the court decision. We are hopeful that this
unfortunate situation will be remedied by pending legislation which will create a marine vessel
specific management program for all vessel discharges currently covered under the VGP and
urge EPA to engage Congress by providing the necessary facts and technical reasons that this
legislation should be enacted.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's support and notes that the Agency expects to
continue to provide outreach to stakeholders to facilitate the implementation of the final permit.
Additionally, EPA has worked with and expects to continue to work with the states to maximize
consistency among conditions that are also protective of state waters and state law. The VGP is
being issued pursuant to the CWA, which expressly preserves state authority under CWA § 510,
and additionally provides, under CWA § 401, that federally issued NPDES permits such as
121
-------
the VGP are subject to state certification as to compliance with water quality standards and
other state law requirements. Specifically, the state certification shall set forth any effluent
limitations and other limitations, and monitoring requirements necessary to assure compliance
with the applicable provisions of CWA Sections 208(e), 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 and with
appropriate requirements of State law. CWA 401(d); 40 C.F.R. 124.53(e). Pursuant to statute,
these certification conditions "shall become a condition on any Federal license or permit"
subject to the provisions of Section 401. CWA 401(d). Moreover, it is well-established that a
Federal agency does not have the ability to reject conditions in a CWA 401 certification that it
finds to be ultra vires or inconsistent with the terms of CWA 401. American Rivers, Inc.
V. FERC, 129 F.2d 99, 107, 110-11 (2d Cir. 1997). As a result, Part 6 of the VGP includes
conditions provided by the states in accordance with the CWA § 401 certification process.
Please see section 8 of the factsheet for more discussion regarding CWA § 401 certifications
and responses to comments in 401 Certification, CZMA, and State Requirements section (CRT)
of the comment response document. Finally, issues regarding Congressional legislation or
activities are beyond the scope of this permit issuance.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: Fifth, we have members that own/operate vessels on the Great Lakes ("Lakers") as
well as tug/barge units and would like to strongly support the comments submitted on the VGP
and sVGP by the American Waterways Operators and the Lake Carriers Association with regard
to these special classes of vessels.
Response: EPA notes you support comments from American Waterways Operators and Lake
Carriers Association. Please see the response to their comments.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
1
No
Comment: In addition. Ingram Barge is an active member of the American Waterways
Operators ("AWO"), the national trade association for the U.S. tugboat, towboat and barge
industry. Ingram Barge fully supports AVVO's efforts and comments on this issue, and would
encourage EPA to review closely the comments submitted by A WO in this rulemaking process.
122
-------
Response: EPA notes you support comments from American Waterways Operators. Please see
the response to their comments.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
2
No
Comment: Ingram Barge is a leading inland marine transportation company and has operations
throughout the Western Rivers and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterways. Our corporate headquarters
are in Nashville. Tennessee, and our base of operations is in Paducah. Kentucky. We operate a
fleet of over 130 towboats and over 4,000 barges.
Ingram Barge is committed to safety in our inland marine transportation operations, as we
consider our environment to be one of our most important and valuable resources. Therefore, we
conduct all of our operations and activities, at all times, in ways that protect the environment
surrounding the waterways and the waterways themselves. Ingram Barge's internal safety
initiative of "Zero Harm" focuses on managing risks so that no harm to the environment, no
injuries to associates, property damage, adverse customer impact, or community harm occur
while doing work. We set a high standard of safety in the operations of our facilities and vessels
and consider the impact to the environment in all of our business activities and decisions.
As a company that has a deep respect for the environment, as well as vibrant internal
sustainability initiatives, we commend EPA for considering changes to the VGP NPDES permit
scheme. We hope that EPA will consider our comments and further improve the planned scope
of the VGP permit revisions.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's support for the VGP and their role in the U.S.
inland waterway industry.
Commenter Name: Anonymous Public Comment
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: We generally support the comments submitted by the United Catcher Boats
(www.ucba.org). the Pacific Seafood Processors Association (www.pspafish.net) and the
Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance (www.seafa.org). We appreciate the opportunity to
submit these additional comments on the Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP). Our
123
-------
comments reflect specific concerns pertaining to commercial fishing vessels in either length
category but primarily those greater than 79 feet in length.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's support of other comments. Please see the
response to those specific comments referenced.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0497-A1
3
No
Comment: DEC applauds EPA for incorporating many technically sound provisions into the
draft VGP. DEC is pleased with the improvements made regarding grey water discharge effluent
limitations, the retention of the requirement that vessels exchange and flush ballast water for
certain vessels entering the Great Lakes, the inclusion of pathogen monitoring requirements for
vessels using ballast water treatment systems, and requirements to address "hull fouling," a
significant pathway for the introduction of AIS.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's support for these requirements.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
3
No
Comment: In addition to the above comments, we would like to concur with A WO in their
request for the Administration to strongly support efforts to reform the regulation of vessel
discharges that would effectively safeguard the marine environment while eliminating the
operational and administrative difficulties that have been caused by the grafting of a permit
program designed for fixed facilities onto mobile vessels.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's request for the Administration to support efforts
to reform the regulation; however, issues regarding Congressional legislation or activities are
beyond the scope of this permit issuance.
Commenter Name: William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commenter Affiliation: Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
124
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: With VGP 2.0, we have a great opportunity to fix the flaws that were made during
the drafting of the first iteration of the permit, which were due, in part, to the fact that EPA and
the states had a short period of time to develop and certify the permit, and both entities were new
to the regulation of vessels and their discharges. We appreciate that EPA released the draft VGP
2.0 well in advance of its effective date in order to allow for adequate time for public comment
and state certification. We hope that VGP 2.0 becomes a streamlined, common-sense regulation
that truly improves the environment by taking vessels' operational profiles into account.
Unfortunately, in its draft version, VGP 2.0 is an extremely poor fit for both towing vessels and
barges operating in the inland river system, and, even worse, does not meaningfully improve the
environment. While we appreciate that EPA attempted to include provisions in VGP 2.0 that ease
some of the more onerous burdens on vessels owners, the result is no different from VGP 1.0:
the regulation does not fit inland towing vessel and barge operations, and therefore does little to
increase environmental quality while imposing numerous, burdensome requirements on vessel
owners. In light of our industry's strong environmental and economic record, we believe that any
regulation should take into account the fact that keeping our business running efficiently is
essential for a strong economy, critical to our national security, and beneficial to the
environment.
Response: EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as well as other regulatory agencies to
ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with shipboard operations. The VGP contains
several administrative improvements, many of which are designed to improve the
implementation burden for the tug and barge industry. See EPA's Economic Analysis for the
VGP and Section 6 of the factsheet for additional discussion.
Commenter Name: William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commenter Affiliation: Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Late Comment? No
Comment: Again, CBC thanks EPA for the opportunity to comment on VGP 2.0, especially so
far in advance of its effective date. While we appreciate EPA's work to revise the permit,
unfortunately, it does not achieve the goals of a better fit to vessel operations or a reduced burden
on vessel owners and operators, both of which would enhance environmental protection. CBC
would be happy to serve as a resource to remedy these issues as EPA finalizes the permit.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's offer to serve as a resource. The Agency has
reviewed and considered all specific suggestions made by the Canal Barge Company. See
EPA's Economic Analysis for the VGP for additional discussion on burden.
125
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
1
No
Comment: The Commenters note that the Draft VGP replaces the 2008 Vessel General Permit
(2008 VGP), which expires on December 19, 2013. As you are aware, while most vessels have
already been subject to the incidental discharge requirements of the 2008 VGP, Congressional
legislation generally exempted fishing vessels from complying with these requirements for two
years, with the exception of ballast water discharges. Pub. L. 110-299 (July 31, 2008). This
moratorium was subsequently extended to December 18, 2013. Pub. L. 111-215 (July 30, 2010).
Following the expiration of the moratorium, fishing vessels may be subject to the numerous
effluent limits and requirements proposed in the Draft 2013 VGP. These new measures could
have a significant effect on the operation and maintenance of fishing vessels.
Given that fishing vessels may be subject to the numerous requirements of the Draft VGP for the
first time, the Commenters are disappointed that EPA did not provide additional time for fishing
companies to review the Draft VGP and provide their comments. As noted in our requests for an
extension, submitted February 7, 2012, the comment period coincided with the extensive
preparations, such as vessel maintenance and supply, crew and personnel issues, and other
operational and logistical activities, necessary to properly prepare our vessels for the start of their
fishing seasons. In addition, the comment period overlapped with meetings of the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council, the International Pacific Halibut Commission, and the State of
Alaska Board of Fisheries, and the holiday season. As a result, given the highly technical nature
of the Draft VGP and the length of the permit and supporting documents (totaling approximately
500 pages), fishing companies have not had adequate time to fully review and assess the impacts
of the Draft VGP. As such, these comments have been assembled without the full input of all
affected companies. We believe that our requests for an extension were reasonable given that
EPA has 22 months to revise and finalize the Draft VGP prior to its target effective date of
December 19, 2013.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0460-A2, excerpt 1
and excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
2
No
Comment: Based upon our limited review, many of our members are concerned that the Draft
VGP requirements are excessive and overly burdensome. With that said, the Commenters believe
126
-------
that there are opportunities to revise the Draft VGP to address these significant concerns while
meeting the permit's overarching water quality objectives. The Commenters are interested and
willing to work with the EPA to develop a final permit which is both feasible for industry
compliance and meets the Clean Water Act's requirements.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's concerns and has responded to your specific
suggestions throughout this document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: IV. CONCLUSION
The Commenters appreciate having the opportunity to comment on the Draft VGP. The
Commenters request that their comments and proposed revisions to the Draft VGP be addressed
within the final permit. The Commenters believe that if the EPA incorporates these changes, the
final permit will achieve equivalent environmental benefits with much less burden for fishing
vessels. The Commenters also stand ready to work with the EPA to develop and implement the
final permit.
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
23
No
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's support and willingness to work with EPA.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: UFA would first like to comment that the industry's requests submitted for a
comment period extension was reasonable and should have been granted. With 22 months before
these permits will be put in effect, insufficient publication of notice that the comment period had
begun, the holiday season, and over 350 supporting documents to the proposed permits,
additional time would have been reasonable. In addition, the heaviest concentration of
commercial fishing vessels both less than and greater than 79 feet participate in the Alaska
commercial fisheries and the only hearings held were in Chicago and Washington DC. The dates
and times of the webinar were also poorly advertised. Direct outreach to individual Alaska
commercial fishing groups appears to have been minimal at best.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment regarding the location selection of the public
hearing and public meeting. It was EPA's intention to reach as many stakeholders as possible;
127
-------
however, due to resource constraints EPA was only able to hold meetings in two locations. In
addition, EPA conducted a Webcast and two question and answer webinar sessions to provide a
diverse range of public participation options in development of the permit. These webinars were
conducted at several different times in order to allow for participation from multiple time zones.
It was EPA's intention to give the regulated community sufficient time to review the final
permit prior to the effective date of December 19, 2013. As a result, EPA was unable to extend
the comment period. EPA does note that the 75-day comment period for today's permit exceeds
the 30-day minimum prescribed by the NPDES permit regulations (40 CFR 124.10(b)); EPA
gave the additional time in recognition of the complexity of today's permitting action and to
allow a broad array of stakeholders, including industry and communities, an opportunity to
provide feedback.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
1
No
Comment: The tugboat, towboat, and barge industry is not only an integral part of the U.S.
intermodal transportation system, but also the safest and most fuel-efficient, with the smallest
carbon footprint, of any surface transportation mode. Ensuring that the federal regulatory regime
governing vessel discharges provides for a high level of environmental protection and preserves
the economic efficiency of barge transportation is thus a national imperative. Put differently,
regulations that do not adequately ensure the safe and environmentally responsible operation of
all towing vessels and barges, that impose unnecessary costs on companies operating towing
vessels and barges, or that result in the diversion of cargo to other modes of transportation are
bad not only for the industry, but for the U.S. economy and marine environment.
Response: EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as well as other regulatory agencies to
ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with shipboard operations. In addition, EPA
has conducted an economic analysis of impacts of revisions to the Vessel General Permit on all
affected vessels. This economic analysis is included in the docket for this permit. Based on this
assessment, EPA concludes that despite a minimal economic impact on all entities, including
small businesses, this permit will not, if issued have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
2
No
128
-------
Comment: This history and these organizational characteristics inform our view of the
proposed VGP. We seek to protect the marine environment in which our vessels operate, to
provide a practical regulatory framework that allows for the continued safe and efficient
movement of essential maritime commerce, and to ensure that infeasible or overly burdensome
regulations do not result in the diversion of cargo to other transportation modes that pose
increased risks to safety and the environment.
Response: EPA notes the comment and acknowledges your goal to protect the marine
environment and desire to represent your membership's interests.
Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trailers
Association (ATA)
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trailers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0509-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: The Alaska Trailers Association (ATA) requests an extension of no less than 6
months for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) public comment period relative to
both the Draft 2013 NPDES Vessel General Permit (VGP) and Draft Small Vessel General
Permit (sVGP).
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0460-A2, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trailers
Association (ATA)
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trailers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0509-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: While we can appreciate EPA wanting to get its system in place early to help
smooth the transition to a new permitting program, it has simply not been possible to fully digest
and analyze the impact of the proposed rules in the relatively short time-frame allowed. The
comment period should be extended, at minimum.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0460-A2, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trailers
Association (ATA)
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trailers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0509-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
129
-------
Late Comment?
No
Comment: The Study.
In the federal register notice, EPA references its study on commercial fishing vessel discharge. In
April 2010, ATA provided comments on this study and specific, detailed information about
conduct of the troll fishery. We noted our substantial concerns about failure of EPA's report to
provide congress and the public a complete and accurate description of vessel discharges relative
to a highly diverse industry, which spans a wide array of ocean and nearshore conditions from
Maine to Alaska.
The troll fleet was one of the few that EPA sampled for its study and troll vessels made up 10%
of those sampled, yet a number of mischaracterizations and assumptions about our fleet and its
operation were embodied in the report. Further, on a national scale, total sample size - both
number of vessels (61 total; 6 troll) and effluent samples (no more than 32 per pollutant) - was
small, as EPA itself noted. This makes the study data tenuous and the staff conclusions
speculative. The data and analysis do not adequately reflect the true conduct of our fishery, nor
the nature of our vessel discharges, nor the areas where discharges occur. These same concerns
extend to other vessels tested in Alaska and throughout the US.
The State of Alaska manages 68 fisheries under unique limited entry programs. Several other
state-run open access fisheries and a variety of federal fisheries also occur in our waters.
Roughly 20,000 people hold Alaska limited entry permits - 11,000 (77%) of them are residents
of our state and half live in rural Alaskan communities. At the time of the study, those
individuals fished a total of 9,645 vessels, which made up 14% of the 70,000 commercial fishing
vessels subject to the EPA's study. 95% (9,146) of those vessels are less than 76 feet; 87%
(8,393) are less than 50 feet.
One of the biggest problems with the EPA analysis is that one size does not fit all when you are
talking about conduct between fisheries or even within a fishery. There is a wide array of vessels,
engines, and configurations. Sampling just 61 vessels over nine regions nationwide, and claiming
that the data are reflective of the entire US fishing fleet, is wholly inadequate.
We believe that a better understanding of how commercial fishing vessels operate now - fishery
by fishery and region by region - and how they would be changed under the new permits, would
help both EPA and congress see the potentially onerous and punitive nature of these regulations
for small boat commercial fishermen. We do not believe that implementation of these permits
will help the nation secure significant health protections for humans and wildlife, or
improvements in water quality. This is particularly true in Alaska, here our fleets work large,
mostly remote areas, in some of the coldest and most dynamic seas off the US coast.
Response: Comments on the study design are beyond the scope of this permit. For a response
to comments provided to that study, please see Appendix H in the Report to Congress available
at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/reportcongress. With respect to the moratorium for commercial
fishing vessels, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0460-A2, excerpt
2.
130
-------
Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trailers
Association (ATA)
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trailers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0509-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Late Comment? No
Comment: Should congress fail to act to exempt small boat commercial fishermen prior to the
end of the current moratorium, we would urge another extension and ask that EPA engage
industry stakeholders in a more thorough discussion about the nature of our operations and ways
to achieve the goals and objectives of the CWA in a more reasonable manner.
Comment Period Too Short
As noted, the comment period was too short to adequately understand and comment on the two
permits presented. We request an extension. Additionally, we object to the fact that no hearing
was held in Alaska, despite the fact that nearly 15% of the affected vessels fish off our coastline.
'Webinars' are not yet user friendly for most Alaskans.
Response: EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders, including the fishing community, as
well as other regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with
shipboard operations. With respect to inclusion of commercial fishing vessels in the VGP,
please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0460-A2, excerpt 2. With respect
to the location of the public hearings and a request for an extension of the comment period,
please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
1
No
Comment: Canada commends the EPA for valuing compatibility and consistency with
established international approaches to marine safety and environmental protection. As shipping
is a global business and the world fleet carries North America's trade, the most effective
protection or our shared waters will be achieved when countries around the world implement
compatible rules.
Nevertheless, Canada would like to express specific concerns with certain aspects of the draft
permit's implementation, notably ballast water management system (BWMS) approval,
installation timelines and requirements for Great Lakes vessels. These concerns are addressed in
detail in the attached annex, along with responses to certain specific questions posed by the EP A
in the draft permit and fact sheet. While Canada appreciates the EPA's approach to transiting
131
-------
ships, this annex outlines Canada's continuing concerns relating to state requirements for vessels
on such voyages,
Response: EPA acknowledges comments and the Agency has responded to each throughout
this document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Director, Environment &
Sustainability, Maerks Line North America Liner
Operations
Maersk Line
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0513-A1
1
No
Comment: Maersk Line is a member of the World Shipping Council (WSC) and the Shipping
Federation of Canada (SFC). Maersk Line Limited is a member of the Chamber of Shipping of
America. These entities are submitting well-researched and detailed comments in separate
documents. We have had input to and reviewed those documents and fully support their
comments. In addition to those comments, we would like to highlight the points below:
1. We appreciate the clear communications and opportunities for questions and answers
provided by EPA staff on this program. This is particularly helpful on the VGP due to its
complexity and significant cost and impacts on the industry.
2. Several provisions are clear improvements over the current VGP. The addition of
electronic record keeping and reporting is welcome, as is the removal of the quarterly
inspection requirement. We also appreciate the recognition that not discharging is a
method of compliance.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's support for the permit and EPA's communication
of permit details.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gregg A. Thauvette, Vice President, Operations, The Great
Lakes Towing Company and Great Lakes Shipyard
The Great Lakes Towing Company and Great Lakes
Shipyard
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0520-A1
6
No
Comment: The Great Lakes Group is a strong supporter of the Environmental Protection
Agency and its endeavors to improve the safety, security, and environmentalism of their
regulations and the industries that are impacted by them. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to
provide our comments to the docket. We hope you take our suggestions into account. We are
132
-------
also in full support of any submissions provided by the American Waterway Operators and hope
you take those into consideration as well. Feel free to contact me with any further questions,
comments, or concerns regarding the above comments or anything else that may be deemed
relevant. I can be reached at 216-621-4854, ext. 138.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter support of the agency and notes that EPA's
response to the commenter and to comments provided by American Waterway Operators are
provided specifically for each of those comments throughout this document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William R. Barr, Vice President Safety & Compliance,
Amherst Madison, Inc.
Amherst Madison, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0524-A1
1
No
Comment: VGP came about as an extension of the Clean Water Act NPDES system that was
designed for land based facilities. Applying it to vessels makes its application to vessels engaged
in interstate commerce a poor fit as different states can establish Section 40 I certification
processes that can impede interstate commerce. As I have read the first edition of the VGP it
appears to have been largely written for application on larger ocean going freighters and
passenger vessels rather than the smaller vessels operated on our nations inland waterways. We
hope VGP2 will neither impose unnecessary paperwork burdens on permitees nor set
operationally or economically unfeasible discharge standards.
Response: EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as well as other regulatory agencies to
ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with shipboard operations. In addition, EPA
has conducted an economic analysis of impacts of revisions to the Vessel General Permit on all
affected vessels. This economic analysis is included in the docket for this permit (US EPA,
2012a).
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: LCA appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA's draft of the next iteration of
the Vessel General Permit ("VGP") and wishes to emphasize that it shares the EPA's desire that
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels in no way harm the environment. Our
members have always taken appropriate steps to minimize vessel discharges, and when an
accident happens or a system malfunctions, they implement appropriate corrective measures as
quickly as possible.
133
-------
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's support for environmental protection.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Lake Carriers Association
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
10
No
Comment: Comments Specific to Various Discharges
Introductory Statement
As EPA is aware, this iteration of the VGP, like its predecessor, is governed by the Clean Water
Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551
et seq. These laws require that the final permit proposal be supported by the facts in the record,
and that the final permit proposal not be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). EPA's decisions must be
supported by "substantial evidence" in the record. Association of Data Processing v. Bd. of
Governors, 745 F.2d 677, 683 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See Richardson v. Perales,
402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).
While EPA may be given some deference on its scientific judgments, New York v. EPA, 852
F.2d 574, 580 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert, denied, 489 U.S. 1065 (1989), it is nevertheless obligated to
ensure that the judgments are well reasoned and based on articulated facts in the record. See,
e.g., American Trucking Associations v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027, 1054-55 (D.C. Cir. 1999), reh'g
granted in part and denied in part, 195 F.3d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1999), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on
other grounds, Whitman v. Am. Trucking Assn's, 531 U.S. 457 (2001) (EPA's decision to
regulate coarse particulate matter (PM) indirectly, using indicator of PM10, was arbitrary and
capricious; administrative convenience of using PM10 cannot justify using an indicator poorly
matched to the relevant pollution agent); Tex Tin Corp. v. EPA, 992 F.2d 353, 354-55 (D.C. Cir.
1993) (EPA's reliance upon generic studies in face of conflicting detailed and specific scientific
evidence held arbitrary and capricious). A court will carefully "review the record to ascertain
that the agency has made a reasoned decision based on 'reasonable extrapolations from some
reliable evidence,"' Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 902 F.2d 962, 968 (D.C. Cir.
1990), to ensure that the agency has examined "the relevant data and articulate[d] a satisfactory
explanation for its action including a 'rational connection between the facts found and the choice
made.'" Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)
(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).
It is also crucially important that the EPA provide reasoned and logical explanations for its
choices, and not merely conclusory statements. See, e.g., Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 28 F.3d
1259, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (unsupported and conclusory statement regarding scientific model
"added nothing to the agency's defense of its thesis except perhaps the implication that it was
committed to its position regardless of any facts to the contrary"). EPA should, likewise, not
infer facts not in the record. See National Gypsum Co. v. EPA, 968 F.2d 40, 43-44 (D.C. Cir.
1992) (agency cannot infer "facts" not in the record); Natural Resources Defense Council v.
134
-------
EPA, 859 F.2d 156, 210 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (agency actions based upon speculation are arbitrary
and capricious).
EPA must also adequately respond to relevant and significant public comments that LCA and
others are providing. See Home Box Office, Inc. v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9, 35 & n.58 (D.C. Cir.), cert,
denied, 434 U.S. 829 (1977); United States Satellite Broad. Co. v. FCC, 740 F.2d 1177, 1188
(D.C. Cir. 1984) (agency must respond in reasoned manner to significant comments received).
"For an agency's decision-making to be rational, it must respond to significant points raised
during the public comment period." Allied Local & Regional Mfrs. Caucus v. EPA, 215 F.3d 61,
80 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert, denied, 532 U.S. 1018 (2001); accord Louisiana Federal Land Bank
Ass'n v. Farm Credit Admin., 336 F.3d 1075, 1079 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (remanding rule to agency
where agency failed to address substantive comments); National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d
416, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (remanding standards based, in part, on EPA's failure to respond to
significant comments). "[T]he opportunity to comment is meaningless unless the agency
responds to significant points raised by the public. A response is also mandated by Overton Park,
which requires a reviewing court to assure itself that all relevant factors have been considered by
the agency." Home Box Office, 567 F.2d at 35-36 (emphasis added); see also State Farm, 463
U.S. at 43 (an agency decision is arbitrary if the agency "failed to consider an important aspect
of the problem").
Response: EPA notes that the comment provides a detailed explanation of what the commenter
perceives to be the Agency's obligations under various statutory provisions to provide an
adequate record for the decisions made in the permit. In keeping with the general nature of the
comment, EPA will note that it believes the extensive record for the VGP, which includes
hundreds of supporting documents including studies conducted by the National Academy of
Sciences National Resource Council and EPA's Science Advisory Board, records of public
meetings and listening sessions, and multiple technical development documents developed
specifically for this permit issuance, provides reasoned and logical explanations for the choices
made in the permit and constitutes "substantial evidence." In sum, EPA reviewed tens of
thousands of pages of technical, legal, and policy documents and directly authored over a
thousand pages of documents, including the permits and supporting documentation. EPA has
ensured these well reasoned and factual explanations for the Agency's judgments are available
as part of the public record. As such, information used in the development of the VGP is
available in the docket for this permit or cited in the VGP factsheet.
Regarding the need to provide responses to relevant and significant public comments, please see
the remainder of the comment response document for EPA's responses to the comments
received during the public comment period for the VGP. EPA has considered all comments
before finalization of today's permit.
Commenter Name: Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
135
-------
Late Comment? No
Comment: Thank you, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for putting considerable
quality effort into the Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 2013 Vessel
General Permit (VGP2), The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin DNR)
appreciates the opportunity to submit formal written comments. Please accept these comments to
be incorporated into the record in addition to the oral comments Susan Sylvester, Water Quality
Bureau Director, made at the public meeting on January 23, 2012, held in Chicago, Illinois.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's support and ongoing cooperation and feedback
from the State.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michelle Bonnett, Director, Division of Water, Water
Quality Section, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0534- A2
1
No
Comment: The State of Alaska recognizes that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has expended a great deal of time and effort in order to develop a permit that both protects our
environment and imposes the least burden on the vessel owner and operators who will be subject
to the permit. We extend our appreciation of the EPA's embarking on this complicated task, as
well as EPA's responsiveness to the State of Alaska's previous comments to the 2008 Vessel
General Permit (VGP).
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's support.
Commenter Name: Nick Schroeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes
Environmental Law Center
Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Environmental Law Center
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0535-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: For the reasons set forth below, we request that EPA only approve this permit after
ensuring that all safety measures and best management practices are in place to protect the
fragile U.S. fresh water ecosystems, and specifically the highly sensitive waters of the Great
Lakes. Public notice for the Draft Permit states that written comments will be accepted on or
before February 21, 2012. Therefore, these comments are timely submitted.
Response: Specific concerns raised in the commenter's letter are addressed elsewhere in this
136
-------
response to comment document and EPA notes your comments were timely.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A2
3
No
Comment: Michigan also recognizes the potential environmental impacts that can result from
other discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels proposed for coverage under the
draft VGP2 and draft sVGP and the importance of effectively regulating these other discharge
types in the VGP2 and sVGP.
Michigan supports a majority of the conditions set forth in the VGP2 and sVGP with several key
exceptions. The MDEQ, WRD's specific comments relative to the draft VGP2 and draft sVGP
are presented below for consideration by the USEPA.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's support for much of the permit. Specific concerns
raised in the commenter's letter are addressed elsewhere in this response to comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jeffrey E. Parker, Vice President, Operations, Allied
Transportation Company
Allied Transportation Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0539-A2
1
No
Comment: All of our tugboats and barges are impacted by this rule making. We have been
complying with the current Vessel General Permit (VGP) and it has created significant
administrative burdens on our vessel crews. We welcome any relief that the new permit can grant
in this regard.
Response: EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as well as other regulatory agencies to
ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with shipboard operations. In addition, EPA
has conducted an economic analysis of impacts of revisions to the Vessel General Permit on all
affected vessels. This economic analysis is included in the docket for this permit.
Commenter Name: Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadians)
Commenter Affiliation: Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadians)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2
137
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 21
Late Comment? No
Comment: Closing Remarks
The CSA remains committed to smart and pragmatic ballast water regulations that recognize
both the importance of the results achieved and the challenges with achieving them. The
regulatory framework must respect the necessity of ship owners to make considerable
investments to achieve compliance, and not create a framework that is unachievable or distorts
commercial competition. The EPA must recognize and address the need to provide a consistent,
achievable and bi-national regulatory framework in order to promote industry investment. The
CSA encourages the EPA to continue to engage industry in a collaborative manner in order to
realize the best possible solution and would welcome further opportunities to engage the EPA.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's concern and the Agency will continue to work
with relevant stakeholders as well as other regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the
VGP is compatible with shipboard operations.
Commenter Name: Steven A. Fisher, Executive Director, American Great
Lakes Ports Association
Commenter Affiliation: American Great Lakes Ports Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0545-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: The American Great Lakes Ports Association represents the public port authorities
on the U.S. side of the Great Lakes. Each of our member port agencies is a division of state or
local government, or an independent agency created by state statute. As a group, and
individually, Great Lakes ports work to foster maritime commerce in our region and economic
development in their communities. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) draft NPDES Vessel General Permit (VGP). Once
finalized, this permit will replace the current VGP, which expires on December 19, 2013.
While EPA's draft VGP does not seek to regulate ports and marine terminals, it does impact the
vessel operators who serve our communities. These transportation companies engage in the
movement of freight and play a critical role in the economies of Great Lakes cities, states, and
the region as a whole. In 2010, our organization partnered with a number of other stakeholders to
produce the first comprehensive economic impact analysis of the entire bi-national Great Lakes -
Seaway navigation system. The study concluded that Great Lakes navigation supports more than
227,000 jobs in the United States and Canada, generating $33.5 billion in business revenue, and
contributing $4.5 billion in federal, state/provincial and local taxes. We have attached a copy of
the full study and ask that it be included in the docket as supporting material establishing a
record of the economic contribution of the Great Lakes maritime industry.
Response: EPA acknowledges the study provided by the commenter, which has been included
in the record for the permit and can be found in the docket as an attachment to the comments.
138
-------
Commenter Name: Abigail Blodgett, Legal Fellow, San Francisco Baykeeper
Commenter Affiliation: San Francisco Baykeeper
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0549-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Baykeeper appreciates the United States ("US") Environmental Protection Agency's
("EPA") efforts to develop a permit for vessel discharges that will minimize the transfer of
nonnative species into waters of the US. In particular, we commend the EPA for including clear
definitions of what constitutes a permit violation throughout the VGP (Section 1.4), requiring
vessel discharges to submit a Notice of Intent ("NOI") to obtain coverage under the VGP
(Section 1.5.1), and requiring permittees to submit some reports and permit documents
electronically (Section 1.14). However, Baykeeper believes that the permit could be more
protective of water quality in several regards. Please address the following concerns to ensure
that the VGP reduces the presence of invasive species in the San Francisco Bay and other US
waters. In addition to the comments made in this letter, Baykeeper also supports the comments
submitted by the Alliance for the Great Lakes.
Response: Specific concerns raised in the commenter's letter are addressed elsewhere in this
response to comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A2
1
No
Comment: We would first like to thank the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
the opportunity to comment on the proposed Draft 2013 Vessel General Permit (hereinafter
referred to as VGP 2013). We further applaud the EPA for starting this process well before the
termination of the original VGP. This will allow the regulated industries' collective input to be
carefully scrutinized to ensure this second iteration of the VGP is protective of the maritime
environment while still encouraging the continued viability of the most environmentally friendly
mode of transportation for the goods and materials which fuel the economies of North America.
Primary Concerns
CSL International has identified 3 main issues of concern with the Draft 2013 Vessel General
Permit which we believe must be resolved prior to the release of the Final Vessel General
Permit: coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard on their Final Rule on Ballast Water; uncertainty
regarding type approval of ballast water management systems; and the implementation timeline.
We have outlined our concerns with these three areas below, followed by our specific concerns
regarding the various individual sections of the VGP 2013.
139
-------
Response: Specific concerns raised in the commenter's letter are addressed elsewhere in this
response to comment document.
Commenter Name: Terence F. Bowles, President and CEO, The St. Lawrence
Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC)
Commenter Affiliation: The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0555-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: We are also an active member of the Chamber of Marine Commerce (CMC) that has
prepared and submitted a comprehensive paper on the above-noted subject. A copy is attached
for easy reference. The positions outlined in its submission accurately describe the Seaway's
view of these matters and, as such, we are in complete agreement with its content.
In closing, we ask that full consideration be given to the issues raised in the CMC document as
.they are vital to the continued sustainability of marine transportation through the St. Lawrence
Seaway.
Response: Specific concerns raised in the commenter's letter are addressed elsewhere in this
response to comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Randy Trapp, Safety, Security Manager, Dann Ocean
Towing, Inc.
Dann Ocean Towing, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0558-A1
1
No
Comment: We would like to thank the EPA for this opportunity to comment on the subject
draft permit. We are in hopes that the permit will provide protection for the waterways and
environment on which we work and live. We are also in hopes that the permit will streamline the
requirements from the previous permit and will reduce the burdensome paperwork required of
the vessel owners/operators. Further, we look forward to a draft 2013 permit which will not set
operationally or economically infeasible discharge standards.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0539-A2, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Marc Gagnon, Director, Government Affairs & Regulatory
Compliance, Fednav Limited
Commenter Affiliation: Fednav Limited
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0559-A2
140
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Fednav Limited is writing with respect to the draft of the second National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal
Operation of a Vessel. A significant proportion of our ships calls at US ports every year,
including transits from overseas to the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Consequently, changes in the next permit or new permitting requirements are of tremendous
importance to us.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's interest in the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marc Gagnon, Director, Government Affairs & Regulatory
Compliance, Fednav Limited
Fednav Limited
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0559-A2
2
No
Comment: Fednav is a member of the Shipping Federation of Canada, an organisation
representing the views of international marine carriers in Canada, and we hereby endorse the
extensive comments that the Federation provided.
We would like to add to these comments by bringing the attention of the EPA to four specific
aspects of this draft permit. Incidental discharges from vessels are a daily responsibility for the
crew of the vessels we operate and we would like to stress the importance of a common
understanding of the effects of the rules contained in this draft permit. Only with such a clear
understanding from crews, owners, operators and authorities will we protect the environment and
ensure the safety of crews. We respectfully submit to the EPA the following comments, hoping
that they will be taken into consideration in the final writing of this permit.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment regarding the importance of a common
understanding of the effects of the permit. EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as well
as other regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with shipboard
operations. EPA will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure the requirements of the final
permit are clearly implementable. Specific concerns raised in the commenter's letter are
addressed elsewhere in this response to comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and
Governmental Affairs, Foss Maritime Company
Foss Maritime Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0560-A2
9
No
141
-------
Comment: Foss has been and will continue to be supportive of the EPA's efforts to protect and
improve our nation's water quality. Please accept these comments as part of a constructive effort
to produce a meaningful and effective final rule. Thank you again for the opportunity to
comment and we would be pleased to answer any questions or provide further information.
Response: Specific concerns raised in your letter are addressed elsewhere in this response to
comment document.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0564-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: A strong federal program to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species
into the U.S. and Great Lakes is urgently needed. We believe the proposed changes to the EPA's
Vessel General Permit are in the right direction, but fall short of protecting the country's natural
resources, communities and economies.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment, but notes we believe the permit limits protect
water quality while, under the technology-based limits under the permit, not causing undue
economic burden on any one community or industry sector.
Commenter Name: P. and B. Noeldner
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0617-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: IT'S TIME TO GROW UP AND QUIT PRETENDING WE CAN MESS UP OUR
WORLD AS LONG AS SOMEBODY IS MAKING A BIT MORE MONEY. THERE HAVE
TO BE STRONG RULES BECAUSE NO AMOUNT OF MONEY CAN AFFORD TO
REPLACE THINGS NOT YET SPOILED LIKE CLEAN WATER, WETLANDS AND
LAKES. WE OWN 'EM AND NOBODY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WRECK THEM.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment.
Commenter Name: Patrick Stant, President, Marmac, LLC, McDonough
Marine Service
Commenter Affiliation: Marmac, LLC., McDonough Marine Service
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0627-A2
142
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft permit for VGP. We agree
there are many changes that should be made to the existing permit requirements to make the
regulation more compatible with practical maritime operations that will not impede commerce.
Response: EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as well as other regulatory agencies to
ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with shipboard operations.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Pamela Parker, Vessel Discharges, Division of Water
Quality Management, Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (MEDEP)
Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0628-A2
1
No
Comment: In general, the MEDEP finds that the draft VGP is thorough and applies appropriate
standards and reporting requirements for the discharges identified. However, we note the
following issues: When referring to the Clean Water Act, it is helpful to provide the U.S. Code
citation in addition to the Clean Water Act section. We recognize that the US Code citations can
be found in the Fact Sheet but assert the permit itself should contain the information.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter about how to cite to the Clean Water Act; the agency
believes the citation method used it the permit is sufficient for identifying the appropriate CWA
citations.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tim Sizemore, Manager Waterway Regulatory Programs,
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0631-A2
1
No
Comment: American Electric Power River Operations (AEP) thanks the USEPA for the
opportunity to comment on the 2013 Draft NPDES Vessel General Permit (VGP) and small
Vessel General Permit (sVGP). AEP hopes the next VGP's will both protect the waterways that
we live and work on and streamline the requirements of the previous permit while not setting
operationally and economically infeasible discharge standards. AEP shares the Agency's desire
to improve the efficiency of the permits' administrative requirements and supports that the next
VGP's will not impose unnecessary paperwork burdens on permittees.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's desires for permit protections and appropriate
143
-------
burdens. See EPA's Economic Analysis for the VGP for additional discussion on burden.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tim Sizemore, Manager Waterway Regulatory Programs,
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0631-A2
3
No
Comment: AEP River Operations is a member of the American Waterway Operators (AWO)
and supports and incorporates herein the comments submitted by AWO.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's support for AWO's comments. Specific concerns
raised in the letter submitted by AWO are addressed elsewhere in this response to comment
document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
2
No
Comment: California works cooperatively with the United States Coast Guard and the EPA in
order to advance a consistent, strong, enforceable, funded, national program that pushes
technology and the science of vessel vector management forward, while ensuring that the state's
existing, world-leading programs be allowed to continue.
Based upon the MISP's extensive experience in the management and regulation of vessel vectors.
Staff offers the following general and specific comments on the proposed 2013 VGP.
General Comments
MISP staff believes that the proposed 2013 VGP is deficient in two central areas:
1) The absence of protective, water quality-based performance standards for living organisms in
ballast water discharges: and 2) The lack of federal management of vessel bio toil ling. These
items are expanded upon below.
Response: Specific concerns raised in your letter are addressed elsewhere in this response to
comment document.
144
-------
Commenter Name:
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
20
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: In summary, the MISP has some serious concerns about the ability of the draft 2013
NPDES VGP to manage vessel vector discharges that may contribute to NIS release in US
waters. Most significantly, this permit does little to push the development of new and innovative
strategies and technologies to successfully eliminate the threat of species introductions via ballast
water or vessel biofouling into U.S. waters. MISP staff believes that a combination of strong,
water-quality based standards for limits on the numbers of living organisms in discharged ballast
water, and tough management strategies to combat vessel biofouling would significantly enhance
the power of the Vessel General Permit to protect the Nation's waterways from the onslaught of
species introductions.
Response: EPA generally disagrees with commenter's concern that the permit does little to
push the development of new and innovative strategies and technologies to successfully
eliminate the threat of species introductions via ballast water or vessel biofouling. See Section
4.4.3 of the VGP Fact Sheet for discussion of the ballast water treatment limits, including
Section 4.4.3.5, which discusses the technology-based numeric limits and ballast water
monitoring included in today's VGP. Those limits are contained within Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP.
Additionally, see Section 4.4.4 and 4.4.23 of the VGP Fact Sheet and Parts 2.2.4 and 2.2.23 of
the permit which contain technology based requirements for anti-foulant hull coatings and hull
fouling management requirements. Also, see section 4.4.3.9 of the factsheet for a discussion of
water quality based effluent limits for ballast water. The Agency notes that based in part on this
comment, EPA did expand upon hull fouling management options in Part 2.2.23 of the permit,
specifically to add a provision noting that management measures to minimize the transport of
attached living organisms include selecting an appropriate anti-foulant management system and
maintaining that system, in water inspection, cleaning, and maintenance of hulls, and thorough
hull and other niche area cleaning when a vessel is in drydock.
Commenter Name: Sarah Branch, Director, Government Relations, Offshore
Comment: Additionally, OMSA offers the following recommendations improvement -
1) From a housekeeping perspective, we request that the numbering system for sections of the
VGP be reorganized. When discussing the VGP, referring to "Section 2.2.3.5.1.1.4.1" is
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0760-A1
4
No
145
-------
extremely onerous and makes it more difficult for the vessel industry to learn the VGP in detail
as we should.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's request to renumber the permit; however, the
Agency has opted to retain such numbering as a way to more clearly link specific requirements
with permit citations.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section
Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology (ECY)
Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECY)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0794- A2
3
Yes
Comment: The VGP is becoming a valuable tool for regulating a difficult set of polluters. We
wish you luck and thank you for our opportunity to help by commenting on the proposed permit.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's support.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: We are submitting the previous comments from the United Fishermen of Alaska and
the Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance along with our own comments. The comments from
both of these organizations capture most of our concerns. In your initial proposed permitting
structure, we do not see how the commercial fishing fleet can comply with your permitting
requirements. The following areas are particularly troubling to us.
Response: Specific concerns raised in the commenter's letter are addressed elsewhere in this
response to comment document. Please also see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0460-A2, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? Yes
146
-------
Comment: Your proposed rules generally do not reflect a knowledge of the stability needs and
basic design understanding of a fishing vessel, fail to recognize the limitations of coastal remote
areas where fish are delivered, and do not identify an ecological problem that would result in
such an onerous list of requirements. What is the problem you are trying to resolve with all these
requirements? Has there been evidence of some problem we in the industry are unaware of? It
would be helpful to understand what the permit restrictions are intended to achieve.
Response: EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders, including the fishing community, as
well as other regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with
shipboard operations consistent with the Agencies obligations under the Clean Water Act and
the NPDES regulations. With respect to permit requirements for commercial fishing vessels,
please also see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-046Q-A2, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: UFA will be commenting on both the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and small
Vessel General Permit (sVGP), fact sheets, and the Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold Cleaning
Wastewater Discharge study.
UFA would first like to comment that the industry's requests submitted for a Comment period
extension was reasonable and should have been granted. With 22 month before these permits
will be put in effect; insufficienty publication of notice that the Comment period had begun, the
holiday season and over 350 supporting documents to the proposed permits, additional time
would have been reasonable, In addition, the heaviest concentration of commercial
fishing vessels both less than and greater than 79 feet participate in the Alaska commercial
fisheries and the only hearings held were in Chicago and Washington DC. The dates and times of
the webinar were also poorly advertised. Direct outreach to individual Alaska commercial
fishing groups appears to have been minimal at best.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-05Q5-A1, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 28
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance (SEAFA) is a multi-gear, multi-species
nonprofit commercial fishing organization representing our membership. Our membership has
vessels that range in size from skiffs up to 80 feet. They fish in gillnet, setnet, troll, seine, pot,
147
-------
and longline fisheries and most are combination vessels participating in multiple fisheries. While
SEAFA comments will be centered on the sVGP permit many of the issue are also applicable to
the VGP permit and we would incorporate by reference the United Fishermen of Alaska
comments on the draft sVGP and VGP permits.
SEAFA submitted comments dated April 6, 2010 on the draft EPA EPA's Report to Congress on
the Study of Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and
Other Non-Recreational Vessels Less than 79 Feet (USEPA, 2010) and it appears that there was
not much consideration given to the comments submitted as we see many of the same errors in
the fact sheet and supporting documentation that we provided comments and data on. This in
turn provides for error in the estimation of the effect of these vessels.
Upon review of the sVGP and VGP it becomes apparent that a better choice would have been to
make a permit strictly for the commercial fishing industry with the possibility of implementing a
few additional requirements for the larger vessels of the fleet. See original comment for attached
sVGP comment.
Response: EPA issued the VGP (i.e., a general permit) to cover the majority of vessel types
and sizes required to obtain NPDES permits for their discharges; however, cases may arise
where individual permits are appropriate for certain vessels. Any vessel owner/operator that
believes the general permit does not adequately address their specific needs may request to be
excluded from the general permit and apply for an individual permit.
Comments on the Report to Congress are beyond the scope of this permit. For a response to
comments provided to that study, please see Appendix H in the Report to Congress available at
www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/reportcongress.
With respect to permit requirements for commercial fishing vessels, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-046Q-A2, excerpt 2.
2. Eligible Vessels and Discharges
Commenter Name: Public Hearing Oral Comments by AWO's Jennifer
Carpenter. January 11, 2012
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: First, we recommend that unmanned, non-self-propelled barges be allowed to obtain
permit coverage under the Small Vessel General Permit rather than the VGP, if the barge owner
or operator so chooses.
While the vast majority of inland and coastal barges are longer than 79 feet, their discharge
characteristics have far more in common with the small vessels that will be covered by the SVGP
148
-------
than with the other classes of vessels subject to the VGP. Indeed, most unmanned barges produce
fewer effluent streams, and smaller volumes of effluent, than the small self-propelled vessels for
which the SVGP was designed. For example, of the 27 discharge categories that would be
covered by the 2013 VGP, hopper barges - which are essentially floating steel boxes for carrying
dry bulk cargoes - typically discharge only deck runoff, occasional water pumped from void
spaces below deck, and, very occasionally, ballast water. Tank barges typically produce deck
runoff and, in some cases, ballast water. Given the small number of discharge streams and the
small volume of effluent produced by barges, there is no environmental benefit to subjecting
barges to the more complex permit requirements contained in the VGP rather than the more
streamlined approach proposed in the SVGP.
Response: The Agency received a number of comments and reasons for why unmanned, non-
self propelled barges should be allowed to obtain permit coverage under the sVGP; however,
the Agency has not adopted this suggestion as part of the issuance of the VGP and barges
remain eligible for coverage under the VGP. Importantly, sVGP will be finalized at a later date
than the VGP. EPA notes that, as discussed elsewhere in this response to comments document,
vessel operators only have to meet the discharge requirements applicable to those discharges
which they have on their vessel. If a hopper barge only has a few discharge types, the vessel
owner/operator need only meet the requirements applicable to those discharges. The VGP does
contain a number of provisions specific to unmanned, unpowered barges that the Agency
believes attempts to addresses commenter's concerns and will improve efficiency and reduce
the burden on owner/operators (as detailed in the Economic Analysis prepared for this permit
and available in the administrative record) while still providing necessary environmental
protection. These include:
Section 2.2.3.5.3.2: Unmanned, unpowered barges such as hopper barges are not required to
meet the ballast water management measures of Part 2.2.3.5.
Section 4.2: Owners/operators of unmanned, unpowered barges need not maintain records for
subparts 2 [voyage log], 5 [analytical monitoring], 9 [additional maintenance and discharge
information] and 11 [record of training] above.
Section 4.4.2: Operators of unmanned, unpowered barges may submit a single annual report
(referred to as the Combined Annual Report) for multiple barges.
In addition to these sections of the VGP directed at barges in particular, the VGP also allows for
electronic recordkeeping and reduces the requirements for routine visual inspections when a
vessel is "fleeted." These changes should significantly improve efficiency for the barge
industry.
EPA notes that the cutoff length for coverage under the sVGP, 79 feet, is consistent with S.3298
(P.L. 110-299), which was signed into law on July 31, 2008. This law generally placed a
temporary moratorium on NPDES permitting requirements, except for ballast water, for
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels of less than 79 feet and commercial
fishing vessels (as defined in 46 USC 2101) of any size.
149
-------
Commenter Name: Public Hearing Oral Comments by AWO's Jennifer
Carpenter. January 11, 2012
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: There are also significant operational reasons why the SVGP is a better fit for
unmanned barges. Especially in the inland barge industry, a single company may own hundreds
or even thousands of barges, which may be chartered to multiple operators over relatively short
spans of time. The VGP requirements for weekly visual inspections and extensive recordkeeping
and reporting impose significant administrative and financial burdens on barge owners and
custodians (such as towers and fleeters) with little or no corresponding environmental benefit.
EPA could significantly reduce the economic impact and paperwork burdens associated with the
proposed permits, without undermining their environmental objectives, by allowing unmanned
barges to obtain coverage under the SVGP rather than the VGP.
Response: Please see the reponse to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Public Meeting Oral Comment by Illinois Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0452
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: The VPG 2.0 doesn't help the situation. VGP 2.0's economic analysis states that
barges make up 66% of all vessels covered by the permit. Domestically that number is a
whopping 80%. It is time the EPA recognizes the vast majority of vessels that have to comply
with this regulation are essentially large boxes which rely on towing vessels for movement, and
tailor the regulation accordingly. Therefore we strongly recommend that unmanned, unpowered
barges have the option of obtaining permit coverage under the Small Vessel General Permit or
the SVGP. The SVGP's Best Management Practices approach and its streamlined inspection and
reporting requirements make more sense for barges, in light of their limited discharges and the
fact that they frequently move in and out of different operators' care and custody.
Response: Please see the reponse to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Oral Comments from Canal Barge Company's Northern
Operation at the January 23, 2012 Public Meeting
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0469
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
150
-------
Comment: We believe that the Vessel General Permit is an extremely poor fit for both towing
vessels and barges operating in the inland river system, and, even worse, does not meaningfully
improve the environment. While EPA attempted to include provisions in VGP 2.0 that ease some
of the more onerous burdens on vessels owners, the result is still the same: the regulation does
not fit inland towing vessel and barge operations, and therefore does nothing to increase
environmental quality while imposing numerous, burdensome requirements on vessel owners.
Response: The commenter does not explain the basis for view that the VGP "does not fit"
inland towing vessels and barges. However, the general concern expressed is addressed by
comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0444, Excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Adam Binsfeld, Brennan Marine Inc.
Brennan Marine Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0484-A1
1
No
Comment: While all of Brennan's boats would be covered by the sVGP, all forty-three of our
barges need coverage under the VGP. The length of these barges, ranging from 110' to 200',
requires us to comply with the VGP, however the only applicable discharge covered under the
VGP is deck runoff. When the barges are in our fleet, we inspect them once per voyage and at
least once per week. We believe the sVGP "PARI" is a better-suited tool for documenting
unmanned, non-ballasting barges, as the record keeping requirement. As a member of the AWO
Responsible Carrier Program (RCP), we utilize "best management practices" on all regulations
and internal policies and we feel that is a better approach to these types of barges.
Response: Please see the reponse to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
5
No
Comment: Unmanned, Unpowered Barges and Coverage under the SVGP.
Ingram Barge would urge that EPA allow unmanned, unpowered barges to obtain permit
coverage under the Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP), rather than the VGP, if the owner or
the operator of the barge elects to do so. While most of the barges are over 79 feet in length, their
discharge characteristics are more in common with the vessels covered by the sVGP than the
VGP. Most unmanned barges produce fewer volumes of effluent, with fewer effluent streams,
than the vessels covered by the sVGP. Additionally, volumes of deck runoff are dependent on
151
-------
precipitation and as decks of barges are not washed, there would not be a runoff from any
chemicals.
Therefore, given the small number of discharge streams and the limited quantity of effluent
produced by the barges, there is a limited environmental reason to subject barge owners and
operators to the more complex permit requirements of the VGP. Instead, the streamlined
approach of the sVGP would address the environmental concerns and provide sufficient best
management practices. In particular, Ingram Barge, as an owner of 4,000 barges would see a
great reduction in the recordkeeping and reporting burden imposed by the VGP if the barges
were included under the sVGP, with the same benefit to the environment. We would strongly
urge the EPA to allow for barges to comply with the sVGP instead of the VGP if the owner or
operator elects to do so.
Response: Please see the reponse to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Roger Harris, Senior Vice President - Operations,
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0488-A1
1
No
Comment: The Draft 2013 VGP.
We urge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to improve the draft 2013 VGP and Small
Vessel General Permit (sVGP) by easing the operational and administrative burdens on towboat
and barge operators like our company.
First, we should be able to obtain permit coverage under the sVGP, instead of the VGP, for our
unmanned tank barges. Our barges are interchangeable and are regularly swapped from one
towboat to another or remain in the care of third party custodians, such as fleeting operators or at
loading or discharge docks. While this flexibility contributes to the efficiencies of our industry, it
makes compliance with the inspection and recordkeeping requirements of the VGP an
operational and administrative nightmare. Also, our barges do not utilize ballast water, so
VGP-authorized discharges are generally limited to rain and wash water runoff. Accordingly,
given the interchangeable nature of our unmanned barges and the limited nature of our barge
discharges, we believe that our unmanned barges should be subject to the requirements of the
sVGP instead of the VGP, or, in the alternative, a sVGP approach should be added into the VGP
for unmanned barges. Such a sVGP approach would incorporate best management practices,
quarterly visual inspection requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting via the PARI form.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, Excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Christian LaPense, Dann Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation: Dann Marine Towing
152
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
5
No
Comment: Allow Unmanned, Unpowered Barges to Obtain Coverage under the SVGP.
Dann Marine Towing would like to see EPA allow unmanned, non-self-propelled barges to
obtain permit coverage under the Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP), rather than the VGP, if
the barge owner or operator so chooses. While the vast majority of inland and coastal barges are
longer than 79 feet, their discharge characteristics have far more in common with the small
vessels that will be covered by the sVGP than with the other classes of vessels subject to the
VGP. Indeed, most unmanned barges produce fewer effluent streams, and smaller volumes of
effluent, than the small self-propelled barges for which the sVGP was designed. For example, of
the 27 discharge categories that would be covered by the proposed VGP, hopper barges -which
are essentially floating steel boxes for carrying dry bulk cargoes -typically discharge only deck
runoff, occasional water pumped from void spaces below deck, and, very occasionally, ballast
water. Tank barges typically produce deck runoff and, in some cases, ballast water.
Given the small number of discharge streams and the small volume of effluent produced by
barges, Dann Marine Towing does not believe that there is any environmentally protective
purpose served by subjecting barge owners and operators to the more complex permit
requirements contained in the VGP rather than the more streamlined approach proposed in the
sVGP. The sVGP addresses each of the discharges described above with best management
practices to reduce their impacts on the marine environment. In many cases, these practices
simplify but largely restate the requirements of the VGP. If these best practices are considered
adequate for the management of greater volumes of discharges, with greater potential for
environmental harm, from other small vessels, then there is no reason why barge owners and
operators should not be allowed to implement them to manage their discharges, too, by obtaining
coverage under the sVGP.
There are other significant operational reasons why the SVGP is a better fit for unmanned, non-
self-propelled barges. Particularly in the inland barge industry, a single company may own
hundreds or even thousands of barges, which may be chartered to multiple operators (such as
towers and fleeters) over relatively short spans of time. The VGP requirements for weekly visual
inspections and extensive recordkeeping and reporting impose significant administrative and
financial burdens on barge owners and custodians with little or no corresponding environmental
benefit. Dann Marine Towing appreciates EPA's efforts to ameliorate these burdens in its
proposed VGP by introducing limited visual inspections, extended unmanned period inspections,
and combined annual reports for barges. However, the best management practices required under
the sVGP are much simpler for barge owners to communicate to custodians, and the sVGP's
quarterly visual inspection and documentation requirements are far easier for a barge's multiple
operators to facilitate. EPA could further reduce the economic impact and paperwork burdens
associated with the proposed permits, without undermining their environmental objectives, by
allowing unmanned barges to obtain coverage under the sVGP rather than the VGP.
If Congress extends the moratorium on NPDES permits for incidental discharges from vessels
less than 79 feet, or if EPA decides not to proceed with the sVGP for any other reason, Dann
153
-------
Marine Towing believes that EPA should incorporate Parts 2 and 3 -the best management
practice, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements -of the proposed sVGP into the VGP as
vessel class-specific requirements for barges, exempting them from the general requirements for
authorized discharges of VGP Parts I through 4.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0444, Excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
2
No
Comment: Unmanned, Unpowered Barges and Coverage under the SVGP.
Ingram Barge would urge that EPA allow unmanned, unpowered barges to obtain permit
coverage under the Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP), rather than the VGP, if the owner or
the operator of the barge elects to do so. While most of the barges are over 79 feet in length, their
discharge characteristics are more in common with the vessels covered by the sVGP than the
VGP. Most unmanned barges produce fewer volumes of effluent, with fewer effluent streams,
than the vessels covered by the sVGP. Additionally, volumes of deck runoff are dependent on
precipitation and as decks of barges are not washed, there would not be a runoff from any
chemicals.
Therefore, given the small number of discharge streams and the limited quantity of effluent
produced by the barges, there is a limited environmental reason to subject barge owners and
operators to the more complex permit requirements of the VGP. Instead, the streamlined
approach of the sVGP would address the environmental concerns and provide sufficient best
management practices. In particular, Ingram Barge, as an owner of 4,000 barges would see a
great reduction in the recordkeeping and reporting burden imposed by the VGP if the barges
were included under the sVGP, with the same benefit to the environment. We would strongly
urge the EPA to allow for barges to comply with the sVGP instead of the VGP if the owner or
operator elects to do so.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, Excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commenter Affiliation: Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: Allow Barges to Obtain Coverage under the sVGP.
154
-------
CBC urges EPA to recognize that the majority of vessels covered by the VGP are unmanned,
non-self-propelled barges, and better tailor the regulation to those vessels. The Economic
Analysis states that barges make up 66 percent of all vessels, domestic and foreign, covered by
the permit, and a remarkable 80 percent of all domestic vessels covered by the permit (Pages 5,
6). These barges are essentially large boxes that rely on towing vessels for movement, and have
very limited discharges (primarily deck runoff). Unfortunately, while most of the permit's
requirements for discharges do not apply to barges, almost all of the administrative requirements
do, which are extremely difficult to manage due to the fact that barges frequently move in and
out of many different companies' care and custody. For example, the primary operation of
Illinois Marine's vessels is shifting barges owned by other companies, and sometimes they move
the same barge multiple times in one day. These continual barge movements are critical to
getting commodities where they need to go in order to keep our economy running. However, the
numerous inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements associated with the permit are
more suited to a company that both owns and operates its vessels at all times, and they create a
large and complex compliance issue for our vessels. Frankly, it is unclear how all of this
paperwork helps to improve the environment.
Fortunately, EPA has created what seems like tailor-made regulations for barges.. .except that it
does not apply to them. The small Vessel General Permit's (sVGP) Best Management Practices
approach and streamlined inspection and reporting requirements make the most sense for barges.
We strongly urge EPA to allow barges to obtain coverage under the sVGP. (If the sVGP is not
finalized, EPA should add a sVGP-like approach for barges to the VGP.)
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0444, Excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Alaska commercial fishing fleet is extremely diverse as are the fisheries themselves.
In 2007, there were 9,828 commercial fishing vessels registered ranging in length from 7 feet to
635 feet. With over 2,000 vessels 20 feet or less; over 2,000 from 21 to 29 feet; approx. 4,404
from 30 to 49 feet; 863 from 50 to 79 feet and 497 vessels over 79 feet. EPA's understanding of
the universe of the vessels only considers the documented vessels from the U.S. Coast Guard
Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement database (MISLE) and not state registered
vessels that will be covered under these permits. Many commercial fishing vessels are also used
for recreational purposes, and we ask that fishing vessels when used for recreational purposes
should receive the same exemption from discharge permits as recreational vessels. We also ask
that clarification on requirement of these permits be provided for uninspected charter vessels
while paying clients are aboard.
Response: Comments specific to the sVGP are outside the scope of this action.
155
-------
On July 30, 2010, President Obama signed P.L.I 11-215 into law. This law amends P.L. 110-
299, which generally imposes a moratorium during which time neither EPA nor states may
require NPDES permits for discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial fishing
vessels and other non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet. As a result of P.L. 110-299. the
VGP does not cover vessels less than 79 feet or commercial fishing vessels unless they have
ballast water discharges. P.L. 111-215 extended the expiration date of the moratorium from July
31, 2010 to December 18, 2013. On December 20, 2012, President Obama signed the Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 which extends the expiration date of the
moratorium from December 18, 2013 to December 18, 2014.
However, in response to commenter's concern about estimating the universe of fishing vessels,
EPA utilized other published sources and consultations with U.S. Coast Guard personnel and
port authorities in addition to the MISLE when estimating the universe of vessels eligible for
coverage under the VGP and sVGP. Please see the VGP Fact Sheet Section 3.3 (and the
corresponding Economic Analysis for the VGP) for more information on the universe of vessels
covered under the VGP.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? No
Comment: "Seafood Processing" should be defined as the commercial preparation of fish or
fish products other than by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or
brine chilling. See comments below in the sVGP section of comments.
Response: Based on this and other comments, EPA has defined "Seafood Processing." Though
EPA did not take the definition provided here, EPA included a definition consistent with one
that it used in the Agency's previously promulgated NPDES seafood processing permits. Those
permits were issued to seafood processors because the activities they were engaged in were not
"incidental to the normal operation of a vessel" but instead were more accurately characterized
as industrial operations. EPA does note, however, that whether an activity constitutes seafood
processing need to be addressed on a vessel and activity-specific basis. The final VGP states
that: "'Seafood Processing' means the conversion of aquatic animals from a raw to marketable
form which involves more than evisceration of fish or other seafood at sea." EPA does note,
however, that even with this general definition, whether an activity constitutes seafood
processing will depend on vessel and activity-specific activities. For more information, please
see NPDES permit AK-G52-4000, available at:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/water.nsf/95537302e2c56cea8825688200708c9a/bc30f88057c745
5088256c870082cd07/$FILE/AKG524000%20FP.pdf and in the docket for today's permit.
156
-------
Commenter Name:
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
10
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Allow Unmanned, Unpowered Barges to Obtain Coverage under the sVGP.
AWO recommends that EPA allow unmanned, non-self-propelled barges to obtain permit
coverage under the Small Vessel General Permit, rather than the VGP, if the barge operator so
chooses. While the vast majority of inland and coastal barges are longer than 79 feet, their
discharge characteristics have far more in common with the small vessels that will be covered by
the sVGP than with the other classes of vessels subject to the VGP. Indeed, most unmanned
barges produce fewer effluent streams, and smaller volumes of effluent, than the small self-
propelled vessels for which the sVGP was designed. For example, of the 27 discharge categories
that would be covered by the proposed VGP, hopper barges - which are essentially floating steel
boxes for carrying dry bulk cargoes - typically discharge only deck runoff, occasional water
pumped from void spaces below deck, and, very occasionally, ballast water. Tank barges
typically produce deck runoff and, in some cases, ballast water.
Volumes of deck runoff from barges are dependent on precipitation and surface water spray
"landing on the deck in sufficient quantities to mobilize pollutants on the deck surface."37 The
size and design of a barge are also determinants; for instance, covered barges, including tank
barges, will generate greater volumes of deck runoff than will open barges, such as dry cargo
hopper barges. During light rainfall events of 0.25 inches, as much as 2,500 gallons of deck
runoff may be generated from the surface of a tank barge, depending on its size and speed.
"Operators of the vessel do not have control over the volume of discharge related to precipitation
events or sea sprays,"38 distinguishing deck runoff from deck washdown, which involves the
intentional removal of dirt, grit, or other material from a deck surface, most often with the use of
detergents or cleaners. In its report, EPA claims that "deck runoff incorporates pollutants that
would have been included in an eventual washdown so the samples are comparable."39 However,
because barge operators do not wash down barge decks, and so do not use detergents and
disinfectants, it is unlikely that deck runoff from barges will contain pollutants associated with
these cleaning agents, such as nonylphenols, phosphorous, and chlorine.40
Under Parts 5.4 of both the current and proposed VGP, the vessel class-specific requirements for
barges include a provision that "[ajfter every instance of pumping water from areas below
decks," vessel owners and operators "must conduct a visual sheen test [...] to detect free oil by
observing the surface of the receiving water for the presence of an oily sheen." According to
AWO members, unwanted water in barge voids is costly, due to the fuel demands of towing
added weight. Barge operators practice preventative maintenance designed to minimize leaks
and, when they do occur, address them as quickly as possible, so the volumes of these discharges
are small. AWO members also report that in their experience few, if any, corrective actions or
notification requirements have been initiated as the result of a visual sheen from such discharges.
157
-------
Finally, as previously discussed, in its VGP Fact Sheet EPA acknowledges that the agency "does
not believe that barges are a significant discharger of ballast water."41
Given the small number of discharge streams and the small volume of effluent produced by
barges, AWO sees no environmentally protective purpose served by subjecting barge operators
to the more complex, administratively burdensome, and costly permit requirements contained in
the VGP rather than the more streamlined approach proposed in the sVGP. The sVGP addresses
each of the discharges described above with best management practices to reduce their impacts
on the marine environment. In many cases, these practices simplify but largely restate the
requirements of the VGP. If these best practices are considered adequate for the management of
greater volumes of discharges, with greater potential for environmental harm, from other
small vessels, then there is no reason why barge operators should not be allowed to implement
them to manage their discharges, too, by obtaining coverage under the sVGP.
There are other significant operational reasons why the sVGP is a better fit for unmanned, non-
self-propelled barges. Particularly in the inland barge industry, a single company may own
hundreds or even thousands of barges, which may be chartered to multiple operators (such as
towers and fleeters) over relatively short spans of time. The VGP requirements for weekly visual
inspections and extensive recordkeeping and reporting impose significant administrative and
financial burdens on barge owners and custodians with little or no corresponding environmental
benefit. AWO appreciates EPA's efforts to ameliorate these burdens in its proposed VGP by
introducing limited visual inspections, extended unmanned period inspections, and combined
annual reports for barges. However, the best management practices required under the sVGP are
much simpler for barge owners to communicate to custodians, and the sVGP's quarterly visual
inspection and documentation requirements are far easier for a barge's multiple operators to
facilitate. EPA could further reduce the economic impact and paperwork burdens associated with
the proposed permits, without undermining their environmental objectives, by allowing
unmanned barges to obtain coverage under the sVGP rather than the VGP. If Congress extends
the moratorium on NPDES permits for incidental discharges from vessels less than 79 feet, or if
EPA decides not to proceed with the sVGP for any other reason, AWO urges EPA to incorporate
Parts 2 and 3 of the proposed sVGP - the best management practice, monitoring, and
recordkeeping requirements - into the VGP as vessel class-specific requirements for barges and
exempt barges from the general requirements for authorized discharges of VGP Parts 1
through 4.
37
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010. Report to Congress: Study of Discharges
Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non-Recreational Vessels Less than 79
Feet. Office of Water, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. p. 145.
38 Ibid, p. 25-26.
39 Ibid, p. 145.
40 Ibid, p. xix.
41 U.S. EPA 201 lb, Part 4.4.3.5.6.2.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0444, Excerpt 1.
158
-------
Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trailers
Association (ATA)
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trailers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0509-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: Further, ATA requests that EPA work with congress to exempt small boat
commercial fishermen under the Clean Water Act (CWA) from these impractical and
unnecessarily burdensome permits.
Response: Currently, a Congressional moratorium (initiated by Public Law 110-299 and
subsequently extended by Public Laws 111-215 and 112-213) exempts all incidental discharges,
with the exception of ballast water, from commercial fishing vessels and non-recreational, non-
military vessels less than 79 feet in length from having to obtain a Clean Water Act permit until
December 18, 2013. Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1,
excerpt 1. Comments on the sYGP are outside the scope of today's action.
Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trailers
Association (ATA)
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trailers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0509-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: However, it is difficult to see why the previous exemption is not still appropriate for
vessels like ours. Obviously the courts have dictated that such a provision would now take
congressional authorization. Has EPA attempted to work with congress to secure the exemption
that just three years ago the agency believed was appropriate?
Response: Legislation to exempt vessels from the requirements of today's permit is outside the
scope of today's action.
Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trailers
Association (ATA)
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trailers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0509-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: Recreational Vessels.
Under the Clean Boating Act of 2008, Congress exempted roughly 16 million recreational
vessels from discharge requirements. We have seen no comparative data for that sector. It is a
fact that many of those vessels are similar in structure and size to the vessels our industry
159
-------
represents. Many of those recreational vessels operate in the nearshore areas and in far greater
concentrations than commercial fishing boats, particularly far roaming fleets like the Alaska troll
fleet. This is not to suggest a problem with recreational vessels, but merely to point out that the
nation's 70.000 fishing boats total less than 0.5% of the recreational craft already exempted, and
that many of our discharges occur in ports and offshore areas with a low concentration of vessels
and a good tidal flush. Here in Alaska, where commercial fishing, processing, and recreational
activity has taken place for more than 100 years, our waters are large, mostly unimpaired, and
marine resources are healthy and abundant.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-05Q9-A1, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trailers
Association (ATA)
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trailers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0509-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? No
Comment: Through EPA's past exemption, we believe the agency agreed with that conclusion
and it seems appropriate for EPA now to inform congress to that effect.
ATA is hopeful that EPA will ultimately work with Congress and affected stakeholders to
reinstate the previous exemption for commercial fishing vessels under 79' and protect thousands
of small business owners from unnecessary discharge regulations.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0509-A1, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Adam Binsfeld, Brennan Marine
Brennan Marine
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0518-A1
1
No
Comment: While all of Brennan's boats would be covered by the sVGP, all forty-three of our
barges need coverage under the VGP. The length of these barges, ranging from 110' to 200',
requires us to fully comply with the VGP, however the only applicable discharge covered under
the VGP is deck runoff. When the barges are in our fleet, we inspect them once per voyage and
at least once per week. Therefore, I believe the sVGP "PARI" is a better-suited tool for
documenting unmanned, non-ballasting barges, as the record-keeping requirement. As a member
of the AWO Responsible Carrier Program (RCP) we utilize "best management practices" on all
regulations and internal policies and I feel that is a better approach to these types of barges.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, Excerpt 1.
160
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gregg A. Thauvette, Vice President, Operations, The Great
Lakes Towing Company and Great Lakes Shipyard
The Great Lakes Towing Company and Great Lakes
Shipyard
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0520-A1
5
No
Comment: 14. Whether unmanned, unpowered barges have technologies available to meet
numeric ballast water treatment limits. Also, any information about how these vessels utilize
ballast water, and whether the Agency's understanding of their ballasting patterns is correct.
We disagree with the regulations' placement in the VGP for unmanned, non-self propelled
barges. While we understand that most of these types of barges exceed the 79' standard, they
produce less effluents and effluent streams than the vessels covered by the SVGP proposal. We
see the VGP regulations for inspecting, recording, and reporting unmanned, unpowered barges to
be above and beyond necessary. Thus, we propose that the VGP include an option for
owners/operators of unmanned, unpowered barges to use SVGP compliance standards if they so
choose.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, Excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William R. Barr, Vice President Safety & Compliance,
Amherst Madison, Inc.
Amherst Madison, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0524-A1
7
No
Comment: We believe barges (unmanned and unpowered) should be included within the Small
Vessel VGP. Barges have many characteristics of a small vessel discharges from barges
primarily involve deck runoff from precipitation and occasional needs to dry up the wing tank
from accumulations of water from hull leakage. As is commonly understood, barge operators
cannot control the amount of rain falling on the deck of their barges. Occasions of barges being
ballasted are rare and EPA acknowledges barges are not a significant discharger of ballast water.
Regarding recordkeeping and inspection VGP requirements, we support the inclusion of barges
into the sVGP category. Weekly visual inspections, recordkeeping and reporting impose
significant administrative and financial burdens the barge operator and their custodians with little
or no corresponding environmental benefit. If a fleeter has problems with a customer's barge, the
barge owner is notified and the owner proceeds to take corrective action. Reports of incidents
where barges have had environmental issues should be done, but for the most part barges remain
very low on the radar screen for environmental issues.
161
-------
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0444, Excerpt 1.
Comment: P. 7, Part 1.2.1 General Scope of this Permit. This section describes coverage and
exclusions for dischargers. The permit and fact sheet should clarify that vessels meeting the
definition of a recreational vessel that may be launched from a cruise ship are subject to the
exemptions provided by the Clean Boating Act and not subject to the requirements of this permit.
Such recreational vessels may include small sailboats, personal water craft ('jet-skis'), or other
similar craft. Clean Water Act Section 502(25) as amended by The Clean Boating Act clearly
describes this type of craft, and in its definition of recreational vessel includes vessels leased,
rented or chartered to a person for the pleasure of that person as exempt from NPDES permitting
requirements. Such recreational craft, by virtue of their specific mention in the Clean Boating
Act, and the nature of their use, are distinguished from life boats, rescue boats and barges (which
are covered under the permitted authority of their 'host vessel'). Given this statutory expression
of Congressional intent, there is no reason why such water craft would be exempt when launched
from shore but regulated if launched from a cruise ship.
P. 9 Part 1.2.3.1 - Discharges Not Subject to Former NPDES Exclusion. This section notes that
"This permit does not apply to any vessel when it is operating in a capacity other than as a
means of transportation" Cruise ships are sometimes used to provide supplemental or emergency
housing following a disaster such as after Hurricane Katrina, or for special events such as the
Super Bowl or the Olympics. Part 1.2.3.1 could mean that under such circumstances no
discharges (including deck run-off) would be allowed. This could effectively bar cruise ships
from providing this type of service.
EPA addressed this circumstance in its response to comments at EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-
0337.1, Comment Excerpt Number 29 where it wrote:
With respect to vessel coverage when not operating as a means of transportation, please see,
e.g., the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277. 1, excerpt 10 and EPA-HQ-
OW-2008-0055-0274.1, excerpt 2. In the context of cruise ships that are temporarily used to
provide housing for emergency workers or are temporarily laid-up, coverage under the VGP
would depend upon how the specific situation squared with the requirement that a vessel be
operating in a capacity as a means of transportation, but as a general matter, so long as the
period of inactivity is temporary in nature, the vessel can return to service without major
alterations or refitting, and the discharges are incidental to the normal operation of cruise
ships, we would expect the VGP to apply.
Commenter Name:
Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
1
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
162
-------
This clarification should be brought forward into the text of this permit. We recommend the
following language:
This permit does not apply to any vessel when it is operating in a capacity other than as a
means of transportation. Authorization to discharge subject to the requirements of this
permit does apply for vessels operating for short periods as a hotel or when laid up for
temporary periods without crew or passengers on board, provided the vessel is not
permanently moored to a pier, such as a stationary floating casino, hotel, restaurant, bar
etc., the vessel can return to service without major alterations or refitting, and the discharges
are incidental to the normal operation of cruise ships.
Response: The commenter has asked whether vessels such as small sailboats, personal water
craft, or other similar craft meet the Clean Boating Act definition of recreational vessel when
they are launched from a cruise ship. If the vessel in question is "manufactured or used
primarily for pleasure; or leased, rented, or chartered to a person for the pleasure of that
person," then it would be considered a recreational vessel, unless it is "subject to Coast Guard
inspection and ... is engaged in commercial use; or carries paying passengers." (Clean Water
Act §502(25)) As a result of the Clean Boating Act, discharges incidental to the normal
operation of recreational vessels are not subject to NPDES permitting.
In the context of cruise ships that are temporarily used to provide housing for emergency
workers or are temporarily laid-up, coverage under the VGP would depend upon how the
specific situation squared with the requirement that a vessel be operating in a capacity as a
means of transportation, but as a general matter, so long as the period of inactivity is temporary
in nature, the vessel can return to service without major alterations or refitting, and the
discharges are incidental to the normal operation of cruise ships, we would expect the VGP to
apply-
Also, pursuant to 40 CFR 122.3(d), discharges in compliance with the instructions of an On-
Scene coordinator pursuant to 40 CFR part 300 and 33 CFR 153.10(e) are exempt from NPDES
permit requirements. We also note there are specific additional requirements for emergency
vessels, such as fire boats and police boats, in Part 5.7 of the VGP. See Section 7.7 of the Fact
Sheet for additional information.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Comment: pp. 15 -21 Regulation of Constituents in the Discharges Under the Permit - In this
section EPA describes the constituents of concern associated with vessel discharges. As a general
comment, in describing seven categories of discharges and their potential impacts, EPA does not
incorporate discussion of dilution at all. The discussion compares effluent concentrations with
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
38
No
163
-------
water quality criteria without any consideration of dilution or consideration of how water quality
criteria are applied in regulatory programs, and were never intended to be effluent limits. The
authors should review the work of the Alaska Cruise Ship Waste Water Discharge Science
Advisory Panel from 20026, the 2006 summary of that work in the Marine Pollution Bulletin,7
the 2002 underway dye dilution studies and the 2009 in port dye dilution studies by EPA,8'9 and
the 2008 Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report10 by EPA. Collectively, these studies show
that: Analytes measured in effluents should not be directly compared to EPA's water quality
criteria because the criteria also have duration and frequency of exposure components.
The criteria apply in receiving waters but not in effluents and dilution needs to be considered.
The criteria are not "discharge standards" or effluent limits. Exceeding water quality criteria in a
discharge does not mean the discharge has a reasonable potential to cause a water quality
exceedance in the receiving water, hence would not necessarily represent a water quality
problem.
In the case of discharges from moving vessels the dilution factors are very rapid and very
beneficial. EPA's dye studies showed dilution factors from underway discharges of 200,000:1 to
over 900,000:1. Using the EPA's dye studies, the Alaska Science Advisory Panel developed a
simple formula to calculate a conservative dilution factor from a large moving cruise ship.
Dilution factor = (4 x width x draft x speed through the water) / Discharge rate.
The Science Advisory Panel then used dilution and effluent data including untreated gray water
discharges to evaluate possible water quality concerns, and found that the rapid dilution dropped
concentrations of parameters of concern to well below the water quality criteria.
Discharges must be put in context. With some parameters like nutrients, the more important
consideration is relative mass loading. Bioaccumulation of toxicants can also be evaluated on a
mass loading basis, albeit with strong considerations of the mobile nature of the discharge in the
context of vessels. Nutrients can be beneficial, harmful, or neutral. With toxicants, the important
consideration is concentration in the receiving water after dilution. Brief exposures above criteria
levels are not harmful.
With bacteria, EPA should describe where criteria are relevant. People are not harvesting
shellfish for raw consumption straight from the discharge pipe. The recommended water quality
criteria apply to ambient waters and EPA's description should accurately reflect this.
There is no discussion of these types of considerations presented anywhere in this Section (EPA
2008 understands these considerations.) Consequently, the conclusion on page 145 that "[t]he
evidence presented in the pollutant impacts section demonstrates that vessel discharges are
associated with significant detrimental impacts throughout the United States" is at best
incomplete. Vessel discharges are subjected to far greater dilution than perhaps any other source,
and to assess these discharges as if there were none is deficient from both a public policy and
scientific perspective.
6 See, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2002. The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge
on Alaska Waters, http://dec.alaska.gov/water/cruise ships/SciencePanel/documents/impactofcruiseship.pdf.
164
-------
7
See, Loehr et al., 2006. The Significance of Dilution in Evaluating Possible Impacts of Wastewater Discharges
from Large Cruise Ships. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52(2006) 681-688.
8 EPA 2002 Cruise Ship Plume Tracking Survey Report.
9
EPA 2009. Sampling Episode Report Cruise Ship Plume Dilution Study, Skagway, Alaska
10 EPA 2008, Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report EPA842-R-07-005.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter's characterization of the distinction between water
quality criteria and effluent limits - specifically, that water quality criteria do not apply directly,
but rather, must be translated into permit effluent limitations, taking into account factors
including duration, frequency, and - where applicable - dilution in mixing zones. In order for
derivation of a water quality based effluent limitation to account for dilution, i.e., a mixing
zone, the inclusion of mixing zones must be authorized in the underlying State or Tribal water
quality standards or implementing regulations By including a narrative WQBEL, requiring that
discharges be controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards, the permit
allows for the consideration of any available mixing zone in assessing the level of control
necessary to meet the underlying criteria. Further, EPA notes that mixing zones apply only to
WQBELs - not technology-based limits. As discussed above, the narrative WQBEL in the
permit allows for consideration of mixing zones where appropriate - and the remaining limits,
including those in Part 5, in this permit generally are technology-based.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James E. Geil, Tabor Academy
Tabor Academy.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0532-A2
1
No
Comment: We are gravely concerned about the impact that the EPA VGP and sVGP
regulations will have on our operations and those of our member organizations. We are a not for
profit organization, we operate both year round and seasonally and we promote environmental
stewardship and responsibility aboard our vessel which is primarily propelled by wind power.
Our vessels and those of our fellow Tall Ships America members represent a tiny fraction of the
commercial vessels that fall under these sets of regulations. Nationwide there are approximately
350 US flagged inspected auxiliary sail small passenger (subchapters T, not more than 100 GRT)
and Sailing School Vessels (subchapter R, not more than 500 GRT). Contrast this to the
environmental impact of the tens of thousands of commercial fishing and recreational vessels
that are exempted from having to participate in this permitting and documentation scheme. These
vessels represent such a small fraction of the maritime industry that none of our vessels were
included as subjects when assessing the fiscal and human resource impact during the
implementation study.
Our organization supports any regulation that promotes environmental awareness and protection.
However, there is little in the permitting and documentation process that has any relevance to the
sailing vessels that goes beyond citing other regulations that our membership are already in
compliance with. Our vessel relies on fixed ballast, does not have ballast tanks, nor does it carry
165
-------
cargo. For our community, the VGP process is a significant increase in administrative demand
for negligible positive environmental impact.
In recognition of the above, we join with Tall Ships America to recommend the following:
Permanent exemption from the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and small Vessel (sVGP) for
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels for all USCG Inspected small
passenger (subchapter T) and sailing school vessel (subchapter R) auxiliary sail vessel.
We believe that providing this exemption will allow us to continue to do what we do best,
educate the public about the maritime word and develop the leaders of tomorrow. Thank you for
the opportunity to comment.
Response: EPA received similar comments on its 2008 Vessel General Permit and will reiterate
its response to those comments. First, if a vessel does not have a particular discharge stream,
then that vessel is not required to meet the effluent limits applicable to that discharge stream.
For example, if a vessel subject to the VGP does not have any ballast tanks, then the
owner/operator is not required to meet the ballast water discharge requirements of Part 2.2.3.
EPA believes the permit requirements will not impose an unreasonable burden on vessel
owner/operators. For information on the economic cost of the permit, see the Economic
Analysis.
EPA does not have a record on which to base a de minimis exclusion from the CWA NPDES
permitting requirement for the discharges commenter believes do not warrant regulation (nor
does the commenter provide such information). EPA notes that without an NPDES permit
authorizing discharges on the date of vacatur of 40 CFR 122.3(a) (or a statutory exemption),
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel would be subject to the CWA Section
301(a) prohibition against discharge without a permit.
Commenter Name: Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadians)
Commenter Affiliation: Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadians)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Late Comment? No
Comment: Comments on Other Articles/Discharges
Article 1.2.3.3 - Used or Spent Oil
This conflicts with other sections of the permit - namely 2.1.1 and 2.2.2 - which identify
circumstances under which used or spent oil can be discharged through an oily water separator in
accordance with MARPOL 73/78 and 33 CFR § 151.09. We recommend amending the language
at 1.2.3.3 to read:
166
-------
Discharges of used or spent oil no longer being used for their intended purposes may only be
discharged in accordance with other provisions of this Permit.
Response: There is no conflict between VGP Section 1.2.3.3 and other sections of the permit.
As the VGP Fact Sheet explains, "Discharges of small amounts of oil incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel are permissible provided appropriate effluent limits are met," while the
discharge of used or spent oil is still not permissible. With respect to used or spent oils, please
see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0554-A2, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Wesley W. Heerssen, Jr., Captain, SSV Niagara, Flagship
Niagara League, Inc.
Flagship Niagara League, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0546-A2
1
No
Comment: We are gravely concerned about the impact that the EPA VGP and sVGP
regulations will have on our operations and those of our member organizations. We are a small
501c (3) non-profit organization, we operate from April 15 to September 30 annually, and we
promote environmental stewardship and responsibility aboard our vessel, which is primarily
propelled by wind power. Our vessels and those of our fellow Tall Ships America members
represent a tiny fraction of the commercial vessels that fall under these sets of regulations.
Nationwide there are approximately 350 US flagged inspected auxiliary sail small passenger
(subchapters T, not more than 100 GRT) and Sailing School Vessels (subchapter R, not more
than 500 GRT). Contrast this to the environmental impact of the tens of thousands of commercial
fishing and recreational vessels that are exempted from having to participate in this
permitting and documentation scheme. These vessels represent such a small fraction of the
maritime industry that none of our vessels were included as subjects when assessing the fiscal
and human resource impact during the implementation study.
Our organization supports any regulation that promotes environmental awareness and protection.
However, there is little in the permitting and documentation process that has any relevance to the
sailing vessels that goes beyond citing other regulations that our membership are already in
compliance with. Our vessel relies on fixed ballast, does not have ballast tanks, nor does it carry
cargo or operate commercially while underway. For our vessel and the Tall Ship community, the
VGP process is a significant increase in administrative demand for negligible positive
environmental impact.
In recognition of the above, we join with Tall Ships America to recommend the following:
Permanent exemption from the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and small Vessel (sVGP) for
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels for all USCG Inspected small
passenger (subchapter T) and sailing school vessel (subchapter R) auxiliary sail vessels.
167
-------
We believe that providing this exemption will allow us to continue to do what we do best,
educate the public about the maritime world and develop the leaders of tomorrow. Thank you for
the opportunity to comment.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0532-A2, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain David A. Bank, Director, Marine Operations, Sea
Education Association
Sea Education Association
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0552-A2
1
No
Comment: We are gravely concerned about the impact that the EPA VGP and sVGP
regulations will have on our operations and those of our member organizations. We are a not for
profit, we operate year round, and we promote environmental stewardship and responsibility
aboard our vessels which are primarily propelled by wind power. Our vessels and those of our
fellow Tall Ships America members represent a tiny fraction of the commercial vessels that fall
under these sets of regulations. Nationwide there are approximately 350 US flagged inspected
auxiliary sail small passenger (subchapters T, not more than 100 GRT) and Sailing School
Vessels (subchapter R, not more than 500 GRT). Contrast this to the environmental impact of the
tens of thousands of commercial fishing and recreational vessels that are exempted from having
to participate in this permitting and documentation scheme. These vessels represent such a small
fraction of the maritime industry that none of our vessels were included as subjects when
assessing the fiscal and human resource impact during the implementation study.
Our organization supports any regulation that promotes environmental awareness and protection.
However, there is little in the permitting and documentation process that has any relevance to the
sailing vessels that goes beyond citing other regulations that our membership are already in
compliance with. Our vessels rely on fixed ballast, do not have ballast tanks, nor do they carry
cargo. For our community, the VGP process is a significant increase in administrative demand
for negligible positive environmental impact.
In recognition of the above, we join with Tall Ships America to recommend the following:
Permanent exemption from the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and small Vessel (sVGP) for
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels for all USCG Inspected small
passenger (subchapter T) and sailing school vessel (subchapter R) auxiliary sail vessels.
We believe that providing this exemption will allow us to continue to do what we do best,
educate the public about the maritime word and develop the leaders of tomorrow. Thank you for
the opportunity to comment.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0532-A2, excerpt 1.
168
-------
Commenter Name:
Mark Waddington, Director CIMI Tall Ship Expedition,
Tole Mour Corporation
Tole Mour Corporation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0556-A1
1
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: We are gravely concerned about the impact that the EPA VGP and sVGP
regulations will have on our operations and those of our member organizations. We are a small
nonprofit organization that operates year round and we promote environmental stewardship and
responsibility aboard our vessel, which is primarily propelled by wind power. Our vessels and
those of our fellow Tall Ships America members represent a tiny fraction of the commercial
vessels that fall under these sets of regulations. Nationwide there are approximately 350 US
flagged inspected auxiliary sail small passenger (subchapters T, not more than 100 GRT) and
Sailing School Vessels (subchapter R, not more than 500 GRT). Contrast this to the
environmental impact of the tens of thousands of commercial fishing and recreational vessels
that are exempted from having to participate in this permitting and documentation scheme. These
vessels represent such a small fraction of the maritime industry that none of our vessels were
included as subjects when assessing the fiscal and human resource impact during the
implementation study.
The Tole Mour Corporation and Tall Ships America support any regulation that promotes
environmental awareness and protection. However, there is little in the permitting and
documentation process that has any relevance to the sailing vessels that goes beyond citing other
regulations that our industry are already in compliance with. The Tole Mour relies on fixed
ballast, she does not have ballast tanks, nor does she carry cargo. For our community, the VGP
process is a significant increase in administrative demand for negligible positive environmental
impact.
In recognition of the above, we join with Tall Ships America to recommend the following:
Permanent exemption from the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and small Vessel General
Permit (sVGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels for all USCG
Inspected small passenger (subchapter T) and sailing school vessel (subchapter R) auxiliary
sail vessel.
We believe that providing this exemption will allow us to continue to do what we do best,
Remove the public's fear of the ocean, give our youth a high regard for Science and give them a
better understanding of themselves to help them leap life's hurdles.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0532-A2, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Bert Rogers, Executive Director, Tall Ships America
Commenter Affiliation: Tall Ships America
169
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0557-A2
1
No
Comment: Tall Ships America is gravely concerned about the impact that the EPA VGP and
sVGP regulations will have on our member organizations. Our operators are either small
businesses or not for profit organizations, most of whom operate seasonally, all of whom
promote a message of environmental stewardship and responsibility inherent in running small
vessels primarily propelled by wind power. The vessels that our members operate represent a
tiny fraction of the commercial vessels that fall under these sets of regulations. Nationwide, there
are approximately 350 US flagged inspected auxiliary sail small passenger (Subchapter T, not
more than 100 GRT) and Sailing School Vessels (Subchapter R, not more than 500 GRT).
Contrast this to the environmental impact of the tens of thousands of commercial fishing and
recreational vessels that are exempted from having to participate in this permitting and
documentation scheme, Subchapter T auxiliary sailing 'vessels and Subchapter R Sailing School
vessels represent such a small fraction of the maritime industry that none of-our vessels were
included as subjects when assessing the fiscal and human 'resource impact during the
implementation study,
Tall Ships America supports any regulation that promotes environmental awareness and
protection, However, there is little in the permitting and documentation process that has any
relevance to the sailing vessels beyond citing other regulations with which our member vessels
already currently comply, Our vessels rely on fixed ballast, do not have ballast tanks, nor do they
carry cargo. For our community, the VGP process is merely an increase in administrative
demand for negligible positive environmental impact.
Therefore, in recognition of the above, Tall Ships America respectfully recommends the
following:
Permanent exemption from the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and small Vessel General
Permit (sVGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels for all USCG
Inspected small passenger (subchapter T) and sailing school vessel (subchapter R) Auxiliary
Sail vessels.
We believe that providing this exemption will allow our membership to continue to do what they
do best - that is, to use the power of the seafaring experience to develop the leaders of tomorrow.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0532-A2, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and
Governmental Affairs, Foss Maritime Company
Commenter Affiliation: Foss Maritime Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0560-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
170
-------
Late Comment? No
Comment: The Foss barge fleet consists of unmanned, non-self propelled barges longer than 79
feet. The permitted discharges on the majority of our deck barges consist of solely deck runoff.
These barges are often moored or in lay-up status for weeks or months at a time. Foss requests
that barges be allowed to obtain coverage under the sVGP as this is a more appropriate match for
the discharge activities of our barges.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Alan Olson, Executive Director, Educational Tall
Ship
Educational Tall Ship
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0570-A1
1
No
Comment: We are gravely concerned about the impact that the EPA VGP and sVGP
regulations will have on our operations and those of our member organizations. We are a (small
businesses and/or a not for profit organization), we operate (seasonally/year round), and we
promote environmental stewardship and responsibility aboard our vessel(s) which is (are)
primarily propelled by wind power. Our vessels and those of our fellow Tall Ships America
members represent a tiny fraction of the commercial vessels that fall under these sets of
regulations. Nationwide there are approximately 350 US flagged inspected auxiliary sail small
passenger (subchapters T, not more than 100 GRT) and Sailing School Vessels (subchapter R,
not more than 500 GRT). Contrast this to the environmental impact of the tens of thousands of
commercial fishing and recreational vessels that are exempted from having to participate in this
permitting and documentation scheme. These vessels represent such a small fraction of the
maritime industry that none of our vessels were included as subjects when assessing the fiscal
and human resource impact during the implementation study.
Our organization supports any regulation that promotes environmental awareness and protection.
However, there is little in the permitting and documentation process that has any relevance to the
sailing vessels that goes beyond citing other regulations that our membership are already in
compliance with. Our vessel(s) rely on fixed ballast, does (do) not have ballast tanks, nor does it
(do they) carry cargo. For our community, the VGP process is a significant increase in
administrative demand for negligible positive environmental impact.
In recognition of the above, we join with Tall Ships America to recommend the following:
Permanent exemption from the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and small Vessel (sVGP) for
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels for all USCG Inspected small
passenger (subchapter T) and sailing school vessel (subchapter R) auxiliary sail vessel. We
believe that providing this exemption will allow us to continue to do what we do best, educate
the public about the maritime word and develop the leaders of tomorrow. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment.
171
-------
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0532-A2, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574- A2
3
No
Comment: 1.2 Eligibility. The 79 foot cutoff used to differentiate coverage between the sVGP
and VGP is completely arbitrary, in terms of the operation of our fishing fleets. We propose that
one permit be used for any vessel under 165 feet to minimize confusion in our industry. In
addition, purse seine skiffs carried by larger fishing vessels should be exempt from the permit
requirements and, for the purposes of any recordkeeping, inspection and reporting, these
auxiliary vessels should be permitted as part of the same entity as the larger vessel.
Response: Eligibility under the sVGP is beyond the scope of this permit. Nonetheless, EPA
notes that the cutoff length for coverage under the proposed sVGP, 79 feet, is consistent with
the length cutoff in S.3298 (initiated by Public Law 110-299 and subsequently extended by
Public Laws 111-215 and 112-213), which was signed into law on July 31, 2008. This law
generally placed a temporary moratorium on NPDES permitting requirements, except for ballast
water, for discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels of less than 79 feet and
commercial fishing vessels (as defined in 46 USC 2101) of any size. EPA believes that vessels
larger than 79 feet are more appropriately regulated under the VGP, although, vessels smaller
than 79 feet are also eligible for coverage under the VGP is they should choose to be. This may
be appropriate if a permittee has some vessels larger than 79 feet and some smaller than 79 feet,
but wants to seek permit coverage under the same permit for their full fleet.
Please refer to the VGP Fact Sheet Section 3.5.1 for information on auxiliary vessels. This
section states that: "If auxiliary vessels or craft, such as lifeboats or rescue boats on-board larger
vessels require permit coverage, they are eligible for coverage under this permit and are covered
by submission of the Notice of Intent for the larger vessels."
The commenter provides no basis for its assertion that purse seine skiffs should be exempt from
VGP requirements and the Agency therefore did not consider such an exemption.
Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director, California
Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
172
-------
Comment: 1.2 Eligibility (p. 7)
CWPA requests the EPA reconsider the vessel size designation at 79 feet. It makes no sense for
the owner of a vessel that is 79.0 or 79.4 feet to have substantially more reporting requirements
compared to the owner of a vessel that is 78 feet. There is no difference in the environmental
impact between these vessels and thus, there should be no substantial difference in reporting
requirements. Perhaps the EPA could provide a length tolerance of +5.0 percent for vessels to be
covered under either the sVGP or VGP.
In addition, CWPA members employ auxiliary purse seine skiffs that are towed/carried to the
fishing grounds and back. We believe these small accessory vessels should be exempt from the
permit requirements and be considered part of the larger vessel. For purposes of any
recordkeeping, inspections and reporting these vessels should also be considered as part of the
same entity as the larger vessel.
Response: With respect to length tolerance for vessels, please see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574-A2, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name: Holley Horrell, Mills Legal Clinic on behalf of Northwest
Environmental Advocates
Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Late Comment? No
Comment: / '. EPA impermissibly exempts smaller vessels from compliance with TBELs.
EPA has arbitrarily created a significant exemption that allows smaller vessels to ignore TBELs
completely. The Draft VGP couches this significant exemption in its discussion of reporting
requirements, where it proposes to allow smaller vessels to submit a less detailed form (the
"PARI") as a condition for VGP coverage.81 The PARI is available only to vessels less than 300
gross tons and/or vessels incapable of holding or discharging more than eight cubic meters of
ballast water.82 But the real benefit of being able to submit a PARI is that these smaller vessels
are not required to meet the numeric ballast water effluent limitations.83
EPA has not and cannot reasonably justify this exemption for smaller vessels. The Agency
asserts that "no existing ballast water treatment systems have been developed for vessels with
less than 8 cubic meters... of ballast water."84 As the NRDC/NWF Comments note, however, in
determining BAT for setting TBELs, EPA may consider whether a technology is transferable to
the industry class.85 EPA has given no explanation for why it did not consider whether existing
ballast water treatment systems could be transferable to smaller vessels, if adapted for their use.
The Agency also posits that vessels discharging smaller quantities of ballast water will pose a
smaller risk of spreading invasive species into receiving waters.86 Even if that unsupported
correlation is accurate, however, EPA has made no scientific findings to indicate why eight cubic
meters, and not some smaller number, is the appropriate cutoff.87
173
-------
EPA must more fully consider the impacts of this exemption on water quality and must ground
any exemption based on vessel size in factual findings reflecting all relevant data. It should
determine, for example, how much ballast water these smaller vessels discharge into US waters
annually and where, generally, the ballast water comes from. The agency must also conduct
analysis and issue findings on whether ballast water treatment systems that have been developed
could be scaled to work on smaller vessels; whether other small-scale water treatment systems
that have been developed for shipboard use (such as systems for treating sewage generated on
board) could be adapted to meet ballast water discharge limits; and whether other approaches -
like those that EPA considered for larger vessels, such as onshore treatment, use of public water
supply for ballast, or not discharging ballast water in U.S. waters - could be used.
EPA notes that even owners and operators of PARI-qualifying vessels must comply with most
terms and conditions of the ballast water-related part of the VGP and may need to obtain
alternative NPDES permit coverage.88 The only remaining permit requirements, however, are the
interim provisions for ballast water exchange and flushing. Yet EPA has made no actual findings
that these practices, which have failed to protect the quality of U.S. waters when employed by
most standard industry vessels, are BAT for smaller vessels. In fact, EPA has conducted no
separate analysis as to BAT for this category of vessels.
In sum, without findings upon which EPA can rationally explain the basis for creating this
exemption, it is arbitrary and capricious.
81 Draft VGP, Part 1.5.1.2, at 13.
82 Id.
83 Fact Sheet, Part 4.4.3.5.1, at 76.
84 Id.
85 See NRDC Comment, Section III. A; Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d 445, 448 (4th Cir. 1985).
86 Fact Sheet, Part 3.7.1, at 33.
87
Rather, it appears that EPA once again simply adopted other standards - the Agency notes that the eight cubic
meter threshold "is generally consistent with provisions in the recent International Convention for the Control and
Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments" and would thus be a "recognized standard among mariners."
Id. That convention, however, still required "equivalent compliance" for vessels meeting the size threshold. Id.
Completely exempting vessels from meeting discharge standards is in no way "equivalent" to the Draft VGP's
requirements for most permittees, so EPA cannot justify its exemption based on that convention.
88 Fact Sheet, Part 3.7.1, at 34; id., Part 3.7.2.2, at 35; id., Part 4.4.3.5.1, at 76 (stating that these vessels "must meet
all other ballast water requirements found in Part 2.2.3... as applicable").
Response: The VGP does not, as commenter asserts, allow "smaller vessels to ignore TBELs
completely." While under the final VGP, vessels less than 1,600 GRT are not subject to those
technology-based ballast water discharge standards and management measures specified in
VGP § 2.2.3.5, they still must meet non-numeric TBELS, including those found in Parts 2.2.3.1,
2.2.2.2, and 2.2.2.3 of the VGP.
As noted by the commenter under proposed VGP § 1.5.1.2 (and as retained in the final VGP),
owners/operators of vessels less than 300 gross tons and that do not have the capacity to hold or
discharge more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water must complete the Permit Authorization
and Record of Inspection (PARI) form and retain it onboard their vessel in lieu of submitting an
174
-------
NOI. EPA notes, however, that the applicability of the substantive ballast water technology
based discharge standards and management measures in VGP § 2.2.3.5 are based upon, as
further discussed below, a determination by EPA in accordance with the CWA that technologies
to meet the provisions of VGP § 2.2.3.5 are not available for smaller vessels and thus do not
constitute BAT.
In addition, with respect to footnote 87 of this comment (which addresses matters related to
"equivalent compliance" for vessels with a ballast water capacity of 8 cubic meters or less under
Regulation A-5 of the IMO ballast water Convention), EPA notes that it used the 8 cubic meter
ballast water capacity exception in that Convention for purposes of using a standard recognized
by mariners to determine which vessels could submit a PARI in lieu of an NOI. See draft VGP
Fact Sheet § 3.7.1. EPA further notes that the US is not signatory to that Convention nor has it
entered into force internationally. Lastly, EPA notes that under Regulation A-5 of that
Convention, "equivalent compliance" shall be determined "taking into account Guidelines
developed by the Organization." Such Guidelines (commonly referred to as the "G3
Guidelines") were adopted by the IMO in July 2005. Resolution MEPC 123(53). EPA notes that
such Guidelines use exhortatory (rather than mandatory language) such as "should" in
describing equivalent compliance practices, and further notes that VGP § 2.2.3.3 mandates
compliance with a number of the measures set out in the G3 Guidelines.
As was stated in proposed VGP Fact Sheet § 4.4.3.5.1, EPA is unaware of any ballast water
treatment systems currently available for vessels with less than 8 cubic meters ballast water
capacity, and thus concluded that such vessels should not be subject to the technology based
ballast water discharge standards and management measures in VGP § 2.2.3.5. In addition, after
review of comments submitted on the proposed VGP, none of which demonstrated to the
Agency that its conclusion regarding the unavailability of treatment systems for vessels with
less than 8 cubic meters of ballast water was incorrect, EPA has now further determined for the
final VGP that requiring vessels less than 1600 GRT (3000 GT) to meet numeric ballast water
treatment limits also does not reflect BAT. Based on an analysis using VGP Notice of Intent
(NOI) data (through August 2010), EPA estimates that there are approximately 1,652 vessels in
this size range.
Commenter requested more data on ballast water amounts for the smaller vessels not subject to
the numeric limits. With respect to ballasting operations of these smaller vessels, EPA reviewed
the ballasting operations of several types of vessels, including commercial fishing vessels,
public vessels, utility vessels, and freight vessels. Based on a review of the NOI database,
fishing vessels with ballast tank capacities greater than 8 cubic meters1 and less than 3,000 GT
range in size from approximately 65 feet to 300 feet. Ballast capacity ranges from 0 to 565,824
gallons (median and mean are 43,625 gallons and 86,627 gallons, respectively). The minimum
vessel tonnage among these vessels is approximately 100 GT. Based on comments received on
the proposed VGP, many of the fishing vessels within this group, especially the smaller fishing
vessels, do not require and are not equipped with ballast tanks (they are equipped with fish hold
tanks). The percentage of these vessels without ballast tanks is unknown; however, EPA notes
that commercial fishing vessels with ballast water discharges were required to file an NOI for
the 2008 VGP. EPA received very few NOIs from these vessels.
175
-------
Regarding small passenger vessels (those less than 1600 GRT), based on comments on this
permit, EPA believes that very few such smaller passenger vessels either carry or discharge
ballast water. Among such passenger vessels that do carry ballast water, the amount of ballast
water carried is unknown; however, available information regarding ballast capacities suggest
the amount likely ranges from less than 2,113 gallons (8 cubic meters) to 20,689 gallons.
Regarding tug and tow boats, virtually all are less than 1,600 GRT (also see the response essay
to section 9.1.1 of this comment response document) and a typical inland towboat can carry
20,000 to 40,000 gallons of ballast water; a typical coastal tugboat has a ballast water capacity
of 20,000 to 70,000 gallons, and a small harbor tug might have a capacity of 2,000 to 3,000
gallons. Inland and coastal tugboats and towboats routinely carry ballast water. Based on
comments received on the proposed VGP, EPA believes that some of these vessels use public
water supply water as ballast; however, the percentage that uses such public water supply water
as ballast is unknown. In addition, an unknown percentage of vessels use permanent ballast that
is never discharged, as discussed elsewhere in this response to comment document, EPA
believes that it is not feasible for all vessels to use public water supply water based on
availability of that water (it is only available at certain dockside locations) and the availability
of both shoreside and shipboard infrastructure for loading public water supply water to the
vessel. Additionally, operational necessities make using public water supply water infeasible for
some vessels. For example, many tugs take on ballast while underway to compensate for fuel
burned during a voyage. This ballast is discharged when refueling. The percentage of vessels
with these ballasting operations are unknown, however, the use of public water supply water for
these vessels is not feasible or available for these operations. See also other comment responses
in this response to comment document, including those in section 9.1.17 of this comment
response document.
Regarding offshore supply boats, a typical offshore supply boat has approximately 84,000
gallons of ballast water. Furthermore, an estimated 80% of offshore workboats operate within
one COTP zone. Liftboats, when they ballast, take on and discharge ballast in the same
location. Based on comments received on this permit proposal (and based on reviewing the
docket for the 2012 Coast Guard rulemaking), EPA believes that the vast majority of offshore
workboats use municipal water supplies as their primary or sole source of ballast water,
however, the exact percentage of these vessels that use public water supplies is unknown.
With respect to commenter's assertion that EPA must conduct an evaluation of whether existing
ballast water technologies can be scaled down. EPA has considered this, and believes that while
the types of technologies identified by the EPA SAB (2011) and Albert et al. (2010) could
conceptually be scaled down for smaller vessels, this would not be feasible for all smaller
vessels, and that, except for a system installed on one vessel in the less than 1,600 GRT size
range (a new system on a 155 foot, 855 gross ton vessel), no systems have been installed on
such smaller vessels. Please see the VGP Fact Sheet, economic analysis, and other supporting
documentation, including information regarding available ballast water treatment systems
indicating that these systems have generally not been designed for, nor are they available for,
inland and coastal vessels less than 1600 GRT.
Small ballast water systems are not currently available, and to become available would require
176
-------
specific design for automation and installation into smaller vessels. Furthermore, for systems
which conceptually could be scaled down, ballast tanks on smaller vessels tend to have limited
holding times and any treatment technology that has significant holding times would not be
feasible for these types of vessels. In addition, smaller vessels have less space available for
installation of equipment and also have lesser power generating capabilities to operate treatment
systems. Furthermore, smaller vessels may be more likely to operate exclusively in "brown
water conditions" with relatively high sediment as compared to ballast water from larger vessels
which creates added design and operational considerations if these systems were to be scaled
down. The ballast water treatment system would need to be designed for those conditions. Thus,
based on its review of the record, at this time, EPA concludes that existing ballast water
treatment systems are not available for smaller vessels (those less than 1600 GRT).
Regarding economic achievability, the small vessel market is a "niche" market for technology
developers, and EPA is not aware of systems that have been designed and marketed for this size
of vessels. Additionally, the Agency notes that smaller ballast water treatment systems may not
be economically viable given the required design costs. Estimates for the single vessel in this
size range which installed a system vary from between $300,000 to $800,000 in capital costs.
With respect to whether use of onshore treatment, use of public water supply for ballast, or not
discharging ballast alone or in combination would be BAT for these vessels, as discussed
elsewhere throughout this response to comment document, EPA has determined that these
practices are not "available" such that their use can be mandated as BAT. As further discussed
elsewhere in this response to comments document, necessary shipboard operations and the lack
of shipboard and shoreside infrastructure, among other things, do not allow EPA to determine
that these approaches constitute BAT. EPA notes that under Part 2.2.3.3 of the permit, the
permittee must "[minimize the discharge of ballast water essential for vessel operations while
in the waters subject to this permit." EPA notes that these three management approaches, where
available, are strategies that would minimize the discharge of ballast water into waters subject
to this permit.
For additional discussion regarding EPA's BAT determination for these smaller vessels, please
see Parts 4.1 and 4.2 of the VGP Fact Sheet and response to comments in sections 9.1.1 and
9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Regarding commenter's suggestions that EPA consider using technologies such as those
designed to treat sewage, EPA notes that such systems not designed to treat ballast water, the
volumes produced, or to achieve the numeric limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of the permit. See generally,
40 CFR 140.3(a)(2) and (d). With respect to advanced wastewater treatment systems (AWTS)
capable of achieving more stringent effluent limits, EPA additionally notes that such AWTS are
designed for and installed on larger cruise ships. See generally, Title XIV, Certain Alaska
Cruise Ship Operations (33 USCA § 1901 NOTE).
Though EPA has determined that meeting the ballast water discharge standards and
management measures in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP do not reflect BAT for this size class of
vessels, the Agency intends to explore this issue throughout this permit term and reevaluate its
determination for the next VGP. With respect to commenter's concern about impacts on water
177
-------
quality, EPA notes that the 1600 GRT cutoff was made on a technology, not water quality basis.
In addition, EPA expects that those TBELs which are applicable to vessels of 1,600 or less GRT
under today's permit, along with the water quality based provisions of this permit, are
protective of water quality standards. For instance, as discussed elsewhere in this response to
comments document, it has been documented that active use of pumps for deballasting (one of
the TBEL limits in Part 2.2.3.3 of the final VGP) is an effective way to reduce the concentration
of fish larvae (U.S. Coast Guard. 2013. Asian carp survivability experiments and water
transport survives in the Illinois River. CG-926 RDC.) For discussion regarding water quality
based effluent limits, and protection of water quality standards, see discussion in Part 4.3 of the
Fact Sheet and section 10.1, 10.1.1, and 10.1.2 of this comment response document. Lastly,
with respect to commenter's assertion that interim provisions for ballast water exchange and
flushing "have failed to protect the quality of U.S. waters," EPA notes this assertion is
unsubstantiated and further notes, as explained in response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0446-A1, excerpt 13, such practices substantially reduce the amount of potentially
invasive organisms in ships' ballast water.
1 As discussed in the VGP fact sheet, EPA uses databases such as the Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety
and Law Enforcement (MISLE) information system to analyze vessels with less than 8 cubic meters and are less
than 300 gross tons. Please see discussion the VGP fact sheet and economic analysis finalized with today's permit
for additional discussion.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law Division, New
York City Law Department
New York City Law Department
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0598-A2
1
No
Comment: Draft 2012 Vessel General Permit Comments: Section 1.2.3.1 Vessel Discharges
Generated from Vessels when they are Operated in a Capacity Other than as a Means of
Transportation, pg. 9.
The City requests that EPA provide further clarification on the exclusion of vessels being used as
storage facilities pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 122.3(a). Most importantly, under what
circumstances can a cargo or materials barge be considered a storage facility that is exempt from
NPDES requirements under 40 C.F.R. Part 122.3(a)?
For example, NYCDOT utilizes two fuel barges as part of the Fuel Facility for the Staten Island
Ferry. These barges remain moored at a ferry terminal, except for their required dry docking
once every five years. NYCDOT also utilizes floating barges as loading docks at several private
ferry slips. These barges also remained moored, except for periodic dry docking. The City
believes these barges should be considered storage facilities based on these uses, and requests
that EPA clarify the regulation to make clear that these barges would qualify as storage facilities,
exempt from NPDES requirements.
Response: The VGP Fact Sheet provides clarification on vessels being used as storage facilities
178
-------
in Section 3.5.2: "The regulatory exclusion [40 CFR 122.3(a)] did not apply when the vessel is
operating in a capacity other than as a means of transportation, and therefore, discharges from
such vessels continue to be ineligible for coverage under this proposed permit. Vessels that are
not being operated in the capacity of a means of transportation include vessels being used as...
storage facilities..."
The Agency does note, however, that being exempt from the VGP does not mean that the
discharges are exempt from NPDES permitting altogether. Discharges from storage facilities of
the type described by the commenter are typically authorized under another NPDES permit -
individual or general. See Section 2 of the VGP Fact Sheet for a general discussion of NDPES
permitting requirements and, if there is any confusion, contact your NPDES permitting
authority for more information.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jan C. Miles, Captain, Acting Executive Director, Pride of
Baltimore, Inc.
Pride of Baltimore, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0599-A2
1
No
Comment: We are gravely concerned about the impact that the EPA VGP and sVGP
regulations will have on our operations and those of our member organizations. We are a not for
profit organization, we operate seasonally, but occasionally year round, and we promote
environmental stewardship and responsibility aboard our vessel which is primarily propelled by
wind power. Our USCG certified passenger sailing vessel and those of our fellow Tall Ships
America members represent a tiny fraction of the commercial vessels that fall under these sets of
regulations. Nationwide there are approximately 350 US flagged inspected auxiliary sail small
passenger (subchapter T, not more than 100 GRT) and Sailing School Vessels (subchapter R, not
more than 500 GRT). Contrast this to the environmental impact of the tens of thousands of
commercial fishing and recreational vessels that are exempted from having to participate in this
permitting and documentation scheme. Inspected sailing vessels represent such a small fraction
of the maritime industry that none of our vessels were included as subjects when assessing the
fiscal and human resource impact during the implementation study.
Our organization supports any regulation that promotes environmental awareness and protection.
However, there is little in the permitting and documentation process that has any relevance to the
sailing vessels that goes beyond citing other regulations that our membership are already in
compliance with. Our vessel PRIDE OF BALTIMORE II relies on fixed ballast, does not have
ballast tanks, nor does it carry cargo. For our community, the VGP process is a significant
increase in administrative demand for negligible positive environmental impact. On our vessel,
we have for decades practiced and taught/trained "best practices" of maritime environment
stewardship. The proposed VPG regulations for our vessel represent uncalled for levels of
documentation, that also represent administrative requirements that will not produce less
environmental impact while producing additional and extraordinary burdens of administrative
record keeping. In addition, the 79 foot boundary creates a significantly undemocratic inequity of
179
-------
application of the proposed regulation when it permits vessels in our class shorter than 79 feet to
meet record keeping requirements that are insignificant as compared to the record keeping
requirements of longer than 79 foot vessels that are restricted to carrying fewer persons than is
permitted on a shorter vessel (length of vessel is frequently not representative of the numbers of
persons a vessel is authorized to carry). Such inequity of applied regulation does not rise to the
level of beneficial service to the public that the regulation is meant to guide for the purpose of
increasing environmental stewardship.
In recognition of the above, we join with Tall Ships America to recommend the following:
Permanent exemption from the Vessel General Permit (VGPJ and small Vessel General
Permit (sVGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels for all USCG
Inspected small passenger (subchapter T) and sailing school vessel (subchapter R) auxiliary
sail vessel.
We believe that providing this exemption will allow us to continue to do what we do best,
educate the public about the maritime world and develop the leaders of tomorrow. Thank you for
the opportunity to comment.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0532-A2, excerpt 1.
With respect to the 79 foot cutoff, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0574-A2, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Ray Williamson, Executive Director, Maine
Windjammer Cruises
Maine Windjammer Cruises
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0614-A1
1
No
Comment: We are gravely concerned about the impact that the EPA VGP and sVGP
regulations will have on our operations and those of our member organizations. We are a small
business , we operate seasonally, and we promote environmental stewardship and responsibility
aboard our vessels which are primarily propelled by wind power. Our vessels and those of our
fellow Tall Ships America members represent a tiny fraction of the commercial vessels that fall
under these sets of regulations. Nationwide there are approximately 350 US flagged inspected
auxiliary sail small passenger (subchapters T, not more than 100 GRT) and Sailing School
Vessels (subchapter R, not more than 500 GRT). Contrast this to the environmental impact of the
tens of thousands of commercial fishing and recreational vessels that are exempted from having
to participate in this permitting and documentation scheme. These vessels represent such a small
fraction of the maritime industry that none of our vessels were included as subjects when
assessing the fiscal and human resource impact during the implementation study.
180
-------
Our organization supports any regulation that promotes environmental awareness and protection.
However, there is little in the permitting and documentation process that has any relevance to the
sailing vessels that goes beyond citing other regulations that our membership are already in
compliance with. Our vessels rely on fixed ballast, do not have ballast tanks, nor do they carry
cargo. For our community, the VGP process is a significant increase in administrative demand
for negligible positive environmental impact.
In recognition of the above, we join with Tall Ships America to recommend the following:
Permanent exemption from the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and small Vessel General
Permit (sVGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels for all USCG
Inspected small passenger (subchapter T) and sailing school vessel (subchapter R) auxiliary
sail vessel.
We believe that providing this exemption will allow us to continue to do what we do best,
educate the public about the maritime word and develop the leaders of tomorrow. Thank you for
the opportunity to comment.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0532-A2, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Patrick Stant, President, Marmac, LLC, McDonough
Marine Service
Marmac, LLC., McDonough Marine Service
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0627-A2
4
No
Comment: Given that barges, in general, are unmanned, unpowered and, for much of their
operational time, are without any active presence of a towing vessel, it seems impractical to
require the frequency of inspections as under the current and draft permit rules. An inspection
requirement similar to that of Water Docket the sVGP would be more practical and still provide
the desired environmental protections we all want to see. We recommend that deck (of all
descriptions, i.e., deck cargo and spud barges) and hopper barges be permitted under the sVGP,
allowing that the sVGP be changed to allow such.
Should it be decided that unmanned, unpowered barges cannot be moved into the sVGP, we
recommend that similar quarterly inspections, best housekeeping practices, record keeping and
simplified reporting be adopted within the VGP for such vessels.
Discharges from deck and hopper barges generally fall into a limited number of categories, such
as deck runoff, ballast water discharges normal to operations and, in some instances, anode and
antifouling degradation. The majority of barges in our fleet do not experience ballast discharges
during normal operations. We agree it is important that best management practices be adopted by
the operators of such vessels to eliminate or minimize the effect of any discharges to our nation's
waterways. That said, we do not believe such barges should be required to go through the same
181
-------
permitting process required for vessels under the VGP, because of the unnecessary frequency of
inspections currently required.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 1.
Comment: AEP recommends that at the discretion of the barge owner or operator, unmanned,
non-self-propelled barges be allowed to obtain permit coverage under the small Vessel General
Permit (sVGP) rather than the VGP. While the vast majority of inland barges are longer than 79
feet, their discharge characteristics have far more in common with the small vessels that will be
covered by the sVGP than with the other classes of vessels subject to the VGP. Indeed, most
unmanned barges produce fewer effluent streams, and smaller volumes of effluent, than the
small self-propelled vessels for which the sVGP was designed. For example, of the 27 discharge
categories that would be covered by the 2013 VGP, hopper barges - which are essentially
floating steel boxes for carrying dry bulk cargoes - typically discharge only deck runoff,
occasional water pumped from void spaces below deck. Given the small number of discharge
streams and the small volume of effluent produced by barges, there is no environmental benefit
to subjecting barges to the more complex permit requirements contained in the VGP rather than
the more streamlined approach proposed in the sVGP.
There are also significant operational reasons why the sVGP is a better fit for unmanned barges
especially in the inland barge industry. A single company may own hundreds or even thousands
of barges, which may be chartered to multiple operators over relatively short spans of time. The
VGP requirements for weekly visual inspections and extensive recordkeeping and reporting
impose significant administrative and financial burdens on barge owners and custodians (such as
towers and fleeters) with little or no corresponding environmental benefit. EPA could
significantly reduce the economic impact and paperwork burdens associated with the proposed
permits, without undermining their environmental objectives, by allowing unmanned barges to
obtain coverage under the sVGP rather than the VGP and to store / maintain records for
unmanned barges shore side instead of on the vessel (unmanned barge) which would not be a
secure or ideal location. This would eliminate the need to retrofit existing barges (with
significant cost burdens) with a mail box or other devise to store record.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Walter P. Rybka, Senior Captain, Flagship Niagara League
Commenter Affiliation: Flagship Niagara League
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0795-A1
Commenter Name:
Tim Sizemore, Manager Waterway Regulatory Programs,
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0631-A2
4
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
182
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: We are gravely concerned about the impact that the EPA VGP and sVGP
regulations will have on our operations and those of our member organizations. We are a small
non-profit Organization, we operate summer season only on the Great Lakes and we promote
environmental stewardship and responsibility aboard our vessel which is primarily propelled by
wind power. Our vessels and those of our fellow Tall Ships America members represent a tiny
fraction of the commercial vessels that fall under these sets of regulations. Nationwide there are
approximately 350 US flagged inspected auxiliary sail small passenger (subchapters T, not more
than 100 GRT) and Sailing School Vessels (subchapter R, not more than 500 GRT). Contrast this
to the environmental impact of the tens of thousands of commercial fishing and recreational
vessels that are exempted from having to participate in this permitting and documentation
scheme. These vessels represent such a small fraction of the maritime industry that none of our
vessels were included as subjects when assessing the fiscal and human resource impact during
the implementation study.
Our organization supports any regulation that promotes environmental awareness and protection.
However, there is little in the permitting and documentation process that has any relevance to the
sailing vessels that goes beyond citing other regulations that our membership are already in
compliance with. Our vessel relies on fixed ballast, does not have ballast tanks, nor does it carry
cargo. For our community, the VGP process is a significant increase in administrative demand
for negligible positive environmental impact.
In recognition of the above, we join with Tall Ships America to recommend the following:
Permanent exemption from the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and small Vessel (sVGP) for
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels for all USCG Inspected small
passenger (subchapter T) and sailing school vessel (subchapter R) auxiliary sail vessel.
We believe that providing this exemption will allow us to continue to do what we do best,
educate the public about the maritime word and develop the leaders of tomorrow. Thank you for
the opportunity to comment.
Response: Please see the response to commentEPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0532-A2, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jeffrey Woods, Director of Operations, Lynx Educational
Foundation
Lynx Educational Foundation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0796-A1
1
No
Comment: We are gravely concerned about the impact that the EPA VGP and sVGP
regulations will have on our operations and those of our member organizations. We are a not for
profit organization, we operate year round and we promote environmental stewardship and
183
-------
responsibility aboard our vessel which is primarily propelled by wind power. Our vessels and
those of our fellow Tall Ships America members represent a tiny fraction of the commercial
vessels that fall under these sets of regulations. Nationwide there are approximately 350 US
flagged inspected auxiliary sail small passenger (subchapters T, not more than 100 GRT) and
Sailing School Vessels (subchapter R, not more than 500 GRT). Contrast this to the
environmental impact of the tens of thousands of commercial fishing and recreational vessels
that are exempted from having to participate in this permitting and documentation scheme. These
vessels represent such a small fraction of the maritime industry that none of our vessels were
included as subjects when assessing the fiscal and human resource impact during the
implementation study.
Our organization supports any regulation that promotes environmental awareness and protection.
However, there is little in the permitting and documentation process that has any relevance to the
sailing vessels that goes beyond citing other regulations that our membership are already in
compliance with. Our vessel relies on fixed ballast, does not have ballast tanks, nor does it carry
cargo. For our community, the VGP process is a significant increase in administrative demand
for negligible positive environmental impact.
In recognition of the above, we join with Tall Ships America to recommend the following:
Permanent exemption from the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and small Vessel (sVGP) for
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels for all USCG Inspected small
passenger (subchapter T) and sailing school vessel (subchapter R) auxiliary sail vessel.
We believe that providing this exemption will allow us to continue to do what we do best,
educate the public about the maritime word and develop the leaders of tomorrow. Thank you for
the opportunity to comment.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0532-A2, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: 3. Vessel discharges not eligible for coverage on page 1 section 1.5. All of the
vessels we represent head, gut, and bleed their fish at sea. We recommend the UFA
recommendations to you regarding this.
Response: EPA has clarified what "seafood processing" means for purposes of the VGP. This
definition determines the eligibility for certain vessel discharges from vessels engaged in
seafood processing. With respect to the definition, please see the response to comment EPA-
HQ-QW-2011-0141-0505-A1, excerpt 10.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
184
-------
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: Alaska commercial fishing fleet is extremely diverse as are the fisheries themselves.
In 2007, there were 9,828 commercial fishing vessels registered ranging in length from 7 feet to
635 feet. With over 2,000 vessels 20 feet or less; over 2,000 from 21 to 29 feet; approx. 4,404
from 30 to 49 feet; 863 from 50 to 79 feet and 497 vessels over 79 feet. EPA's understanding of
the universe of the vessels only considers the documented vessels from the U.S. Coast Guard
Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement database (MISLE) and not state registered
vessels that will be covered under these permits. Many commercial fishing vessels are also used
for recreational purposes, and we ask that fishing vessels when used for recreational purposes
should receive the same exemption from discharge permits as recreational vessels. We also ask
that clarification on requirement of these permits be provided for uninspected charter vessels
while paying clients are aboard.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1, excerpt 1.
As to whether a vessel is considered a recreational vessel or commercial fishing vessel (or as
raised by the commenter, whether a commercial fishing vessel also used for recreational
purposes would be considered a recreational vessel), such a determination is by the definition of
recreational vessels as defined under the Clean Boating Act.
Recreational vessels, as defined under the Clean Boating Act (which amends the Clean Water
Act), do not have to obtain NPDES permit authorization for incidental discharges, and
therefore, are not subject to this permit (Clean Water Act §§ 312(o), 402(r), and 502(25)).
Instead, discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, if the vessel is a recreational
vessel, will become subject to management practices after regulations are finalized establishing
those management practices. See 33 U.S.C. 1322(o). The Clean Water Act defines a
recreational vessel as any vessel that is either (1) manufactured or used primarily for pleasure,
or (2) leased, rented, or chartered to a person for the pleasure of that person. The term
recreational vessel does not include a vessel is both subject to Coast Guard inspection and either
(1) is engaged in commercial use or (2) carries paying passengers.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: "Seafood Processing" should be defined as the commercial preparation of fish or
fish products other than by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or
brine chilling. See comments below in the sVGP section of comments.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-05Q5-A1, excerpt 10.
185
-------
3. Permit Term
Commenter Name:
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Chamber of Shipping of America
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
24
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Question 1. A four year permit term for the VGP, specifically, what are the merits of
a four year permit term instead of the standard five year permit term? There is absolutely no
merit of a four year permit term versus a five year term for the reasons discussed in the permit
reopener section earlier in this document. System development, type certification processes and
installation challenges strongly suggest that any new requirements would need to be phased in
over at least a 5 year period to account for drydocking schedules.
Response: EPA's proposed reissuance of the VGP included a 4-year permit term as a way
to enable the permit keeping pace with developing technologies, especially for ballast water
treatment. EPA sought comment on the merits of a shortened permit term, versus the maximum
5-year permit term typical of most EPA-issued NPDES permits. After careful consideration of
the comments on the proposed permit, EPA has finalized a 5-year permit term, consistent with
most EPA-issued NPDES permits.
EPA also concurs with commenters that a 5-year permit term provides an adequate time frame
for becoming familiar with the current regulations and provides time to train crewmembers and
customers in regulatory requirements. This also promotes clarity and consistency among permit
holders as the universe of permittees becomes more familiar with their permit requirements.
Also, modifying the permit in less than five years limits the amount of time EPA can focus on
improving the outreach, administration and enforcement of the permit.
Additionally, commenters described that vessels operate on a 5-year periodic survey cycle, that
budgeting and operations for vessels are likewise tied to a 5-year cycle, and that international
regulations for vessels are based upon similar 5-year cycles. EPA concurs with commenters that
it would be beneficial for the permit to include a 5-year term to maintain consistency with these
established operating and business cycles, particularly for purposes of resource planning and
acquisition for items such as technology and process/procedural improvements. EPA also
acknowledges that adopting a 5-year term will alleviate related concerns raised by commenters
by reducing uncertainty for operators and permit holders, enhancing predictability and certainty
of investment, reducing disruption caused by permit changes, and improving the stability of the
regulated community.
EPA also notes that a 5-year permit term will allow ballast water treatment technologies to
progress to widespread use for EPA's consideration and evaluation for the 2018 permit
reissuance. Several commenters pointed to the Permit Reopener Clause at Part 1.9 of the
186
-------
Permit, which allows EPA to modify the permit within the permit term in accordance with 40
CFR §§ 124.5 and 122.62. Grounds for modification include receipt of new information that
was not available at the time of permit issuance and would have justified the application of
different permit conditions at the time of permit issuance. EPA agrees with commenters that the
Permit Reopener Clause satisfies the objectives EPA sought in its consideration of a 4-year
permit term - allowing EPA to keep the permit up to date with advancing technology. Hence,
EPA agrees with commenters that finalizing a 4-year versus 5-year permit is unnecessary in
light of the reopener clause.
Some commenters stated that EPA should not be able to reopen and modify the permit before
its expiration. Others discussed the need for a "grandfathering period" for capital investments.
See the responses to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 5 and EPA-HQ-
OW-2011-0141-0481-A1, Excerpt 6 for responses to these comments, respectively.
Commenters also described the economic burdens associated with permit reissuance, which
would be borne more frequently if EPA adopted a 4-year permit term:
• Owner/operator costs to participate in the permit revision process, such as analyzing
permit revisions and providing meaningful comments;
• Owner/operator costs to educate and train crew on new and/or revised permit
requirements;
• Owner/operator costs for required capital investments and ongoing operation and
maintenance; and EPA costs for reviewing and evaluating permit requirements,
responding to comments, and reissuing the permit. In light of these comments, EPA
issued the VGP for a 5-year term.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
21
No
Comment: Also, we would like to request that the EPA restore the permit term to 5 (five) years,
as that is the standard length of the majority of the NPDES permits. EPA should not be able to
reopen and modify the permit before its expiration, because to allow otherwise would create
uncertainty for the operators and permit holders.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 24.
Commenter Name: Algis Vanagas, Senior Vice-President Technical, Algoma
Central Corporation
Commenter Affiliation: Algoma Central Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1
187
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: 1. Permit Term, page i. We are not supportive of the proposed reduction in the term
of the permit to four years from the current five year term. Particularly with regards to ballast
water standards, this shorter term introduces additional uncertainty for ship owners with respect
to equipment and discharge standards. We suggest that the EPA maintain the current five year
term as it typically does for land-based industry.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 24.
Commenter Name: Christian LaPense, Dann Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation: Dann Marine Towing
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Late Comment? No
Comment: b. Dann Marine Towing requests EPA to restore the permit term to five years.
Although the Clean Water Act contemplates NPDES permits of less than five years' duration,
five years is the standard length of the majority of NPDES permits. Under existing regulations,
EPA has the authority to reopen and modify the permit before its expiration. There is no
justification (other than a possible political motivation) to abbreviate the term of the next VGP. It
takes time for vessel owners, operators, and crew members to be educated and trained on the
requirements of a new permit. It is unfair to these members of the regulated community for EPA
to agree to shorten the permit term for reasons that do not serve the interests of the permittees or
the permitting agency. A five-year permit term will promote clarity and consistency among
permit holders and allow EPA personnel to focus on improving the administration and
enforcement of the permit.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 24.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
19
No
Comment: Also, we would like to request that the EPA restore the permit term to 5 (five) years,
as that is the standard length of the majority of the NPDES permits. EPA should not be able to
reopen and modify the permit before its expiration, because to allow otherwise would create
uncertainty for the operators and permit holders.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 24.
188
-------
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 22
Late Comment? No
Comment: EPA asked for guidance on the term of the VGP permit. No, the term of the VGP
should not be shortened to a four year time period instead of a five year period.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0485-A1. excerpt 24.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
19
No
Comment: AWO urges EPA to restore the permit term to five years. Although the Clean Water
Act contemplates NPDES permits of less than five years' duration, five years is the standard
length of the majority of NPDES permits. Under existing regulations, EPA has the authority to
reopen and modify the permit before its expiration. There is no justification (other than a
possible political motivation) to abbreviate the term of the next VGP. It takes significant time for
vessel owners, operators, and crew members to be educated and trained on the requirements of a
new permit. It is unfair to these members of the regulated community for EPA to agree to shorten
the permit term for reasons that do not serve the interests of the permittees or the permitting
agency. A five-year permit term will promote clarity and consistency among permit holders and
allow EPA personnel to focus on improving the administration and enforcement of the permit.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0485-A1. excerpt 24.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Berge, Vice President, Pacific Merchant Shipping
Association (PMSA)
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0508-A1
8
No
Comment: 3) Permit Term. While we appreciate the need for the VGP to keep pace with the
advancements in technology, we believe that a 5 year term provides an adequate time frame to
reflect such changes. In regards to ballast water treatment, we refer to our earlier comment that it
189
-------
will take well into the first two years of the 2013 VGP before the majority of treatment systems
will be appropriately tested and certified by independent laboratories and the USCG. A 5 year
term would better allow those technologies to progress to the point of widespread use and
consistency before comment will be sought for the subsequent VGP.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0485-A1. excerpt 24.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William R. Barr, Vice President Safety & Compliance,
Amherst Madison, Inc.
Amherst Madison, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0524-A1
11
No
Comment: Life cycle of the VGP permit should be maintained at five years and not reduced to a
shorter period of time. It takes time for one to become familiar with the current regulations and
requires significant time for us to train crewmembers and customers in regulatory requirements.
Having the permit on a five year term promotes clarity and consistency among permit holders.
Too soon a change would also not allow EPA personnel time to focus on improving the
administration and enforcement of VGP.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011 -0141 -0485-A1. excerpt 24.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
27
No
Comment: 2.4: General Permits. In response to the EPA's question as to whether the term of
the VGP should be shortened from five years to four, we recommend that the current five-year
term be maintained, with a view to ensuring stability for the regulated community and
consistency in the VGP program. Moreover, a stable regulatory environment is the best way of
encouraging investment in the best available technologies for complying with the permit'
requirements.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 24.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 17
190
-------
Late Comment?
No
Comment: Question #1: What are the merits of a four-year permit term instead of the standard
five-year permit term?
LCA Response: We certainly agree that technology does not stand still, but modifications to
commercial vessels must be approved by the U.S. Coast Guard and classification societies, often
only after considerable research into how such changes can affect the vessel's structural strength,
subdivision and stability, and other safety requirements. This takes a great deal of time, often
years. That fact alone argues against shortening the term of the permit.
In addition, as EPA knows, it began the process for this iteration of the VGP two years ahead of
the expiration date. It is very expensive to analyze and provide meaningful comments on this
significant action. If the term is reduced, that will significantly increase costs. Moreover given
the time needed to revise each permit and the long process involved (two years in the case of the
current proposal), reducing the term to four years will necessitate many entities having to employ
someone almost full time just to participate in the permit revision process and to update and train
personnel on changes.
The five-year term is also what governs all other discharges under the NPDES program. Our
industry, like others, needs some measure of certainty to this regulatory program. LCA's
members spend millions of dollars making sure they are in compliance, and the more the
program changes the more they will have to spend to make sure they are keeping up. For
example, many operators are trying to automate their compliance efforts. Every change to the
permit means a change to those operations.
The VGP should also provide for grandfathering of existing vessels and systems when
appropriate.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 24.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Comment: P. 8 EPA Seeks Comment on the Proposed 4 Year Term of this Permit. CLIA urges
EPA to reconsider a 4 year term and revert to the 5 year term of the current permit. While EPA
wishes to maintain flexibility with respect to developing technology, such concerns are
addressed by the re-opener clause of Part 1.9.1. Even with a 5 year term, EPA would retain the
authority to modify this permit should conditions and technology dictate that eventuality. On the
other hand, should such conditions not come about; a 4 year term would require re-issuance
regardless. In truth, both the development and installation of that technology are not likely to
occur within 4 years.
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
37
No
191
-------
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 24.
Commenter Name: Douglas B. Schneider, World Shipping Council (WSC)
Commenter Affiliation: World Shipping Council (WSC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? No
Comment: 3. Comments on Administrative Provisions in the Draft VGP
A. Term of Next VGP Should Be Five Years
EPA is proposing that the term for the next VGP be four years instead of the maximum permit
term allowed by the Clean Water Act, which is five years. EPA's justification for a four year
versus five year VGP term is that a shorter term would help ensure that the permit keeps pace
with developing technologies, especially for ballast water treatment. In our view, a longer VGP
permit term is desirable because it enhances predictability and certainty of investment for vessel
owners/operators that will be spending billions of dollars to install the best available treatment
technology on new builds and to retrofit tens of thousands of existing vessels with compliant
technology pursuant to the proposed installation timeline. As mentioned in section I.D., it will
take several years for the regulated community to even know what systems will meet the EPA
and USCG testing and approval requirements. More time will be needed for manufacturers to
scale up production of fully compliant systems to meet the installation demand. A four-year VGP
term would mean that EPA would be inviting comments on the third generation VGP just as the
regulated community is beginning to procure and install systems that have demonstrated that
they can comply with the requirements in the second generation VGP. We recommend that the
next VGP be valid for a term of five years.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 24.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadians)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadians)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A3
1
No
Comment: 1. Issue: A four-year permit term for the VGP, specifically, what are the merits of a
four year permit term instead of the standard five year term?
CSA Response: With respect to vessel operations, there does not appear to be any benefit derived
from a four-year term as compared to the current standard of five years. As the draft permit is
mandating that ship owners make a significant and costly investment in technology associated
with ballast water treatment systems, the permit should also include provisions that acknowledge
192
-------
the significant investment with a grandfathering mechanism for properly type-approved systems
by the USCG.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 24.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A3
1
No
Comment: 1. Issue: A four-year permit term for the VGP, specifically, what are the merits of &
four year permit term instead of the standard five year term?
CSLI Response: VGP 2013 requires ship owners to make significant and costly investments in
technology, training, recordkeeping and operations. The capital investment in ballast water
technology alone will average between $3.0 to $4.0 million per ship. Capital investments of this
magnitude are generally amortized over 12-15 years. Therefore, a grandfathering period of at
least 15 years - preferably for the life of the vessel or the life of the system - is necessary.
Additionally, costs to train crews on the different operational and recordkeeping requirements of
the VGP 2013 are also significant. Our crews frequently rotate between the ships in our fleet,
thus requiring re-training, adding to the cost. Depending on the degree to which the next iteration
changes the operational, training and recordkeeping requirements, reducing the period of the
VGP 2013 from five years to four years - a reduction of 20% - could easily result in a 20% (or
more)increase in cost. Therefore, we request the EPA carefully analyze and evaluate the
additional cost to the regulated community before considering reducing the VGP 2013 period
from five to four years.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 24.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and
Governmental Affairs, Foss Maritime Company
Foss Maritime Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0560-A2
8
No
Comment: Foss also feels that the permit term is more appropriately set at five years, not less.
To comply with the permit Foss has had to make capital investments in its fleet and change well
over 50 operating processes as well as additional training requirements. Compliance with the
permit is time consuming and expensive. Requiring a company to revamp its processes, training
and make additional capital commitments at more frequent intervals than five years to insure
compliance places an unfair burden on the individual company.
193
-------
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 24.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: 1. What are the merits of a four year permit term instead of the standard five year
permit term? Based on our experience, vessels operate on a 5-year periodic survey cycle and
predominant budgeting and operations for ships are likewise tied to a 5-year cycle. All
international regulations for ships are based upon similar 5-year cycles. It is our recommendation
that EPA maintain a 5-year permit cycle for consistency with existing industry practices and to
avoid disruptive and/or confusing requirements.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 24.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
2
No
Comment: 1. What are the merits of a four year permit term instead of the standard five year
permit term? Based on our experience, vessels operate on a 5-year periodic survey cycle and
predominant budgeting and operations for vessels are likewise tied to a 5-year cycle. All
international regulations for vessels are based upon similar 5-year cycles. It is recommended that
EPA maintain a 5-year permit cycle for consistency with existing industry practices and to avoid
disruptive and/or confusing requirements.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 24.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 27
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: EPA asked for guidance on the term of the VGP permit. No, the term of the VGP
should not be shortened to a four year time period instead of a five year period.
194
-------
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 24.
4. Permit Background
Comment: II. Statutory and Regulatory Background
The CWA is the principal federal statute enacted to protect the quality of the waters of the
United States. Stated goals of the CWA are "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters" and "to eliminate" "the discharge of pollutants into
the navigable waters." 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). Section 301(a) of the CWA, id. § 1311(a), provides
that "the discharge of any pollutant... shall be unlawful" unless, in pertinent part, the discharge is
made pursuant to and is authorized by a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") permit, as provided by section 402 of the Act, id. § 1342. The CWA broadly defines
"discharge of a pollutant" to include "any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any
point source," id. § 1362(12), and "pollutant" to include, among other things, "biological
materials," id. § 1362(6). The CWA defines "point source" to include "any discernible, confined
and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to... [a] vessel or other floating craft, from
which pollutants are or may be discharged." Id. § 1362(14).
Section 303 of the CWA "also requires each State, subject to federal approval, to institute
comprehensive water quality standards establishing water quality goals for all intrastate waters."
PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 704 (1994)
(citing 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b)(1)(C), 1313). "These state water quality standards provide 'a
supplementary basis... so that numerous point sources... may be further regulated to prevent
water quality from falling below unacceptable levels.'" Id. at 704 (quoting EPA v. California ex
rel. State Water Resources Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200, 205 n.12 (1976)).
NPDES permits must contain technology-based effluent limitations ("TBELs"), which are based
on available control technologies. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(a)(1) (2008).
NPDES permits must also contain more stringent limits, known as water quality-based effluent
limitations ("WQBELs"), where TBELs alone are insufficient to ensure that dischargers do not
cause the quality of receiving waters to violate water quality standards. 33 U.S.C.
§ 1311(b)(1)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d); see also Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486,
492 (2d. Cir. 2005). Specifically, WQBELs are necessary to control pollutants which the
permitting agency "determines are or may be discharged at a level which will cause, have the
reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any State water quality
standard." 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(l)(i). WQBELs are not based on available control technology,
but on what is necessary to achieve water quality standards, without regard to technological
Commenter Name:
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
11
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
195
-------
feasibility or cost. See Am. Paper Inst., Inc., v. U.S. EPA, 996 F.2d 346, 350 (D.C. Cir. 1993);
40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1).
Response: EPA notes that commenter has summarized Sections 402 and 303 of the CWA, and
provided their views with respect to roles of technology-based and water quality-based effluent
limits under the CWA. EPA has included explanations of how it established both technology
and water quality based limits in the VGP fact sheet. Please see Section 4 of the VGP fact sheet.
Additionally, EPA has addressed how it derived both technology based and water quality-based
effluent limits throughout this response to comments document. With respect to how EPA
developed effluent limits for the VGP, please also see the response to comments in sections 9.1,
9.1.1, 9.1.2, 10.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 11.2 and others in this comment response document.
4.1 2008 VGP
Commenter Name: Nick Schroeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes
Comment: Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, Clean Water Act
("CWA") section 301(a), "the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful" unless
the discharge is in compliance with certain other sections of the Act. A person may discharge a
pollutant without violating the CWA section 301 prohibition, by obtaining authorization to
discharge under a CWA section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. The EPA issued the original Vessel General Permit ("VGP") to regulate incidental
discharges from vessels operating in a capacity as a means of transportation.
The 2008 VGP addressed 26 potential vessel discharge streams by establishing effluent limits,
including Best Management Practices ("BMPS") to control the discharges of waste streams and
constituents found in those waste streams. For these discharges, the permit establishes effluent
limits pertaining to the constituents found in the effluent and BMPS designed to decrease the
amount of constituents entering the waste stream. A vessel owner is responsible for meeting the
applicable effluent limits and complying with all the effluent limits for every listed discharge the
vessel produces.
Furthermore, the 2008 VGP requires that owners or operators of a vessel that is either 300 or
more gross register tons or has the capacity to hold or discharge more than 8 cubic 3 meters of
ballast water is required to submit a Notice of Intent ("NOI") to receive permit coverage. The
2008 VGP requires owners or operators of vessels to conduct routine self-inspections and
monitoring of all areas of the vessel that the permit addresses.
In light of the valid concerns about the spread of aquatic invasive species through ballast water,
EPA is proposing new, more stringent changes to the 2008 VGP. The EPA is organizing these
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Environmental Law Center
Great Lakes Environmental Law Center
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0535-A2
4
No
196
-------
changes into three sections; changes to ballast water requirements; changes to other incidental
discharge effluent requirements; and changes to administrative requirements.
Response: EPA notes that the commenter summarizes their interpretation of the requirements
of the 2008 VGP and the changes in the 2013 draft VGP.
5. Compliance and Enforcement
Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Late Comment? No
Comment: V. EPA Should Establish a Clear and Transparent Process for Type-Approval,
Monitoring, Reporting, and Enforcement in the Next VGP, in Collaboration with the Coast
Guard.
To ensure that the requirements of both the CWA and NISA are fully and effectively
implemented, EPA and the Coast Guard should establish a clear and transparent process for
sharing monitoring and enforcement information with both each other and the public, as well as
type approval parameters (e.g., demonstrating adequate performance in freshwater ecosystems
for vessels operating in the Great Lakes).
Response: EPA intends to work closely with the Coast Guard to share monitoring and
enforcement information, where appropriate. In addition, EPA plans to make any ballast water
monitoring data available in electronic form available to the public in electronic form. Due to
permit requirements to report data electronically, EPA expects to receive most of the data in
electronic format. EPA believes that such an approach increases the transparency of permit
compliance without unduly increasing the burden on the regulated community or EPA. In
addition, EPA and the Coast Guard have issued a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to
establish cooperation and coordination between the agencies for implementing and enforcing
the Vessel General Permit (VGP). Sharing of information, expertise, and technical assistance
for VGP implementation is intended to reduce redundancy in government oversight of vessel
activities and increase the effectiveness of each Agency's ability to accomplish its mission.
Finally, the type approval process is administered by the Coast Guard and is beyond the scope
of this permit.
Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 22
197
-------
Late Comment? No
Comment: We also urge that a rigorous type approval, enforcement, inspection and monitoring
program be developed jointly with the Coast Guard to determine compliance with these new
regulations. Such a program would assure that independent land-based type approval testing is
performed in fresh water for all systems approved to operate in fresh water. It would also include
regular inspection and publication of monitoring reports, similar to that currently being
performed for all vessels entering the St. Lawrence Seaway by the binational Great Lakes
Seaway Ballast Water Working Group. A program should also include regular, unscheduled
inspection of actual performance of technology, including analyzing substantial water samples,
to ensure complete compliance. Such a monitoring and inspection program could be incorporated
into the Port State Control Program currently implemented by the Coast Guard.
Response: EPA requires self monitoring to ensure continued compliance with the permit, and
the Coast Guard is developing inspection and sampling tools. Please also see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpt 19. Also, EPA intends to work with the
Coast guard to identify an appropriate scheme for assessing performance of ballast water
technology, to include areas such as type approval, enforcement, inspection, and monitoring.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Director, Environment &
Sustainability, Maerks Line North America Liner
Operations
Maersk Line
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0513-A1
7
No
Comment: d. A large percentage of these fleets (often over half) are chartered from the vessel
owners to the shipping lines. When charter vessels go on or off hire to meet new needs, the
vessels" compliance with US EPA VGP requirements needs to be clearly and easily
determinable and reasonably quickly achievable.
Response: EPA will continue to work with permittees to provide appropriate outreach and
guidance on complying with the requirements of the VGP. EPA believes that coming into
compliance with the permit terms and limits can readily be accomplished, as has been
demonstrated with the 2008 VGP.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
198
-------
Comment: P. 11 Part.4 - Permit Compliance - This section describes the obligation to comply
with the permit as well as the time frames for corrective action found in section 3 of the permit.
Experience under the current permit reveals that the first corrective action measure taken is
usually to terminate the discharge, at least until outside waters covered by the permit. We have
commented more completely on this aspect of the permit in reference to Parts 3.2 and 3.2 below.
Therefore, in this section as well as Section 3 corrective action requirements, the time frames
must be couched in terms such as, "Corrective actions must be completed within the specified
timeframes. Alternatively, if the discharge is terminated, before re-initiating the discharge in
waters covered by this permit..."
Response: Please see section 7.13 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
11
No
Comment: Enforcement: Wisconsin DNR requests that EPA work closely with USCG and with
states to ensure effective implementation of the discharge permit program. Thorough compliance
inspections and consistent enforcement of permit provisions will be the foundation of successful
efforts to protect the integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem. EPA has a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with USCG that designates USCG to inspect and enforce the VGP2.
However, at this time, state and federal efforts are not coordinated to make the best use of
limited staff resources.
Wisconsin DNR supports and will participate in the development of coordinated inspection
protocols and work plans to maximize effectiveness. Also, because the control of AIS is a high
priority in Wisconsin, we strongly recommend that EPA request, as part of future budget
submittals, additional grant resources for states to cooperatively implement these requirements.
An increase in Section 106 funding without earmarks is the most appropriate vehicle to
accomplish this. Additional federal resources may be a key factor to Wisconsin's active
involvement in the future.
Response: As mentioned, EPA will continue to work closely with USCG through the MOU
regarding enforcement of the VGP to ensure effective implementation of the discharge permit
program. In addition, EPA will continue to work with our states partners to maximize the
effectiveness and efficiency of the program. However requests related to funding of state
NPDES programs is outside the scope of today's action.
Commenter Name: Brian P. Smith, Program and Communications Director,
Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE)
Commenter Affiliation: Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE)
199
-------
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0553-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: Require compliance on the date the new permit goes into effect.
Response: Permit compliance is generally required on the date the permit becomes effective.
This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2013. Please see Part 1.4 of the VGP and Part
3.6 of the VGP fact sheet for more information. However, some provisions in the permit are on
a delayed implementation schedule due to the lack of availability of treatment technology at the
time of permit issuance. Specifically, please see section 4.4.3.5.5 of the factsheet for a
discussion of the schedule for when ballast water treatment becomes required.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574- A2
1
No
Comment: As a general comment we don't believe the EPA fully comprehends the physical and
operational characteristics of commercial fishing vessels that fall into the VGP category. In
addition the Clean Water Act (CWA) violations are publicized, allowing anyone to seek
compensation for a portion of fines to be levied. This has created a cottage industry of litigators
who peruse EPA enforcement data bases, file suits, and recover costs. Due to the numerous ways
in which small vessels may inadvertently violate the requirements of the VGP, we envision
groups who are opposed to commercial fishing using this process to seek damages on small
commercial fishing operations. We believe that VGP violations should be exempt from the
citizen suit recovery provisions. At a minimum, we believe that confidentiality should be
provided so fishing vessel operators don't have to spend their time and money in court rather
than pursuing their livelihoods. We urge the agency to review the Magnuson Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act confidentiality standards, which have long regulated the use
of confidential information in the fishing industry, and adopt those standards in this permit.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter's suggestion to exempt VGP violations from citizen
suit recovery provisions and increase confidentiality of information for certain vessels. Citizen
suits are provided for under CWA Section 505 and any revisions to such are outside the scope
both of EPA's authority and of today's action. However, with respect to citizen suits, EPA
disagrees with commenter's interpretation of the implementation procedures for citizen suits.
CWA Section 505 provides that no citizen suit may be commenced prior to 60 days after a
citizen gives notice to the alleged violator (among others). Thus, as a general matter, if the
permit violation ceases during that 60 days, and is not reasonably expected to recur a citizen
suit cannot be maintained because of the absence of on-going non-compliance with the permit.
See Gwaltney of Smithfield V. Chesapeake Bay Found, 484 U.S. 49. EPA notes that the
Agency is currently unaware of a single citizen suit provision filed against an operator under the
200
-------
2008 VGP. With respect to confidentiality of information, the federal regulations at 40 CFR
Part 2 establishes procedures for submission and handling of confidential information, including
information submitted pursuant to an NPDES permit. Consistent with those regulations,
operators may claim appropriate information submitted for purposes of the VGP as confidential
business information (CBI). EPA will redact all such language properly claimed as CBI if it
determines that it is appropriate to withhold from the public consistent with 40 CFR Part 2
provisions.
Commenter Name: Tim Sizemore, Manager Waterway Regulatory Programs,
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
Commenter Affiliation: American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0631-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: EPA should clarify responsibility for permit compliance between vessel
Owner/Operators and third party service providers. The current VGP definition of
owner/operator does not adequately reflect the real-world ownership and operational control of
vessels and provides the opportunity for far too broad an interpretation of responsibility. It is not
uncommon for towing companies to be the "operators" of towing vessels and or barges under
long-term lease or charter agreements from an owner, such as a bank or finance company. Many
operators then hire other third-party companies to provide towing or fleeting services. USEPA
should clarify that under these circumstances the party who has operational control of a vessel,
including barges, has responsibility for permit compliance such as conducting barge inspections
and maintaining records for that vessel while in that party's care, custody and control.
Specifically, it is not practical for a party who "operates" a vessel such as a barge on a long-term
lease agreement to be responsible for day-to-day compliance of that barge when it is in the
possession of a third party fleet or towing service provider. USEPA should specify requirements
for permit compliance as required of those entities with actual day-to-day operational control.
Response: EPA's definition of "owner/operator" in Appendix A of the permit specifies that
"for purposes of this permit, an 'operator' means a party, including a charterer by demise, who:
has operational control over vessel activities, including the ability to modify those activities; or
has day-to-day operational control of those activities that are necessary to ensure compliance
with the permit or to direct workers to carry out activities required to comply with the permit."
EPA acknowledges that there may be instances, as described in the comment, where a third-
party company may have operational control of a vessel for an extended period of time. In this
case, the permit allows compliance activities, such as routine visual inspections or extended
unmanned period inspections, to be conducted by that third party company as an operator of the
discharge for which they have day-to-day operational control. In this instance, the towing
company is also considered an operator in that they retain the overall operational control of the
vessel, including the ability to modify vessel activities. However, EPA retains the discretion, as
circumstances dictate, to bring an enforcement action against all Operators involved with a
specific discharge.
201
-------
Commenter Name: Sarah Branch, Director, Government Relations, Offshore
Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Commenter Affiliation: Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0760-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: My name is Sarah Branch and I am Director of Government Relations for the
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA). Thank you for allowing us the chance to speak
today. OMSA is the national trade association representing 250 companies involved in the
development and exploration of offshore oil and gas resources in the Gulf of Mexico. Our vessel
companies operate offshore supply vessels (OSV's), crewboats, liftboats and tugs and barges,
approximately 1,200 vessels total. The majority of these vessels also hold Notice of Intents.
Compliance with the VGP is an ongoing learning process and we appreciate the EPA's support
in making compliance with the 2013 VGP as seamless as possible.
Response: EPA acknowledges this comment.
6. Definitions
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 21
Late Comment? No
Comment: 22. Several new definitions, including 'biodegradable,' 'environmentally acceptable
lubricants,' and 'voyage.' It is our recommendation that definitions be provided that accurately
depict the performance of ballast water treatment systems and not provide a method to mask or
distort reporting requirements.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's request to add definitions that accurately depict
operation of a vessel. The Agency has added several new definitions to this permit, including
"biodegradable," "active substances," "alternative management systems," "drydocking,"
"environmentally acceptable lubricants," "Lakers" "niche areas," "seafood processing,"
"untreated graywater," and "voyage." Based on public comment received, EPA also has
modified a number of definitions, including biodegradable and bio accumulative. To develop
these definitions, EPA has, where possible, relied on existing definitions in other laws and
regulations applicable to this universe of permittees in order to provide consistency with those
laws and provide permittees with a familiar framework. For those definitions that were
developed based on another source, the citation to that law or regulation is included in brackets
after the definition.
202
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
22
No
Comment: 22. Several new definitions, including 'biodegradable, ' 'environmentally acceptable
lubricants, ' and 'voyage.' It is recommended that definitions be provided that accurately depicts
the performance of ballast water treatment systems and not provide a method to mask or distort
reporting requirements.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2 excerpt 21.
6.1 Biodegradable
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
R. Graff
ZF Marine, LLC
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0440
1
No
Comment: This draft discusses biodegradable fluids, but does not define biodegradable. Please
send a reply to rick.graff@zf.com and wolfgang.schmid@zf.com concerning the definition and
applicable specifications that define a biodegradable fluid.
Response: In response to this and other comments, EPA has modified the definition of
"biodegradable" to align with that provided for European Eco-Label lubricant labeling, the most
widely accepted labeling program and a major advancement toward a single international
standard (see Appendix A of the Permit). Furthermore, EPA clarified the definition of
"biodegradable" in the context of lubricants, cleaning products, and biocidal substances.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Donald Sweeney, Vice President of Finance, Terresolve
Technologies
Terresolve Technologies
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0512-A1
3
No
Comment: "Biodegradable" in reference to environmentally acceptable lubricants should
include as acceptable test methodology ASTM 7373, and ASTM 5864. It should also utilize
ASTM Standard D 6046 - 02 (2006) PW1 as minimum biodegradability standard.
203
-------
Response: EPA agrees with commenter on the inclusion in the definition of "biodegradable"
test methods ASTM 5864 and ASTM D-7373 as these methods are consistent with EPA's VGP
definition requiring demonstration of either the removal of at least 70 percent of dissolved
organic carbon, production of at least 60 percent of the theoretical carbon dioxide, or
consumption of at least 60 percent of the theoretical oxygen demand within 28 days. EPA
acknowledges the suggestion to utilize ASTM Standard D 6046 - 02 (2006) Pwl as a minimum
biodegradability standard; however, the permit identifies methods not standards and inclusion
of that standard in essence would serve no additional purpose. The ASTM Standard D 6046 -
02 (2006) Pwl is a system meant to classify hydraulic fluids for environmental impact and
includes four categories of environmental persistence in Aerobic Freshwater. The classification
referenced by the comment is "Pwl" which refers to "greater than or equal to 60% in 28 days =
ultimate (ASTM)/ Readily (OECD) Biodegradable". This matches up with what the VGP
definition of biodegradable (acknowledging too that this standard has been superseded by
ASTM D6046-02 (2012)).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Peter Vickers, Chairman & Managing Director, Vickers
Oils
Vickers Oils
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1
4
No
Comment: 7. We recommend that the definition of "Biodegradable" in Appendix A should be
modified to begin thus:
"Biodegradable" means the following for the purposes of the VGP:
Regarding environmentally acceptable lubricants and greases, biodegradable means
lubricant or grease formulations that contain at least 90% (w/w) or 75% (w/w)
respectively, of a constituent substance or constituent substances that each demonstrate
either the removal of at least 70 percent of dissolved organic carbon, or production of at
least 60 percent of the theoretical carbon dioxide, or consumption at least 60 percent of
the theoretical oxygen demand within 28 days. Acceptable test methods are: Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Test Guidelines 301 A-F, 306,
and 310, and International Organization for Standardization 14593:1999.
In addition, a lubricant formulation may contain up to 10% (w/w) of a constituent
substance or constituent substances that are inherently biodegradable, of which up to 5%
(w/w) may be non-biodegradable.
A grease formulation may contain a constituent substance or constituent substances that are
either inherently biodegradable or non-biodegradable up to a combined total of 25% (w/w).
Acceptable test methods to demonstrate inherent biodegradability include: OECD Test
Guidelines 302 (>70% biodegradation after 28 days) or OECD Test Guidelines 301 A-F (>20%
but <60% biodegradation after 28 days).
204
-------
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0514-A1, excerpt 9.
Comment: Biodegradability. The draft 2013 VGP proposes to measure biodegradability by the
following test methods: OECD 301 A-F, 306 and 310, and International Organization for
Standardization 14593:1999. Limits of 70% dissolved organic carbon, 60% theoretical carbon
dioxide and 60% theoretical oxygen demand at 28 days are included. We support these test
methods and limits.
These test methods and limits are in line with common industry standards for various labeling
schemes and represent an appropriate step forwards in reducing environmental pollution. It has
been suggested by others that testing should be restricted to Biodegradability in Seawater by
OECD 306. However, it has been reported that OECD 306 is highly variable since the seawater
sample cannot be controlled, and the method itself states that not only is it not a test for ready
biodegradability, but it also does not simulate the marine environment since nutrients are added
and the concentration of test substance is very much higher than would be present in the sea. We
therefore recommend that the proposed biodegradability test methods and limits should stand as
currently drafted and should not be altered.
The thickener component of grease needs special consideration when specifying biodegradability
criteria. For this reason, the European labels have separate criteria for greases. We therefore
recommend that the definition of "Biodegradable" (below) be modified to better accommodate
greases.
Biodegradability testing of a formulation is not generally recognized in other environmental
testing schemes, although it is often favored by marketers. In order to arrive at a satisfactory
definition for bioaccumulation (below) we recommend that the biodegradability definition in
Appendix A should be modified to begin thus:
"Biodegradable" means the following for the purposes of the VGP:
Regarding environmentally acceptable lubricants and greases, biodegradable means
lubricant or grease formulations that contain at least 90% (w/w) or 75% (w/w)
respectively, of a constituent substance or constituent substances that each demonstrate
either the removal of at least 70 percent of dissolved organic carbon, or production of at
least 60 percent of the theoretical carbon dioxide, or consumption at least 60 percent of
the theoretical oxygen demand within 28 days. Acceptable test methods are: Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Test Guidelines 301 A-F, 306,
and 310, and International Organization for Standardization 14593:1999.
Commenter Name:
Peter Vickers, Chairman & Managing Director, Vickers
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Oils
Vickers Oils
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1
9
No
205
-------
In addition, a lubricant formulation may contain up to 10% (w/w) of a constituent
substance or constituent substances that are inherently biodegradable, of which up to 5%
(w/w) may be non-biodegradable. A grease formulation may contain a constituent
substance or constituent substances that are either inherently biodegradable or non-
biodegradable up to a combined total of 25% (w/w). Acceptable test methods to
demonstrate inherent biodegradability include: OECD Test Guidelines 302 (>70%
biodegradation after 28 days) or OECD Test Guidelines 301 A-F (>20% but <60%
biodegradation after 28 days).
(Please note that we have removed cleaning products from the above paragraph simply because
we have no experience on which to base any recommendation for such products).
1 ECETDC Technical Report No. 54, 1993, Assessment of the Biodegradation of Chemicals in the Marine
Environment.
Battersby, 1999, The biodegradability and microbial testing of lubricants - some recommendations.
Mudge, S.M. 2010. Comparative environmental fate of marine lubricants. Unpublished manuscript. Exponent UK.
Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's support for inclusion of test methods OECD
301 A-F, 306 and 310 and International Organization for Standardization 14593:1999. In
addition, EPA agrees with commenter that the definition be modified to better accommodate
greases and the Agency has done so, generally consistent with commenter's recommendations.
These and other comments align well with the definition of "biodegradable" provided for
European Eco-Label lubricant labeling, the most widely accepted labeling program (see
Appendix A of the Permit). As such, EPA modified the VGP definition to match that definition.
To clarify the definition of "biodegradable" in various applications, EPA has provided separate
definitions in the contexts of lubricants/greases, cleaning products, and biocidal substances.
6.2 Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
Commenter Name: Angus P. Kennedy, President, VapCor Inc.
Commenter Affiliation: VapCor Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0492-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: The only section in the VGP that address's Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
is section 2.2.9.
In this section and it would appear (unless I missed it) from reading it is the only section in the
VGP which address "EAL's". Nowhere in this section is mentioned hydraulic equipment on deck
such as Blud Worth Systems used on tug barge combinations, winches, cranes, etc. When these
systems leak it can have a serious environmental impact as these leaks, logically, mostly occur
close to or along-side a dock or lock and can't always be contained. The impact would be to
animals, plant life etc.
Item 2: In the White Paper on EAL's
206
-------
There is a fourth category of lubricant that is gaining wide use in deck hydraulics. Water Glycol
hydraulics could fall under polyalkyleneglycols, but they are not all made of polyalkylene
glycols. I suggest that this be a separate identified lubricant.
"Environmentally acceptable lubricants" means lubricants that are "biodegradable" and "non-
toxic" and are not "bio-accumulative".
What impact would a product that is classified as an "EAL" have on a water fowl if that fowl
lands in it. The testing for the EAL does not include the impact on water fowl or plant life.
Response: EPA acknowledges that the commenter for providing additional technical
information regarding potential environmentally preferable lubricants.
Management requirements for deck equipment are provided at Part 2.2.1 of the permit (Deck
Washdown and Runoff). Vessel owners/operators are required to minimize oily discharges from
machinery and spills on deck by using coamings or drip pans and disposing of the waste in
proper containers, regardless of lubricant type. Additionally, to reduce the risk of any leakage or
spills of harmful oils into the aquatic environment, EPA included a statement that strongly
encourages the use of environmentally acceptable lubricants in all above deck equipment.
EPA received a number of comments on the Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants, a
supporting document. EPA appreciates the time taken to read and analyze the report, and has
taken all of the comments into account in the context of the VGP.
EPA has revised the definition of Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants to mean "lubricants
that are "biodegradable" and "minimally-toxic," and are "not bio accumulative"" There are
several test methods for each of these three criteria that qualify a lubricant as an EAL (see
Appendix A of the Permit).
EPA notes that while not all types of organisms are tested for toxicity (e.g., water fowl), based
on comments received, the VGP does requires traditional acute or chronic toxicity testing on
alga, fish and daphnia. However, the permit also prohibits vessel owners/operators from
discharging oil in quantities that may be harmful as defined in 40 CFR Part 110 from any oil-to-
sea interface, which provides additional environmental protection for aquatic and aquatic -
dependent species, including water fowl.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Algis Vanagas, Senior Vice-President Technical, Algoma
Central Corporation
Algoma Central Corporation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1
11
No
Comment: 6. Part 2.2.9 - Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants (EALs)
207
-------
Algoma has invested significantly in the replacement of oil-lubricated rudder and stern bearings
with water-lubricated materials. Where replacements have not yet been feasible we have
implemented environmentally preferable lubricants. In addition, the rudder and stern tube
bearings on the new vessels will be water-lubricated. So, while we agree with the intent and
benefits of using EALs in systems with an oil to sea interface, we foresee issues with the current
wording of this requirement. The mandatory requirement to use such products may not be
attainable in all cases. Use of any lubricant must first and foremost be safe for use, particularly in
any navigation related systems, and must be approved by the OEM for use in their equipment. In
addition, while examples of eco-labelling schemes are provided by the EPA, operationally
suitable products that also meet the EPA's definitions of biodegradable, non-toxic and non-
bio accumulative may not be available in North America. Lastly, in the case of non-use of EALs
on existing vessels, the requirement to report this on an annual basis is seen as unreasonable; the
non-use could be reported once and then superseded by a report indicating successful usage once
accomplished.
Response: EPA acknowledges that the mandatory requirement to use such products may not be
attainable in all cases for existing vessels, must be safe to use, and approved for use by the
original equipment manufacturer in some cases. In response to this and other comments, EPA
has expanded upon what is meant by "technically infeasible" for purposes of EAL requirements
for existing vessels and for certain oil-to-sea applications on new build vessels. For purposes of
EALs, technically infeasible has been defined as: "no EAL products are approved for use in a
given application that meet manufacturer specifications for that equipment; products which
come pre- lubricated (e.g., wire ropes) have no available alternatives manufactured with EALs;
or products meeting a manufacturers specifications are not available within any port in which
the vessel calls or change over and use of an EAL must wait until the vessel's next drydocking."
However, EPA disagrees with the commenter regarding reporting and has maintained the
requirement to report the use of non-environmentally acceptable lubricants to EPA in annual
reports. Such reporting enables EPA to monitor progress in the development and
implementation of EALs.
Commenter Name: Mark Miller, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Terresolve
Technologies
Commenter Affiliation: Terresolve Technologies
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0499-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Appendix A. Section 2.2.9 refers for "Appendix A" Definitions. In Appendix A the
definition of:
"Environmentally acceptable lubricants" is defined as "biodegradable, non-toxic and non-bio
accumulative. We feel that non-sheening as defined by Federal Register Volume 58 Number 41
March 4 1993, 12506-12507. We also feel there should be NO reference to ecolabeling programs
"Blue Angel, European Ecolabel, Nordic Swan, or the Swedish Standard" as these are focused on
208
-------
biobased content and chemical componentry and are not focused on primary environmental
issues stated above.
"Biodegradable" in reference to environmentally acceptable lubricants should include as
acceptable test methodology ASTM 7373, and ASTM 5864. It should also utilize ASTM
Standard D 6046 - 02 (2006) PW 1 as minimum biodegradability standard.
"Bioaccumulative" should reference accumulation of finished products rather than individual
components as many components required by OECD testing are in infinitesimally small amounts
and pose no harm to the aquatic environment.
"Non-toxic" Should include requirement for ASTM D 6046 - 02 (2006) Twl. It should have a
minimum LC50 of 1000 ppm (mg/L) of for all finished lubricants.
Response: Regarding "EALS", EPA disagrees with the commenter that "non-sheening" should
be included in the definition of EALs because that characteristic is used as a visual indication of
the presence of "free oil" and does not address the biodegradability, toxicity, or
bio accumulative properties of the lubricant. To further clarify the definition of EALs, EPA
added more specific definitions for "biodegradable," "minimally-toxic," and "not
bio accumulative" (see Appendix A in the permit). Based on this and other comments, EPA has
also clarified other third party labeling programs that would have products which would be
expected to meet the permit terms. EPA generally expects that use of products labeled by one of
the labeling programs referenced in the VGP (Blue Angel, European Ecolabel, Nordic Swan,
the Swedish Standard SS 155470, Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of
the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) requirements, and EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE))
will meet the EAL requirements in the permit. EPA believes that these labeling programs
identify existing EALs that generally meet the VGP requirements as determined based on a
review of product labeling standards.
With respect to the definition of "biodegradable", please see the response to comment EPA-
HQ-OW-2011-0141-0512-A1, excerpt 3.
Regarding "bioaccumulative", EPA has added a definition for "non-bioaccumulative" (see
Appendix A of the Permit). The partition coefficient in the marine environment included in this
definition is based on the OECD methods 117 and 107, and both of these methods apply to
testing of only pure substances. The commenter did not provide EPA with a test method for
bioaccumulation that was suitable for mixtures. In addition, other labeling programs above have
no standard approved test method for "finished" products or formulations either. European
EcoLabel, for example, uses the industry standard OECD methods mentioned to test
components separately for all their approved products. Lastly, the Ecolabel lubricants approval
process requires that each stated substance present above 0.10% by weight shall be assessed on
its biodegradation and bioaccumulation; components in very small amounts do not need to be
tested.
Regarding "non-toxic", EPA has changed the term to "minimally-toxic", which is defined in
further detail in Appendix A of the Permit. Generally speaking the main constituents of the
209
-------
lubricant must have an LC50 of at least 100 mg/L and the LC50 of greases, two-stroke oils, and
all other total loss lubricants must be at least 1000 mg/L. EPA acknowledges the suggestion to
utilize ASTM Standard D 6046-02(2006) Twl; however, EPA's VGP definition is explicit and
including the ASTM standard would be redundant.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Donald Sweeney, Vice President of Finance, Terresolve
Technologies
Terresolve Technologies
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0512-A1
2
No
Comment: Appendix A. Section 2.2.9 refers for "Appendix A" Definitions. In Appendix A the
definition of:
"Environmentally acceptable lubricants" is defined as "biodegradable, non-toxic and non-bio
accumulative. We feel that non-sheening as defined by Federal Register Volume 58, Number 41.
March 4. 1993: 12506-12507 should be included in the definition.
We also feel there should be NO reference to ecolabeling programs "Blue Angel. European
Ecolabel. Nordic Swan, or the Swedish Standard" as these are focused on biobased content and
chemical componentry and are not focused on primary environmental issues stated above.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0499-A1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Donald Sweeney, Vice President of Finance, Terresolve
Technologies
Terresolve Technologies
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0512-A1
4
No
Comment: "Bioaccumulative" should reference accumulation of finished products rather than
individual components as many components required by OECD testing are in infinitesimally
small amounts and pose no harm to the aquatic environment.
"Non-toxic" Should include requirement for ASTM D 6046 - 02 (2006) Twl. It should have a
minimum LC50 of 1000 ppm (mgJL) of for all finished lubricants.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0499-A1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Peter Vickers, Chairman & Managing Director, Vickers
Oils
210
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Vickers Oils
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1
3
No
Comment: Environmentally Acceptable Lubricant Definition: Appendix A - Definitions.
2. We recommend that the European labels should remain in the proposed 2013 VGP as one
route to the highest environmental standard.
3. Moreover, we recommend that in addition to the proposed inclusion of Swedish Standard SS
155470 for environmentally acceptable greases, Swedish Standard SS 155434 for
environmentally acceptable hydraulic fluids should also be included.
4. However, we recommend that the alternative route proposed through the definitions in
Appendix A of biodegradability, bioaccumulation and aquatic toxicity should be clarified and
should ensure that performance is not unduly sacrificed to environmental standards as the use
of EALs becomes mandatory.
5. We recommend that the components of a formulation be clarified by adding the following
terms to Appendix A - Definitions:
• "Constituent Substance" means each single substance present at greater than 0.1% by
weight in the lubricant or grease.
• "Main Constituent" means any substance present at greater than 5% by weight in the
lubricant.
• "Formulation " means the finished lubricant or grease as supplied and used.
6. We support the retention of freshwater test methods for both biodegradability and aquatic
toxicity, with the option to use defined saltwater methods.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and has retained European EcoLabel and Swedish
Standard SS 155470 as a labeling program that would label products likely to meet the
definition of EALs as defined in the permit. Based on this comment EPA has also added
Swedish Standard SS 155434 for environmentally acceptable hydraulic fluids. EPA notes that
this list of labeling programs is merely a tool for vessel operators to easily identify EALs that
generally meet the permit requirements. It does not preclude vendors supplying products to any
vessel operators from conducting independent testing of unlabeled lubricants to meet permit
requirements for EALs.
To further clarify the definition of EALs, EPA added more specific definitions for
"biodegradable," "minimally-toxic," and "not bio accumulative" (see Appendix A in the
permit). However, EPA decided against adding specific definitions for "components" and
"definitions" because the terminology is not consistent over all labeling programs.
Commenter Name: Peter Vickers, Chairman & Managing Director, Vickers
Oils
211
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Vickers Oils
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1
5
No
Comment: 8. We recommend that "Bioaccumulative" should be defined thus:
"Bioaccumulative " means the partition coefficients in the marine environment are log KOW
>4 using test Methods OECD 117 and 107. Bioaccumulation must be determined for each
constituent substance that is (only) inherently biodegradable or non-biodegradable.
However, the bioaccumulation does not need to be established when that constituent
substance:
• . Has a molecular mass > 700 g/mol, or
• Has a molecular diameter >1.5 nm, or
• . Has a measured BCF of < 500, or
• Is a polymer and its molecular weight fraction below 1,000 g/mol is less than 1%.
9. We recommend that the VGP should not attempt to distinguish between fluid lubricant types
when defining environmental criteria.
10. We recommend that acute aquatic toxicity using fish is only necessary when evaluating the
complete formulation. Acute aquatic toxicity testing of main components, or each constituent
substance, should be restricted to daphnia and algae.
11. We recommend that when evaluating toxicity of formulation and main components, acute
toxicity data should be required, but when evaluating each constituent substance, either acute
or chronic toxicity data should be required.
We recommend that "Non-toxic" is defined as follows:
"Non-toxic" means a formulation which must meet the following criteria:
• If a formulation is evaluated by assessing the formulation and main constituents, acute
aquatic toxicity LC50 limits will apply as follows:
- . Formulation: at least 100 mg/Lfor lubricants or at least 1,000 mg/Lfor greases,
according to OECD 201, 202 and 203.
- . And for each main constituent: at least 100 mg/L by OECD 201 and 202
- . If a formulation is evaluated by assessing each constituent substance (rather than the
complete formulation and main constituents), each constituent substance must be
evaluated for acute toxicity using OECD 201 and 202, or be evaluated for chronic
toxicity using OECD 210 and 211. Constituent substances may have a cumulative
mass concentration up to the following limits:
SEE TABLE IN ORIGINAL COMMENT
Response: In response to this and other comments, EPA has added a definition for "not
bioaccumulative" in Appendix A of the permit. Regarding partition coefficient, based on this
212
-------
and other comments, EPA included "the partition coefficient in the marine environment is log
KOW <3 or >7 using test methods OECD 117 and 107". Per these approved test methods,
testing is performed only on a component basis. In addition, the definition also includes
requirements regarding molecular mass, molecular diameter, and BCF and BAF.
Regarding the commenter's statement 9, EPA agrees with the commenter and has not
distinguished between lubricant types in its definition of EALs. Regarding the commenter's
statements 10 and 11, EPA agrees and disagrees with various parts of the comment. The permit
now includes a detailed definition for "minimally-toxic" with requirements for testing for either
acute (OECD 201, 202, or 203) or chronic (OECD 201 or 211) toxicity. If a substance is
evaluated for the formulation and main constituents, the LC50 of fluids must be at least 100
mg/L and the LC50 of greases, two-stroke oils, and all other total loss lubricants must be at least
1,000 mg/L. If a substance is evaluated for each constituent substance, rather than the complete
formulation and main compounds, then constituents comprising less than 20 percent of fluids
can have an LC50 between 10-100 mg/L or a no observed effect concentration (NOEC) between
1-10 mg/L. Constituents comprising less than 5 percent of fluids can have an LC50 between 1-
10 mg/L or a NOEC between 0.1-1 mg/L. Finally constituents comprising less than 1 percent of
fluids can have an LC50 less than 1 mg/L or a NOEC between 0-0.1 mg/L.
In order to assist vessel operators in implementing the permit, EPA has also clarified other third
party labeling programs (Blue Angel, European Ecolabel, Nordic Swan, the Swedish Standard
SS 155470, Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East
Atlantic (OSPAR) requirements, and EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE)) that would
have products which would be expected to meet the permit terms. EPA believes that these
labeling programs identify existing EALs that generally meet the VGP requirements.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Peter Vickers, Chairman & Managing Director, Vickers
Oils
Vickers Oils
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1
8
No
Comment: Environmentally Acceptable Lubricant Definition (Appendix A - Definitions).
EALs are defined in Appendix A as "lubricants that are "biodegradable " and "non-toxic, " and
are not "bioaccumulative " as defined in this permit. Products meeting the permit's definitions of
being an "environmentally acceptable lubricant" include those labeled by the following labeling
programs: Blue Angel, European Ecolabel, Nordic Swan, the Swedish Standard SS 155470."
The Swedish Standard SS 155470 is specific to greases. We wonder whether the EPA also
intended to include SS 155434, which is a related standard for environmentally acceptable
hydraulic fluids. We support such an inclusion therefore we recommend that in addition to the
proposed inclusion of Swedish Standard SS 155470 for environmentally acceptable greases,
Swedish Standard SS 155434 for environmentally acceptable hydraulic fluids should also be
included.
213
-------
The use of the various European labeling programs provides a simple way of increasing the
numbers of existing lubricants that meet the highest environmental standards and avoids
unnecessary test costs where products are already accredited to one of the schemes. However,
from a formulation perspective, meeting these environmental standards is very onerous,
primarily due to a present lack of suitable additive chemistry. As a result, accreditation is, in
some cases, achieved by a reduction in the product's technical performance. These are voluntary
schemes and therefore any decision to accept reduced performance is currently at the
manufacturer's and/ or user's discretion.
Mandating the very demanding environmental criteria of these standards may bring about a loss
of product performance which could lead to operational problems. We therefore recommend that
whilst the European labeling programs should remain in the proposed 2013 VGP as one route to
the highest environmental standard, an alternative route should be available that ensures
performance is not unduly sacrificed.
The draft 2013 VGP proposes an alternative to these European schemes through the definitions
in Appendix A of biodegradability, bioaccumulation and aquatic toxicity. We think that there is a
lack of clarity regarding these terms, which needs to be eliminated. We offer the following
proposals.
Definitions of Lubricant Constituents
The components of a formulation have not been defined in the proposed 2013 VGP. This leads to
some ambiguity. For example, the definition of "Non-toxic" uses the terms "main constituent"
and "constituent substances" but offers no definition of these terms. In order for the VGP to
specify unambiguously the requirements for biodegradability, bioaccumulation and aquatic
toxicity, we recommend that the components of a formulation be clarified by adding the
following terms to Appendix A - Definitions:
• "Constituent Substance" means each single substance present at greater than 0.1% by
weight in the lubricant or grease.
• "Main Constituent" means any substance present at greater than 5% by weight in the
lubricant or grease.
• "Formulation " means the finished lubricant or grease as supplied and used.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0514-A1, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Peter Vickers, Chairman & Managing Director, Vickers
Oils
Vickers Oils
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1
10
No
Comment: Bioaccumulation.
214
-------
Bio accumulative is currently defined in Appendix A thus: "means the partition coefficients in the
marine environment are log KOW >3 using test Methods OECD 117 and 107." It is not stated
what must be tested i.e., formulation, main constituents or each constituent substance.
Bioaccumulation testing of a formulation is not generally recognised in other environmental
testing schemes.
Most EALs are based on biodegradable esters. These ester bases typically have a log KOW >5. If
a bioaccumulation test is run on an ester-based EAL formulation, it too would commonly have a
log KOW >5. However, provided the ester biodegrades rapidly, it is generally accepted that it
poses much less risk to organic life than mineral oil since it will not exist for long enough to
bio accumulate. Therefore biodegradable base oils are not subject to bioaccumulation testing or
limits in the European labelling schemes.
Additives used in lubricants are less likely to biodegrade. A limited few may be inherently
biodegradable according to OECD 302, but many will be non-biodegradable. High performance
additives typically exhibit log KOW >3, <4. These additives are commonly used in formulations
at between say 1.5 to 5%, occasionally a little higher. Gear oil additive requirements are more
demanding than hydraulic fluids. Improvements in additive environmental performance may
come, but it will take time, and grow only with demand.
We recommend that to ensure adequate lubricant performance, the bioaccumulation limit should
be raised to log KOW >4. This would be in line with the Globally Harmonized System of
Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). Additionally we recommend that criteria other
than Log KOW should be allowed along the lines of those used in GHS, Blue Angel and
Ecolabel. Therefore, we recommend that the definition of bioaccumulation in Appendix A
should be as follows:
"Bioaccumulative " means the partition coefficients in the marine environment are log KOW >4
using test Methods OECD 117 and 107. Bioaccumulation must be determined for each
constituent substance that is (only) inherently biodegradable or non-biodegradable. However,
the bioaccumulation does not need to be established when that constituent substance:
• . Has a molecular mass > 700 g/mol, or
• . Has a molecular diameter >1.5 nm, or
• . Has a measured BCF of < 500, or
• Is a polymer and its molecular weight fraction below 1,000 g/mol is less than 1%.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0514-A1, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Peter Vickers, Chairman & Managing Director, Vickers
Oils
Vickers Oils
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1
11
No
215
-------
Comment: Aquatic Toxicity
Appendix A currently defines this by the following statement:
"Non-toxic" means a substance must pass both OECD 201, 202 and 203 for acute toxicity
testing and OECD 210 and 211 for chronic toxicity testing. If a substance is evaluated for the
formulation and main constituents, the LC50 of hydraulic fluids must be at least 100 mg/L
and the LC50 of greases, two-stroke oils, and all other total loss lubricants must be at least
1000 mg/L. If a substance is evaluated for each constituent substance, rather than the
complete formulation and main compounds, then constituents comprising less than 20% of
hydraulic fluids can have an LC50 between 10-100 mg/L or a no observed effect
concentration (NOEC) between 1-10 mg/L, constituents comprising less than 5 percent of
hydraulic fluids can have an LC50 between 1-10 mg/L or a NOEC between 0.1-lmg/L, and
constituents comprising less than 1 percent of hydraulic fluids can have an LC50 less than 1
mg/L or a NOEC between 0-0.1 mg/L. "
Some other labelling schemes e.g. the European Ecolabel, classify fluids by a mixture of fluid
type and application, and set environmental limits based on these classes. We do not believe this
is a very satisfactory practice for the VGP to adopt, since stern tube lubricants are sometimes
categorized by the labeling schemes as total loss fluids (along with chain saw oils), when in fact
they are not designed to be totally lost. Meanwhile, a hydraulic fluid or gear oil is usually
classified separately but actually may be used in a stern tube or thruster. Therefore, we
recommend that the VGP should not attempt to distinguish between these lubricant/fluid types
when defining environmental criteria.
The term "main constituents" is not defined in the proposed 2013 VGP. We assume that the
definition of "Nontoxic" has in part been adapted from the European Ecolabel, and that "main
constituents" is intended to mean any substance present at greater than 5% by weight in the
lubricant. We recommend that since marine propulsion equipment is not intended to operate on a
total loss basis, when evaluating for formulation and main constituents, the LC50 of all fluid
lubricant types for all applications should be at least 100 mg/L.
When evaluating each constituent substance, the current wording does not explicitly state what
criteria would be applied to substances present at >20% (w/w). We suggest the criteria should be
defined (see table below).
In general fish are the least sensitive of the three aquatic tropic levels. Therefore, where acute
aquatic testing of each main component, or each constituent substance, is required, the European
ECOLABEL requires only daphnia and algae results. Acute toxicity testing of fish is only
required when testing the complete formulation. This also serves to reduce animal testing. We
recommend that this approach be adopted in the VGP.
It is unclear from the current wording whether chronic aquatic toxicity is required or optional.
The opening requirement suggests "both" chronic and acute data is required but use of the word
"or" when evaluating each constituent substance suggests it is optional. Also, no chronic limits
are proposed when testing formulation and main constituents suggesting chronic data is not
required. Chronic toxicity data is less widely available. Of the European labels, only the Ecolabel
216
-------
recommends chronic testing (and this only applies when evaluating each constituent substance),
but acute data may be substituted in order to minimize additional animal testing. We recommend
that when evaluating toxicity of formulation and main components, acute toxicity data should be
required, but when evaluating each constituent substance, either acute or chronic toxicity data
should be required.
It has been suggested by others that testing should be restricted to marine species. Toxicity data
on marine species is less widely available. It has been reported11 that a sound basis exists for
using freshwater toxicity data to extrapolate to saltwater effects and that an appropriate
assessment factor could be applied to freshwater data.
The study found that for certain chemicals, saltwater species were more sensitive, but for other
chemicals e.g., metals, freshwater species were more sensitive. To date, no assessment factor has
been developed, and freshwater testing continues to dominate standards. We therefore
recommend that whilst suitable marine toxicity tests could be introduced into the VGP as an
option, freshwater toxicity tests should remain.
Aquatic Toxicity Proposal
We recommend the following wording in Appendix A:
"Non-toxic" means & formulation which must meet the following criteria:
If a formulation is evaluated by assessing the formulation and main constituents, acute
aquatic toxicity LCso limits will apply as follows:
• Formulation: at least 100 mg/Lfor lubricants or at least 1,000 mg/Lfor greases, and for
each main constituent: at least 100 mg/L by DECD 201 and 202.
If a formulation is evaluated by assessing each constituent substance (rather than the
complete formulation and main constituents), each constituent substance must be evaluated
for acute toxicity using DECD 201 and 202, or be evaluated for chronic toxicity using DECD
210 and 211. Constituent substances may have a cumulative mass concentration up to the
following limits:
SEE TABLE IN ORIGINAL COMMENT
11 Wheeler et al, 2002, Freshwater To Saltwater Toxicity Extrapolation Using Species Sensitivity Distributions.
Response: With respect to distinguishing between lubricants types the definition of EALs,
please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1, excerpt 5.
Based on this and other comments, EPA has made revisions to the definitions impacting EALs.
EPA's revised definition for EALs addresses or clarifies most of commenter's concerns.
Additionally, EPA has clarified that the permit requires either acute or chronic toxicity testing
to meet EAL standards. In order to assist vessel operators in implementing the permit, EPA
continues to explicitly state that products meeting the permit's definitions of being an
"environmentally acceptable lubricant" include, for purposes of implementing the VGP, those
labeled by the following third party labeling programs: Blue Angel, European Ecolabel, Nordic
217
-------
Swan, the Swedish Standard SS 155470, Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) requirements, and EPA's Design for the
Environment (DfE)). These labeling programs identify existing EALs that generally meet the
VGP requirements.
Comment: Appendix A - Definitions
"Environmentally acceptable lubricants" means lubricants that are "biodegradable" and "non-
toxic," and are not "bioaccumulative" as defined in this permit. Products meeting the permit's
definitions of being an "environmentally acceptable lubricant" include those labeled by the
following labeling programs: Blue Angel, European Ecolabel, Nordic Swan, and the Swedish
Standard SS 155470.
Proposed Modification to the Standard:
"Environmentally acceptable lubricants " means lubricants that are "biodegradable " and "non-
toxic, " and are not "bioaccumulative" as defined in this permit. Products exempted from the
permit's definitions of being an "environmentally acceptable lubricant" include those that
qualify to be labeled by the following labeling programs: Blue Angel, European Ecolabel,
Nordic Swan, and the Swedish Standard SS 155470.
ACT suggests the language be modified to recognize the fact that the foreign standards of
product labeling do not meet the basic environmental standards specified by the definitions listed
in the VGP - specifically products that have the highest "bioaccumulative" character are
preferentially labeled under these programs.
Supporting documents surrounding the 2013 proposed VGP including the Proposed 2013 Vessel
General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet and the EPA's document "Environmentally Acceptable
Lubricants" 800-R-l 1-002, November 2011 confuse materials that do meet the standards
specified by the VGP with materials that have been exempted from appropriate environmental
standards by foreign labeling programs reflecting the technology that existed at the time the
labeling programs were created.
Whereas it is reasonable to have a mechanism by which bio-renewable natural oils can be
classified as an "Environmentally Acceptable Lubricant," it may not be reasonable to
automatically include synthetic chemicals that can be shown to be "bioaccumulative" based upon
the definition of the VGP. It is also not reasonable to remove "bioaccumulative" as a factor that
defines an "Environmentally Acceptable Lubricant" as there are too many real-world examples
where bioaccumulation of synthetic materials turns into a chronic environmental hazard.
Commenter Name:
Mark D. Latunski, Lab Manager, American Chemical
Technologies, Inc.
American Chemical Technologies, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0522-A1
1
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
218
-------
Recognizing foreign labeling standards provides an exemption to the VGP standards and does
not insure compliance with the VGP standards for an "Environmentally Acceptable Lubricant."
It is unreasonably burdensome and somewhat problematic to allow only lubricants that are
certified by a foreign labeling program to be used whereas completely equivalent products
developed and manufactured domestically would not qualify for the exemption. Certification by
a foreign labeling program gives preference to imported lubricants over equivalent domestic
lubricants.
Based upon the language in the Draft VGP, soybean oil from Iowa would not qualify as an
"Environmentally Acceptable Lubricant" to be used in Iowa unless it were first labeled in Europe
because the log KOW is significantly greater than 3 and hence is "bioaccumulative" by
definition.
Because there is no domestic labeling program that meets the standards of the VGP, qualification
as an "Environmentally Acceptable Lubricant" should be the same for products that meet the
standards of the VGP as those that meet the standards of the exemptions listed in the VGP
without requiring buying into the foreign labeling program.
Response: To further clarify the definition of EALs, EPA added more specific definitions for
"biodegradable," "minimally-toxic," and "not bio accumulative" (see Appendix A in the
permit). In addition, EPA notes that EALs labeled by the following labeling programs are
expected to meet the permit's limits: Blue Angel, European Ecolabel, Nordic Swan, the Swedish
Standard SS 155470, Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-
East Atlantic (OSPAR) requirements, and EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE). While
EPA understands the commenter's concerns regarding these labeling programs, EPA has
determined that those listed have environmental standards in testing available at this time that
meet the goals of the VGP. Products that vendors or operators can independently document
meet the VGP definition of "biodegradable," "minimally-toxic," and "not bio accumulative" or
have been labeled by the mentioned listed and screened programs above meet the requirements
of an EAL for purposes of permit implementation. EPA also notes that DfE is a U.S. labeling
scheme led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The VGP is impartial to foreign or
domestic products. Products that are not labeled in these labeling programs (including the
United States' DfE) can undergo independent testing and qualify as an EAL so long as EPA
standards outlined in the definition are met.
Regarding the specific comment about soybean oil, based on revisions to the permit, if the Kow
is greater than 7 (i.e., "significantly greater than 3") then it would be considered not
bio accumulative. If it's Kow falls between 3 and 7, it would meet the permits definition of
bio accumulative. Just because a product is derived from a plant does not automatically make it
an EAL, regardless of whether it is foreign or domestic. Many naturally occurring or plant
based oils are bio accumulating.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
219
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 33
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question #22: Respondents are asked to critique three new definitions:
Biodegradable, Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants, and Voyage. Those are as follows:
Biodegradable means products and lubricants that demonstrate either the removal of at least 70
percent of dissolved organic carbon, production of at least 60 percent of the theoretical carbon
dioxide, or consumption of at least 60 percent of the theoretical oxygen demand within 28 days.
Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants means lubricants that are biodegradable and non-toxic,
and are not bio accumulative. Products meeting this standard include those labeled by the
following programs: Blue Angel; European Ecolabel; Nordic Swan, the Swedish Standard SS
155470.
Voyage means that a voyage begins when the vessel departs a dock or other location at which it
has loaded or unloaded (in whole or in part) cargo or passengers, and ends after it has tied-up at
another dock or location in order to again conduct such activities.
LCA Response: We will leave comment on "biodegradable" and "environmentally acceptable
lubricants" to those who produce products impacted by these definitions. However, vessel
operators should not be liable if they, in good faith, purchase products labeled as biodegradable,
non-toxic and or non-bioaccumulative, only to find out after the fact that, for example, EPA has
determined that such products may in fact be toxic, or bio accumulative. Our members cannot
possibly be expected to keep up with agency determinations in this regard, nor to conduct any
testing of such materials to assure the claims are accurate. EPA should make it clear that no such
expectations exist. EPA should provide an exhaustive list, updated periodically, which either lists
all products which meet their definition of "environmentally acceptable lubricants" or
"biodegradable" or an exhaustive list of all agencies, standards organizations and other entities
authorized or accepted by EPA to designate a lubricant as "environmentally acceptable" or
"biodegradable". Alternatively the agency must evaluate the costs to our members of having to
do such testing.
Response: EPA has not developed an exhaustive list of all products that meet the EALs
definition, but products which would be expected to meet the permit's definitions of being an
"environmentally acceptable lubricant" include (but are not limited to) those labeled by the
following labeling programs: Blue Angel, European Ecolabel, Nordic Swan, the Swedish
Standard SS 155470, and EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE). It is the responsibility of
the product manufacturer to conduct the testing required to meet EPA's EAL definition.
EPA agrees that vessel operators should be able to reasonably rely on product labels, but notes
that if product labels are subsequently determined not to be EALs, then vessel operators should
suspend further use of such products upon learning that the products do not meet the VGP
standards for environmentally acceptable lubricants.
220
-------
Commenter Name:
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent, V. Ships
Leisure
V. Ships Leisure
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2
14
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Item No: 18. VGP 2013 or Factsheet Reference: Appendix A - Definitions.
VGP 2013 or Factsheet Text:
• "Bioaccumulative" means the partition coefficients in the marine environmental are log
Kow >3 using test Methods OECD 117 and 107.
• "Biodegradable" means, the following for purposes of the VGP:
- Regarding cleaning products and environmentally acceptable lubricants,
biodegradable means products and lubricants that demonstrate either the removal of
at least 70 percent of dissolved organic carbon, production of at least 60 percent of
the theoretical carbon dioxide, or consumption of at least 60 percent of the theoretical
oxygen demand within 28 days. Acceptable test methods include: Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development Test Guidelines 301 A-F, 306, and 310,
and International Organization for Standardization 14593:1999.
- Regarding biocidal substances, biodegradable means a compound or mixture that
yields 60 percent of theoretical maximum carbon dioxide and demonstrate a removal
of at least 70 percent of dissolved organic carbon within 28 days as described in EPA
712-C-98-075 (OPPTS 835.3100 Aerobic Aquatic Biodegradation).
• "Non-toxic" means a substance must pass both OECD 201, 201 and 203 for acute
toxicity testing, and OECD 210 and 211 for chronic toxicity testing. If a substance is
evaluated for the formulation and main constituents, the LC50 of hydraulic fluids must be
at least 100 mg/L and the LC50 of greases, two-stroke oils, and all other total loss
lubricants must be at least 1000 mg/L. If a substance is evaluated for each constituent
substance, rather than the complete formulation and main compounds, then constituents
comprising less than 20 percent of hydraulic fluids can have an LC50 between 10-100
mg/L or a no observed effect concentration (NOEC) between 1-10 mg/L, constituents
comprising less than 5 percent of hydraulic fluids can have an LC50 between 1-10 mg/L
or a NOEC between 0.1-1 mg/L, and constituents comprising less than 1 percent of
hydraulic fluids can have an LC50 less than 1 mg/L or a NOEC between 0-0.1 mg/L.
• "Non-toxic soaps, cleaners, and detergents" means any substance or mixture of
substances which has an acute aquatic toxicity value (LE50) corresponding to a
concentration greater than 10 ppm and does not produce "byproducts" with an acute
aquatic toxicity value (LE50) less than 10 ppm.
• "Environmentally acceptable lubricants" means lubricants that are "biodegradable" and
"non-toxic," and are not "bioaccumulative" as defined in this permit. Products meeting
the permit's definitions of being an "environmentally acceptable lubricant" include those
labeled by the following labelling programs: Blue Angel, European Ecolabel, Nordic
Swan, the Swedish Standard SS 155470.
Comments: Similar to the comments above referenced as items numbers 1, 10 and 12: From
experience with the VGP 2008 it is a challenge for a manufacturer to verify any chemicals
221
-------
including but not limited to detergents/soaps and oils if meeting the VGP definitions/criteria (ie
for "(non) bio-accumulative", "bio-degradable", "non-toxic", "phosphate free",
"environmentally acceptable").
We are well aware that Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are one/another source of
information for that. The recommended Format for (Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) by
OSHA per http://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/msdsformat.html and 29 CFR 1910.1200 (g) do not
specifically list data in a MSDS in the format as required per the VGP 2013 definitions (in
Appendix A) and there are only two sections in a MSDS which may be considered as generally
relevant to these definitions ie those on Toxicological information Ecological information. The
above refers to the US recommended format of a MSDS and other countries have their own
which again would not directly facilitate the identification if a chemical/detergent/soap conforms
or not with the VGP definitions for "(non) bio-accumulative", "bio-degradable", "non-toxic",
"phosphate free", "environmentally acceptable".
Manufacturers of such chemicals/ detergents/ soaps / lubricants do not always respond to our
diligent enquiries for verification of the above and in most cases the only course of information
remains the MSDS
Suggestion or Proposed text: Similar to the suggested above referenced as items numbers 1, 10
and 12: EPA should align the definitions for "non bio-accumulative", "bio-degradable", "non-
toxic", "phosphate free" etc per the recommended and common information normally available
in a MSDS to enable and facilitate owners/operators to source the information required for
detergents/soaps which may be discharged in waters subject to the permit.
Response: The commenter is correct that OSHA does not have specific requirements for
presenting the specific information indicating whether a product is an EAL on MSDSs. The
primary purpose of an MSDS is to provide safety information to the persons handling the
product and responding to spills; it does not provide information regarding the product's
potential impact on the environment. When assessing compliance with use of EALs, EPA
would look for documentation that lubricants used by the vessel either meet the approved
labeling requirements or have undergone and met the requirements of independent testing.
Documentation could include MSDSs that document such EAL labeling or testing (when
listed). EPA notes that MSDSs are not required to list such labeling or testing.
EPA generally expects that use of products labeled by one of the labeling programs referenced
in the VGP will meet the Environmentally Acceptable Lubricant (EAL) requirements in the
permit. EPA believes that these labeling programs identify existing EALs that generally meet
the VGP requirements as determined based on a review of product labeling standards. Though
there are variations within these programs and some apply to broader application other than
shipping and are not specifically limited to EALs, as a general matter to ease vessel operators'
ability to comply with the permit, EPA is specifically referencing these programs so vessel
operators can use these programs as resources to help select products for their vessel
applications. EPA may reevaluate the requirements for the existing labeling programs in the
future, if and when new test methods or new data become available, the labeling programs
change from those EPA evaluated for this iteration of the VGP, or whether other tools to ensure
222
-------
effective implementation of the permit become available.
Commenter Name: Oliver Ferguson, Technical Manager, Marine Lubricants
Commenter Affiliation: Marine Lubricants
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0798-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Please find following comments on the draft Vessel General Permit and the
Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants paper published by the US EPA: Vessel General Permit
Appendix A
The definition of "Bioaccumulative" should also take into account molecular weight and if
bioconcentration factor data (BCF) is available. If the molecular weight of a chemical is >700 it
will not bioaccumulate due to steric hindrance. A bioconcentration factor <100 also indicates that
a chemical will not bioaccumulate.
It is not clear in the definition of "Bioaccumulative" whether bioaccumulation potential should
be measured at the component or product level. It is unlikely that every component in e.g. a stern
tube lubricant would be non-bioaccumulative. If measured at the product level a range of log
POW values would be observed (some >3 and some <3) and if measured at the component level
it is unlikely that every component would pass.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: Oliver Ferguson, Technical Manager, Marine Lubricants
Commenter Affiliation: Marine Lubricants
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0798-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: The definition of "Environmentally acceptable lubricants" should be modified to
include those approved under the OSPAR convention as every component in the formulation has
to be tested for marine biodegradation, bioaccumulation and marine toxicity to comply.
Response: Based on this and other comments, EPA has identified that lubricants approved
under the OSPAR Convention are generally expected to meet EPA's environmentally
acceptable lubricant requirements. EPA had not previously specified OSPAR because those
lubricants are not specific to the shipping industry; rather, they are used in the off-shore drilling
industry. However their standards for testing (i.e. biodegradable, bioaccumulation, and toxicity)
currently are expected to generally meet those of the permit and those lubricants could
potentially be used by the shipping industry. Hence, EPA specifically referenced OSPAR
approved products as being expected to meet permit limits to provide the vessel industry with a
wider variety of lubricant options.
223
-------
EPA generally expects that use of products labeled by one of the labeling programs referenced
in the VGP will meet the Environmentally Acceptable Lubricant (EAL) requirements in the
permit. EPA acknowledges that these labeling programs serve different industries, have
different stakeholders, differ in testing and implementation, and apply to an array of products
not limited to EALs; however, they also identify existing EALs that generally meet the VGP
requirements as determined based on a review of product labeling standards. Though there are
variations within these programs, as a general matter to ease vessel operators' ability to comply
with the permit and EPA's ability to enforce that compliance, EPA is specifically referencing
these programs so vessel operators can use these programs as resources to help select products
for their vessel applications. EPA may reevaluate the requirements for the existing labeling
programs in the future, if and when new test methods or new data become available, the
labeling programs change from those EPA evaluated for this iteration of the VGP, or whether
other tools to ensure effective implementation of the permit become available.
Commenter Name: Oliver Ferguson, Technical Manager, Marine Lubricants
Commenter Affiliation: Marine Lubricants
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0798-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: The definition of "Non-toxic" includes a requirement to pass both acute toxicity
tests (OECD 201, 202, 203) and chronic toxicity tests (OECD 210 and 211). This should be
modified to require either acute or chronic tests to be passed, not both. This is in line with
OSPAR requirements (acute tests only required) and Ecolabel (either acute or chronic). To
require suppliers to carry out additional toxicity testing would both be unethical as unnecessary
vertebrate (fish) testing would be required and costly. OSPAR carried out a lot of work to reduce
the number of fish used in testing, resulting in a fish limit test being acceptable for compliance
that uses only 7 fish rather than a full fish test - the OECD 211 requires potentially the use of 60
fish.
OECD 201, 202, 203, 210 and 211 are all freshwater tests, however many discharges will occur
in seawater. Therefore these references should be amended to accept the use of equivalent
toxicity data for marine species. This will also reduce the need to carry out duplicate freshwater
toxicity tests when suitable marine data is already available. This is in line with OSPAR and
Ecolabel that both accept marine data.
Suppliers of lubricants and hydraulic fluids into the Gulf of Mexico for offshore use, already
have to carry out chronic marine toxicity testing under section 10 of the NPDES general permit
for the Gulf of Mexico (GMG290000 - Miscellaneous Discharges). Fluids are required to be
tested at the product level for chronic toxicity to Menidia beryllina (method 1006.0, ref. 40CFR
Part 136) and Mysidposis bahia (method 1007.0, ref. 40 CFR Part 136). Therefore for many
lubricants this data will already be available and chronic toxicity data from this testing should be
accepted for purposes of the VGP. This will reduce the need to carry out duplicate freshwater
toxicity tests when suitable marine data is already available.
224
-------
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1, excerpt 5.
In reference to suitable marine data, EPA has modified the permit to include equivalent toxicity
methods for marine species. The permit definition for minimally toxic now states that "[f]or
purposes of the VGP, equivalent toxicity data for marine species, including methods ISO/DIS
10253 for algae, ISO TC147/SC5/W62 for crustacean, and OSPAR 2005 for fish, may be
substituted for OECD 201, 202, and 203.
6.3 Voyage
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 32
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question 13. New definition of "short distance voyage". Are these the appropriate
definitions of such a voyage? Are these definitions workable for vessel operators? Are there
alternative suggestions? For instance, is there an existing approach to defining geographic
boundaries based upon ecological criteria which would be appropriate? If so, why are these
appropriate ? Please provide any supporting data and rationale with your comments.
The definition is workable, but not necessarily appropriate, for the vast majority of CSA
members; however, some of our members that principally operate coastal or inland waters
vessels find the definition unworkable. Basing biologically based requirements on artificial
boundaries unrelated to ecosystem characteristics e.g. 10 nautical miles or less, does not cross
COTP zones or transits locks, is not justified. An ecosystem based approach should be used.
Response: Although there are theoretical benefits to defining short voyages based on
movement between geographical areas using an ecosystem-based approach, developing,
implementing, and complying with such a definition at this time would be problematic. EPA
could not identify any other implementable, preexisting approach which has clearly-defined
boundaries based on ecological criteria. While EPA also agrees that the 10 mile limitation is not
necessarily reflective of biological zones, we further note that this limitation is coupled to an
additional requirement that the vessel also not cross physical barriers such as locks (which can
serve as a barrier to movement of ANS). EPA has retained the proposed definition based on
COTP zones, voyage distance, and physical boundaries, all of which are well known to vessel
owners/operators and easily implementable, and generally consistent with existing US Coast
Guard requirements. Please also see the response essay in section 9.1.5 of this comment
response document.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
225
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Lake Carriers Association
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
34
No
Comment: Regarding the definition of voyage, we first must note there is no one, definitive
legal or statutory definition for a voyage on the Great Lakes. This definition will be applicable
only as it pertains to the Vessel General Permit and determines the frequency of "routine visual
inspections."
We are concerned that the wording of the definition itself is potentially ambiguous, in that it is
not clear whether a voyage is defined by a one-leg movement or a two-leg movement of a vessel.
The sentence immediately following seems to clarify that a one-leg movement is intended: "For
example, for a barge on the Mississippi River, such voyage would begin when it departs a
location at which it has cargo loaded onto it and end when cargo is unloaded at another location."
The definition can be easily clarified with the addition of two words (in ALL CAPS): ".. .and
ends after it has tied up at another dock or location in order to again conduct EITHER OF such
activities."
Using this definition of voyage, the vessels in the long-haul trades would perform a routine
visual inspection twice per week. Other vessels might require three per week. There are some
trade patterns that could result in daily inspections for period of time. That does not differ from
the requirements of the current VGP, and, as these inspections can be conducted on a schedule
that coincides with other routine vessel inspections, they do not place undue demands on
crewmembers.
Response: EPA developed this definition, in partnership with industry, specifically for the
VGP. EPA has used this definition for purposes of implementing the first VGP since roughly
2010. EPA respectfully disagrees that the definition of voyage is ambiguous and believes it is
adequately described by way of example. Nonetheless, EPA agrees with commenter that the
definition of voyage is intended to encompass the one leg movement described by the
commenter and for clarity; the Agency has modified the definition in the final permit consistent
with commenter's suggestion.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 23
Late Comment? No
Comment: EPA also introduces a definition of voyage in the definitions of Appendix A when it
states: "Voyage" means, for the purposes o/VGP Part 4.1.1 (including its routine visual
inspection provisions), that a voyage begins when the vessel departs a dock or other location at
226
-------
which it has loaded or unloaded (in whole or in part) cargo or passengers, and it ends after it
has tied-up at another dock in order to conduct such activities.
This definition is problematic for several reasons. First, under this definition, almost every port
call will constitute a new voyage (certainly for cruise ships). Secondly, under this definition,
inspections done in port by definition would not be conducted during a voyage at all - which is
to say they wouldn't count for a voyage inspection.
Response: The commenter correctly interprets the need to conduct routine visual inspections
for every port call where passengers or cargo are unloaded or loaded. The permit provides relief
for vessel owners/operators engaged in multiple voyages per day; they need not conduct
inspections on every voyage, but must conduct inspections at least once per day. As passenger
vessels such as cruise ships routinely conduct visual inspections of areas addressed by the
permit, EPA does not believe that daily visual inspections are a significant burden. For
discussion of how an inspection conducted while the vessel is at dock would qualify for the
routine visual inspection, see the response essay in section 7.3 of this comment response
document.
In the Agency's view, the routine visual inspection requirement provides vessel
owner/operators with a clear, known timeframe to conduct these inspections. EPA believes that
regularly conducting these inspections helps vessel owner/operators prevent pollutant
discharges by reinforcing good housekeeping practices - many of which vessel owner/operators
are already conducting. Furthermore, documentation of routine visual inspections will lead to
increased compliance with the VGP requirements.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 35
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 93 Definition of Voyage As previously discussed in comments on routine visual
inspections, by this definition nearly every port call would constitute a new voyage. If the
recommended language is adopted for the routine visual inspection requirement, this definition
would be un-necessary and should be deleted.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2 excerpt 23.
6.4 Other Definitions
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Alan (no surname provided)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0458
227
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Why is the International "Gross tonnage" calculation used, as defined under your
definitions page 89? Many barges are USCG documented and have access to the U.S. regulatory
gross tonnage on the Certificate of Documentation. If they are not documented, than the Coast
Guard as a web site to easily determine regulatory gross tonnage. But this would be Documented
or Regulatory gross tonnage, not International gross tonnage. Why are we using international
gross tonnage for a U.S. domestic law? You can't easily, maybe even impossible, to calculate
international gross tonnage from the definition formula. If we can't use Documented or regulated
gross tonnage are we required to engage a Vessel Class Society and have the U. S. domestic
vessel or barge issued an international tonnage certificate? This would be extremely expensive.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that the VGP definition of "gross tonnage" is
inappropriate. U.S. statutes recognize vessel measurement under two different systems; the
newer, internationally based Convention measurement system or the older, historically based
Regulatory measurement system. The Convention measurement system, often referred to as the
ITC (International Tonnage Convention) system applies to vessels that are 79 feet and over in
length, internationally flagged vessels, U.S. flagged vessels that operate in international waters,
and all ships built on or after July 18, 1982 (ships built before that date were given 12 years to
migrate from their existing gross register tonnage to use the International Tonnage Convention).
The Regulatory gross tonnage system today applies only to U.S. flagged vessels engaged in
only domestic voyages. Because the scope of the VGP covers not only U.S. flagged vessels, but
also vessels that operate in "waters of the United States", International Gross Tonnage is the
most appropriate measure for use for the VGP. See Parts 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 of the VGP for more
detailed information on the scope and coverage of the permit.
Owners/operators of U.S. flagged vessels engaged in only domestic voyages are not required to
obtain an international tonnage certificate.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
20
No
Comment: Appendix A - Definitions
• The definition of "major conversion" should be revised to clarify that the definition is
meant to capture changes that are so substantial as to make the vessel "substantially new
a vessel." If this section is not clarified, such routine events as engine repowering. hull
replating and other changes could be inaccurately interpreted to be a major conversion.
228
-------
• Additionally, this section should be revised to add a definition of "unmanned barges" to
clarify those as barges that do not have provisions for a crew and are not self-propelled.
Response: EPA disagrees that the definition of "major conversion" may be interpreted to
include routine maintenance. This definition was adapted from well known maritime treaties
and regulatory regimes (e.g., International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From
Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78), International Convention
for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments).
EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion of defining "unmanned barges" as barges that
are also "not self-propelled", as a self-propelled barge can be unmanned during periods of time
when it is not operating. To maintain this distinction, the VGP specifically describes when a
vessel is "unmanned and unpowered" (see Section 4.4.2 in the VGP for an example) or when a
vessel is just "unmanned" (see Section 4.1.1 of the VGP for an example).
Commenter Name: Christian LaPense, Dann Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation: Dann Marine Towing
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Late Comment? No
Comment: c. Dann Marine Towing urges EPA to revise its definition of "major conversion" in
Appendix A to clarify that the definition is meant to capture changes that are so substantial as to
render a vessel "substantially a new vessel," and not routine events such as engine repowering,
hull replating, etc., which may have the effect of substantially prolonging the life of the vessel.
We believe this clarification is essential so as to avoid overly restrictive interpretations that have
the negative effect of discouraging proper vessel maintenance or environmentally beneficial
vessel upgrades.
d. Dann Marine Towing requests that EPA add to Appendix A, a definition of "unmanned,
unpowered barges" to clarify that the term refers to a barge that does not have provisions for
crew and is not self-propelled.
Response: With respect to the definitions of "major conversion" and "unmanned barges",
please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 20.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
20
No
Comment: Appendix A - Definitions
229
-------
• The definition of "major conversion" should be revised to clarify that the definition is
meant to capture changes that are so substantial as to make the vessel "substantially new
a vessel." If this section is not clarified, such routine events as engine repowering. hull
replating and other changes could be inaccurately interpreted to be a major conversion.
• Additionally, this section should be revised to add a definition of "unmanned barges" to
clarify those as barges that do not have provisions for a crew and are not self-propelled.
Response: With respect to the definitions of "major conversion" and "unmanned barges",
please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 20.
Commenter Name: William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commenter Affiliation: Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Late Comment? No
Comment: In addition, VGP 2.0's definition of "major conversion" should be clarified to avoid
subjecting existing towing vessels that undergo routine events (such as engine repowers, in-kind
replacement of hull plating, system improvements, and equipment upgrades), some of which are
required by current regulations, to the requirements for new vessels. The current definition could
be interpreted as so restrictive as to discourage companies from performing regular vessel
maintenance and environmentally friendly upgrades to their vessels. The term 'substantially
prolongs the life of the vessel' should be clarified to only apply to extensive hull and structural
replacements.
Finally, we request that EPA add to Appendix A, a definition of "unmanned, unpowered barges"
to clarify that the term refers to a barge that does not have provisions for crew and is not self-
propelled.
Response: With respect to the definitions of "major conversion" and "unmanned barges",
please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 20.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
20
No
Comment: 13. Definition of "In Port" (Draft VGP Appendix A)
The Draft VGP defines "in port" as "anchored, moored, or otherwise secured while located in
waters subject to this permit which are inside the baseline of the U.S. territorial sea." Draft VGP
at p. 89.
230
-------
The Commenters are concerned that this definition is overly broad and may lead to confusion
and safety issues. Vessels may opt to anchor in waters within the territorial sea to avoid rough
seas or adverse weather. At such times, it will be difficult to comply with the discharge
requirements imposed by the Draft VGP.
The Comments request that the definition of "in port" be revised to "when a vessel is anchored,
moored or otherwise secured at a pier or dock."
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion as EPA intends for all vessels
anchored, moored, or otherwise secured within the baseline U.S. territorial sea to comply with
the "in port" discharge requirements in the VGP. EPA has attempted to clarify in the VGP when
certain requirements are applicable with a vessel is pierside and stationary or dockside. EPA
further notes that many discharge requirements must be met so long as it is technically feasible,
practical, and safe to do so.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
21
No
Comment: 14. Definition of "Oil" (Draft VGP Appendix A)
The Draft VGP defines "oil" as "oil of any kind or in any form, including but not limited to,
petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil." EPA
notes that this definition is a modified version of that contained in 33 C.F.R. § 154.105.
The Commenters note that fish contain naturally-occurring oils, both internally and externally.
Through the course of normal fishing operations, these oils may be released, either by contact
with fish gear, compression in nets, heading/gutting, or other means. Depending upon the vessel,
fish oil residue may remain on the vessel surfaces and fishing gear, and may be subsequently
washed overboard by precipitation, water spay, runoff, washdowns, gear deployment, etc. Given
the broad definition of "oil" in the Draft VGP, we are concerned that EPA may include these fish
oils and residues as regulated substances. In doing so, EPA would impose impractical and
infeasible requirements upon fishing vessels, through Parts 2.1.1, 2.1.4, 2.2.9 for example, which
may also impact crew safety and fishing operations. The Commenters note that APPS and OPA
were not intended to address the release of fish oil during the course of fishing operations.
The Commenters request that EPA revise the definition of "oil" in the Draft VGP to explicitly
exclude fish oils and fish oil residue or to adopt a definition of "oil" that does not include animal-
based oil. See 33 C.F.R. § 151.05.
Response: Generally, EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that the Agency need
specifically exclude fish oils from the definition of "oil" or "oily mixture" in the VGP. The
231
-------
definition given is fundamentally similar to that found at 33 CFR § 151.05 and the same as that
found in the 2008 VGP. EPA agrees that material storage requirements in Part 2.1.1 of the
permit are not appropriate for naturally occurring fish oils from fishing gear stored on deck and
the Agency has modified Part 2.1.1 of the permit to reflect such. Please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-05Q4-A1, excerpt 6 for additional discussion.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
25
No
Comment: The Commenters also note that the use of the terms "in port" and "at the pier" create
confusing compliance obligations. It is not clear what the distinction is when the definition of "in
port" appears to encompass being "at the pier." Further, the Commenters note an apparent
inconsistency between the Fact Sheet and the Draft VGP. In the Fact Sheet, EPA states that "[it]
has also prohibited the discharge of fish hold effluent pierside where shore based facilities are
available: where they are available, vessels must utilize these facilities." Fact Sheet at p. 149.
This statement indicates that fish hold effluent can be discharged when unloading catch at a pier
and a shore-based facility is not available. However, as quoted above, the Draft VGP appears
to be more restrictive, imposing a blanket prohibition on the discharge of fish hold effluent when
unloading at a pier. Given that not all piers have access to shore-based, NPDES-permitted
facilities, the Draft VGP may impose significant burdens on a large number of vessels.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the fish hold effluent requirements at Part
2.2.27 of the permit and corresponding discussion in Section 4.4.27 of the Fact Sheet were
confusing and potentially conflicting. Therefore, in response to this and other comments,
specific to permit requirements regarding fish hold effluent, EPA has substituted the term
"while in-port" with "while the vessel is stationary at the pier."
EPA has further clarified in the permit that fishing vessels are to use NPDES-permitted
facilities if they are available and economically achievable. See Part 2.2.27 of the permit for
more details.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: (c) Minimize the discharge of fishhold water or ice while in port. The definition of
"in port" is problematic in this section since any vessel anchored is considered in port. This
232
-------
would affect the fishing vessels selling/transferring product to tenders on the grounds. Many
fisheries offload using a pump where the seawater is separated from the fish and pumped over
the side. What about shellfish harvesters that are continuously circulating ambient saltwater to
keep the species alive.
Response: With respect to the definition of "in port", please see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 20. Please also see the response to comment EPA-
HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 25 regarding EPA's revision of Part 2.2.27 of the permit
(fish hold effluent) to clarify "in port" versus "at the pier."
Finally, in response to this and other comments, EPA revised Part 2.2.27 of the permit to clarify
that the requirements to discharge fish hold effluent to a NPDES-permitted shore-based facility
when economically achievable are not applicable to vessels using pumped-through holding
tanks.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Late Comment? No
Comment: "Oil" (sVGP section 6 page 16 & VGP Appendix A) The draft permits defines "oil"
as "oil of any kind or in any form, including but not limited to petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil
refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil." Through the course of normal
fishing operations, the fish which contain naturally occurring oils both internally and externally
may be released, either by contact with fishing gear, compression in the nets, heading/gutting or
other means. Depending upon the vessel and fishing gear, fish oil residue may remain on the
vessel surfaces and fishing gear, and may be subsequently washed overboard by precipitation,
water spray, runoff, washdowns, gear deployment etc. We recommend that EPA revise the
definition of Oil in the Draft VGP & sVGP to explicitly exclude fish oils and fish oil residue or
to adopt a definition of "oil" that does not include animal based oil.
"In Port" is currently defined in the draft permit as "for the purposes of this permit, anchored,
moored, or otherwise secured while located in waters subject to this permit which are inside the
baseline of the U.S territorial sea. A more appropriate definition would be "moored or otherwise
secured at a pier or dock".
Response: With respect to the definition of "oil", please see the response to comment EPA-
HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 21. With respect to the definition of "in port", please see
the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 20.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
233
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
13
No
Comment: Vessel Length: One of the main differences between the sVGP and VGP is the 79
foot vessel length. Length of vessel is not defined, is it overall, documented/registered length, or
keel length? One solution is to provide a definition for "length".
Response: Vessel length refers to overall length as defined at 46 CFR Part 69.9. That
regulation defines length as: "Overall length means the horizontal distance between the
foremost part of a vessel's stem to the aftermost part of its stern, excluding fittings and
attachments." See the definition in Appendix A of the permit for "length of vessel."
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
20
No
Comment: AWO urges EPA to revise its definition of "major conversion" in Appendix A to
clarify that the definition is meant to capture changes that are so substantial as to render a vessel
"substantially a new vessel," and not routine events such as engine repowering, hull replating,
etc., which may have the effect of substantially prolonging the life of the vessel. We believe this
clarification is essential so as to avoid overly restrictive interpretations that have the negative
effect of discouraging proper vessel maintenance or environmentally beneficial equipment
upgrades.
AWO requests that EPA add to Appendix A, a definition of "unmanned, unpowered barges" to
clarify that the term refers to a barge that does not have accommodations for crew and is not self-
propelled.
Response: With respect to the definition of "major conversion" and "unmanned barges",
please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 20.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
19
No
Comment: Definition, Clarification Needed
234
-------
Use of the word "minimize" is frequent throughout the draft VGP2, however it is vague on what
is actually required or expected. A definition would be helpful.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's request for clarification of the term "minimize."
While this term was defined in Part 2.0 of the draft permit, EPA also added this definition to
Appendix A of the permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574- A2
16
No
Comment: Appendix A - Definitions
"Deck runoff' should be modified to cover only washdowns of a vessel. Precipitation and
seawater falling on weather decks is unavoidable and the consequences of heavy rain or heavy
seas are unpredictable. In the weather conditions prevalent in the Atlantic Ocean, some discharge
as a result of rain or wave runoff is inevitable and prevention is futile.
Response: EPA disagrees that the deck washdown and runoff discharge should be revised to
include only deck washdowns. EPA intends for vessel operators to manage the quality of
precipitation and seawater wash as these discharges have the potential to introduce garbage,
debris, oil, etc from deck surfaces into surrounding waters. EPA notes that the deck washdown
and runoff requirements at Part 2.2.1 of the permit do not regard reducing the volume or
frequency of deck runoff discharges (which cannot be controlled), but rather minimizing the
introduction of contaminants into the discharge. EPA views these as common sense, pollution
prevention measures that represent current best marine practice.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574- A2
17
No
Comment: "In port" should be modified to include only designated anchorages or while tied to
a dock or mooring buoy. Commercial fishing vessels often seek shelter from weather and sea
conditions in protected bays along the coast without tying up to a dock. Their decision to obtain
safe conditions should not preclude them from normally operating, including cooking,
maintaining personal sanitation, and maintaining the quality of their catch.
Response: With respect to the definition of "in port", please see the response to comment EPA
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 20.
235
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574- A2
18
No
Comment: "Oil" should be modified to specifically exclude fish slime or fish residues so that
the stringent requirements surrounding fuel and engine oil and lubricants do not encompass
natural residue from a vessel's catch. A similar change needs to be made to "Oily mixture".
Response: With respect to the definition of "oil" and "oily mixture", please see EPA's
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 21.
Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director, California
Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Late Comment? No
Comment: Appendix A - Definitions (p. 89)
The definition of "In Port" now means anchored, moored, or otherwise secured while located in
waters subject to this permit which are inside the baseline of the U.S. territorial sea. This overly
extensive interpretation of the term is problematic since it limits operational capabilities over a
broader geographical area that may well be subject to strong tidal action. We recommend the
definition of "In Port" be when a vessel is anchored, moored or otherwise secured at a pier or
dock.
Response: With respect to the definition of "in port", please see the response to comment EPA
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 20.
Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director, California
Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Late Comment? No
Comment: The term "Oil' should be modified to exclude fish oil or fish 'slime' so that stringent
requirements surrounding a visible sheen from fuel, engine oil and lubricants do not encompass
natural residues from a vessel's catch. A similar change should be made to "oily mixture".
236
-------
Response: With respect to the definition of "oil" and "oily mixture", please see EPA's
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-05Q4-A1, excerpt 21.
Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director, California
Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Late Comment? No
Comment: The term "Deck runoff' should be modified to cover only wash—down of a vessel.
Precipitation and seawater falling on decks is unavoidable and the consequences of heavy rain or
heavy seas are unpredictable and unavoidable.
Response: With respect to the definition of "deck runoff', please see EPA's response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574-A2, excerpt 16.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
4
No
Comment: Additionally, we offer the following specific comments for each permit that would
provide improvements and help protect our waterways.
Vessel General Permit: Define "transportation" (page 9) to clarify which vessels the VGP applies
to. Otherwise, this can be left up to interpretation by vessel owners and operators and
enforcement agents and could lead to discrepancies and, subsequent, lawsuits.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's concern but points out Part 1.2.3.1 of the permit
and Section 3.5.2 of the Fact sheet for clarification regarding vessels operating as a means of
transportation (discharges authorized by the permit) or in a capacity other than as a means of
transportation (discharges not authorized by the permit). Vessels engaged in industrial
operations (e.g., seafood processors) are not engaged in a capacity of transportation, and
therefore, the vessels are not eligible for coverage under the VGP while engaged in these
operations. They must instead seek coverage under an alternate NPDES permit from the
appropriately authorized permitting authority.
Commenter Name: Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
237
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
16
No
Comment: The definition of "Phosphate Free" should include "and containing compounds
which would readily be converted to phosphate in the aquatic environment." Additionally, it
could help to identify what term such as "phosphate encompasses phosphoric acid,
phosphonates, organophosphates, any salt of a hydrogen phosphate, and any salt of a phosphate"
and "Derivatives of phosphate include polyphosphates such as sodium tripolyphosphate,
pyrophosphate, and phosphorus oxoacids." (page 92)
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to alter the definition of
"phosphate free". EPA is maintaining the current definition to be consistent with all other EPA
NPDES programs.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: "Oil" (sVGP section 6 page 16 & VGP Appendix A) The draft permits defines "oil"
as "oil of any kind or in any form, including but not limited to petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil
refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil." Through the course of normal
fishing operations, the fish which contain naturally occurring oils both internally and externally
may be released, either by contact with fishing gear, compression in the nets, heading/gutting or
other means. Depending upon the vessel and fishing gear, fish oil residue may remain on the
vessel surfaces and fishing gear, and may be subsequently washed overboard by precipitation,
water spray, runoff, washdowns, gear deployment etc. We recommend that EPA revise the
definition of Oil in the Draft VGP & sVGP to explicitly exclude fish oils and fish oil. residue or
to adopt a definition of "oil" that does not include animal based oil.
Response: With respect to the definition of "oil", please see EPA's response to comment EPA-
HQ-QW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 21.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: "In Port" is currently defined in the draft permit as "for the purposes of this permit,
anchored, moored, or otherwise secured while located in waters subject to this permit which are
238
-------
inside the baseline of the U.S territorial sea. A more appropriate definition would be" moored or
otherwise secured at a pier or dock".
Response: With respect to the definition of "in port", please see the response to comment EPA
EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 20.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: Vessel Length: One of the main differences between the sVGP and VGP is the 79
foot vessel length. Length of vessel is not defined, is it overall, documented/registered length, or
keel length? One solution is to provide a definition for "length".
Response: With respect to the definition of "vessel length", please see the response to
comment EPA EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-05Q5-A1, excerpt 13.
7. Administrative Requirements
Commenter Name: Public Hearing Oral Comments by AWO's Jennifer
Carpenter. January 11, 2012
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: Third, while we appreciate EPA's efforts to simplify the inspection, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements of the VGP, we believe that more must be done to reduce
unnecessary burdens on vessel owners and operators. For example, annual reports should not be
required of vessels that have had no instances of noncompliance during the year and are not
required to perform analytical monitoring. Much of the information captured in the annual report
form is already required to be maintained by the vessel owner and made available to EPA
inspectors upon request. In addition, we strongly urge EPA to improve its electronic reporting
systems before increasing the amount of electronic reporting it requires. AWO member
companies have experienced significant delays and technical problems, and incurred substantial
costs, associated with implementation of both the eNOl system and the electronic system for
filing the required one-time report. These difficulties have not only failed to make electronic
reporting more convenient than paper reporting, but have in some cases endangered members'
compliance with the permit. We urge EPA not to expand requirements for electronic reporting
until the agency has corrected these deficiencies and can ensure that electronic reporting systems
decrease, rather than increase, burdens on permittees.
239
-------
Response: With respect to improvements to EPA's electronic reporting system, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 7. With respect to annual
reporting requirements, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0488-
Al, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name: Public Meeting Oral Comment by Illinois Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0452
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: In light of our industries environmental record, we believe that any regulation
should take into account the fact that keeping our company running efficiently is good for the
environment. While we appreciate some of the changes the EPA has made in the next version of
the Vessel General Permit, or VGP 2.0, in an attempt to better reflect vessel operations, there are
a number of changes that need to be made to achieve this end. Like most operators we were
already in compliance with the VGP's Best Management Practices when they came into effect,
which will also be the case with VGP 2.0. Fulfilling the numerous paperwork requirements is
what creates the largest burden for operators like Illinois Marine, and the VGP 2.0 doesn't do
much to reduce these obligations. These requirements are especially burdensome for smaller
operators. Illinois Marine's primary operation is shifting barges owned by other companies, and
sometimes we move the same barge multiple times in one day. These continual barge
movements are critical to getting commodities where the need to go to keep our economy
running. Furthermore, the numerous inspections, recordkeeping and reporting requirements
associated with the permit are more suited to a company that both owns and operates it's vessels
at all times. With other companies' barges constantly shifting in and out of our care and custody,
it makes compliance even more difficult. Frankly it's unclear how all of this paperwork is good
for the environment.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter's implication that the recordkeeping requirements
of the permit do not support the environmental goals of the permit. EPA believes maintenance
of these records allow an owner or operator to assess their own permit compliance by providing
an easy way to reference permit requirements that have been met, as well as a way to identify
troublesome areas of the vessel that cause more pollution-related issues. For example, by
identifying which areas consistently require more cleaning or repair work, the owner or operator
can establish and implement procedures specifically designed to minimize pollution and
streamline cleaning and maintenance efforts in those areas. These records also allow EPA to
assess permit compliance.
As the commenter has acknowledged, EPA has attempted to reduce the recordkeeping burden
for vessel owner/operators, including vessel owner/operators of barges. These changes have
included allowing for electronic recordkeeping (see Part 4.2.1 of the permit), reducing some of
the information that was required to be kept under Part 4.2 of the permit, the combined annual
report option (see below), and the Extended Unmanned Vessel Inspection option. EPA further
notes that much of the recordkeeping required under Part 4.2 is minimal for barges, and if a
240
-------
barge operator is in full compliance with the permit (and has no permit violations or corrective
actions), recordkeeping is limited to the NOI, basic static information about the barge, and
documentation that inspections are completed. Where deficiencies are noted in the inspections,
a log must be maintained. As alluded to above, as a result of stakeholder input, these records
may be maintained electronically.
Additionally, based on comments from vessel owners/operators and experience from the
implementation of the 2008 VGP, the new permit allows owners/operators of multiple vessels
to submit one Annual Report (known as the "Combined Annual Report") if they meet all of the
conditions listed in Part 4.4.2 of the permit. Those conditions are that the answers for each
vessel covered by the report must be the same, no analytical monitoring is required for the
vessels' discharges, the report will be submitted electronically, and that none of the vessels have
had any instances of noncompliance or identified deficiencies in the previous 23 months, and
each vessel must have an active NOI to identify it. Vessels that do not meet these requirements
cannot be included in the Combined Annual Report.
In addition, the proposed permit provided the Combined Annual Report exclusively to barges,
but based on public comments EPA extended the applicability to vessels less than 300 gross
tons that are fundamentally similar and have a limited number of discharges. This allows many
tug boat operators to take advantage of this option if they meet the requirements for the
Combined Annual Report. EPA identified this provision as an efficient way to gather the
information without sacrificing data quality while minimizing burden on a significant portion of
the regulated universe.
Commenter Name: Cory Sause, Environmental Coordinator, Sause Bros
Commenter Affiliation: Sause Bros
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0482-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: Sause Bros is hopeful that the EPA will be conscious of the paperwork burdens that
this stands to impose on its permittees. The amount of time and effort it takes to fulfill
inspections, recordkeeping, and reporting obligations under the current VGP takes many man-
hours and a highly coordinated effort. We would request that the EPA eliminate the annual report
requirement for vessels that have no instances of non compliance. Being tasked with having to
fill out annual reports for every one of our towing vessels along with combined annual reports
for all of our barges would increase our reporting burdens, including costs exponentially. We
would ask that you allow all records, including the PARI forms to be maintained electronically.
Response: With respect to annual reporting requirements, please see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0488-A1, excerpt 3. Due to this and other comments, EPA has
allowed a combined annual report to be submitted for vessels less than 300 gross tons if they
meet the terms of Part 4.4.2 of the permit. EPA believes this should reduce the commenter's
burden for many, if not most, of their towing vessels. In addition, as supported by the
commenter, all records, including the PARI form, may be maintained electronically. Records
241
-------
may be kept electronically if the records are: in a format that can be read in a similar manner as
a paper record; legally dependable with no less evidentiary value than their paper equivalent,
and accessible to the inspector during an inspection to the same extent as a paper copy stored on
the vessel would be, if the records were stored in paper form. For more information on
electronic recordkeeping, see section 4.2.1 of the permit and section 6.3.1 of the factsheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William R. Barr, Vice President Safety & Compliance,
Amherst Madison, Inc.
Amherst Madison, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0524-A1
3
No
Comment: Maintaining chain of custody paperwork on unmanned barges as they travel to their
destination for loading or unloading is difficult in many cases, because many parties from
towers, fieeters, to loading operations will have handled the barge somewhere during its
commercial transit. Most companies have hired an additional individual to track, monitor and
maintain documents to cover a barge's environmental condition throughout its travels. In
addition, this extra individual is maintaining documentation on the vessel's environmental
condition, too.
Response: With respect to maintenance of electronic records, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0482-A1, excerpt 4.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: d. 40 CFR Part 122.41 (l)(6) requires 24 hour notification of non-compliance which
may endanger health or the environment with a written submission within 5 days. While vessel
crew and officers will be trained on the requirements of this General Permit, they will not likely
have the requisite background, education or in-depth environmental expertise required when
making such determinations and interacting with regulatory agencies. Vessel operations occur 24
hour a day, 365 days a year, and are conducted remote from the corporate offices which will be
managing these reports. Their removal, in both distance and time, from the necessary shore-side
support may stretch the time frames in which it is possible even to determine whether an event
poses a danger to health or the environment. Experience has shown that subsequent
investigations, also removed in distance and time from the vessel, are likely to take more than
five days to produce meaningful results. In this respect we recommend that EPA incorporate
longer reporting time frames into the General Permit, and specifically exempt the vessel from
this section of the standard permit conditions. We recommend language in our comments on
242
-------
section 4 of this General Permit relative to this requirement in section 4.4.3 - Additional
Reporting.
Response: The 24-hour reporting requirement and the 5-day written follow-up, are standard
permit conditions consistent with and required pursuant to 40 CFR 122.41(1)(6). Therefore,
EPA has not adopted the commenter's suggested language.
Commenter Name: James Zehringer, Director, Environmental Services
Section, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR)
Commenter Affiliation: Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR),
Environmental Services Section
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0542-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: As to conditions proposed for commercial vessels less than 79 feet: these proposed
reporting and inspection requirements will negatively impact - with- no clear rationale or basis
for imposing these conditions - vessels used for law enforcement, emergency response, wildlife
enforcement, rescue, marine research, education, tourism and recreational fishing. Further, we
question the enforceability ofthe sVGP and the potential impacts such enforcement could have
on both State and local government, as well as on small vessel operators.
Response: Comments specifically regarding the sVGP are outside the scope of today's VGP
issuance. However, EPA notes that similar comments were submitted in the sVGP docket, and
responses can be found in the response to comments docket developed for the sVGP in docket
number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150 upon that permit's finalization.
Commenter Name: Marc A. Ross, Executive Director, Rock the Earth
Commenter Affiliation: Rock the Earth
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0547-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: Finally, cruise ship operators should be required to allow the public access to their
Notices of Incidents, their monitoring reports and history of reported violations, on a public
website, and should be required to publicize the address and purpose of that website. Each and
every cruise ship advertisement should be required to contain information as to how passengers
can obtain information about the particular cruise ship operators' environmental practices and
history of violations ofthe VGP and other environmental regulations; about the cruise ship's
obligations and responsibilities under the VGP; and information about how passengers can
report violations ofthe VGP.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and notes that NOIs received by EPA will be
publicly available on the EPA website. In addition, EPA intends to make monitoring and other
243
-------
reporting information transmitted to the Agency in electronic form available to the public in
electronic form. EPA also acknowledges the commenter interest in environmental education
and awareness; however, requiring cruise ship operators to advertise their obligations and
environmental practices with each of their advertisements is outside the scope of EPA's
mandated authority under the CWA. EPA will, however, continue to conduct outreach and
improve our electronic tools to increase information sharing and transparency. Finally, if a
passenger or other member of the public wishes to report a violation of the VGP, any other
NPDES permit, or any other EPA program, they may do so at http://www.epa.gov/tips.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Matthew French, Port Engineer American River
Transportation Company (ARTCO)
American River Transportation Company (ARTCO)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0551-A1
2
No
Comment: The EPA must do more to reduce the paperwork and reporting burdens on permitted
entities. Efforts need to be made to fix problems and redundancies with electronic reporting
before mandating this requirement. More information needs to be shared with industry as to who
is using the data that is reported and how is it being used (i.e. number of violations per year,
amount of total fines issued, etc.)
Response: With respect to improvements to EPA's electronic reporting system, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director, California
Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Late Comment? No
Comment: Availability of Individual Vessel Permit Information.
We believe the information submitted to the EPA by permitted individuals should be protected to
the greatest extent possible.
Response: Generally, any information submitted to EPA may be made available to the public,
including through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. An owner/operator can claim
any information submitted to EPA as confidential, consistent with regulations at 40 CFR Part 2
and 40 CFR §122.7. EPA will treat that information in accordance with procedures in 40 CFR
Part 2. However, note that the regulations prohibit EPA from treating certain categories of
information as confidential, including the name and address of any permit applicant or
permittee, permit applications, permits, and effluent data.
244
-------
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: Recordkeeping Confidentiality: EPA does not state in either draft permit whether
the logbooks and reports required will be considered and kept confidential or will be provided on
request under the Freedom of Information Act and citizen suit provisions. UFA strongly
recommends that data be kept confidential.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2, excerpt 15.
In addition, EPA will consider requests to provide access to such records to the public on a
case-by-case basis, consistent with relevant laws, such as FOIA. Such requests will necessarily
need to go through EPA first.
7.1 NOIs
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: Notice of Intent (Section 1.5.1.1, pg. 12): We very much appreciate and strongly
support the commitment of EPA to process notices of intent within 7 days of receipt, providing
the NOI is submitted via the electronic notice of intent system. This facilitates compliance for
those vessels which do not regularly trade to the US but which, due to marketplace demands, are
required to call in a US port on short notice.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment and notes the commenter's belief that this will
facilitate compliance by certain members of the regulated community in a positive manner.
EPA included this requirement as a way to simply reduce non quantifiable burden on the
regulated industry.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
14
No
245
-------
Comment: Finally, the Commenters suggest that EPA revise the NOI form to add a section
whereby vessel owner/operators can identify which alternative(s) they are using to satisfy the
ballast water management measures (i.e., BWTS, onshore treatment, public or potable water
system, or no discharge). The Commenters expect that such a revision would ease enforcement
by specifying what equipment should be present during any ship-board inspection.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Based on this comment, EPA has added a
section to the NOI form that allows vessel owner/operators to identify which of the 4 options
(e.g. ballast water treatment system, public water supply, no discharge, on-shore treatment,
N/A) they are using to meet the VGP's numeric ballast water discharge limitations. EPA
believes that this additional question will allow EPA to better understand how vessel
owner/operators manage their ballast water discharges under the VGP and would help
inspectors determine if the vessel is in compliance with the numeric ballast water discharge
limitations in the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Berge, Vice President, Pacific Merchant Shipping
Association (PMSA)
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0508-A1
9
No
Comment: 4) NOT Submissions - Timelines
The proposed VGP establishes a requirement for an NOI to be electronically submitted at least 7
days prior to discharge into permitted waters, and vessels would be allowed to discharge 7 days
after that NOI is processed by the EPA. It appears to us that a vessel would not know when the
NOI has been processed by EPA and therefore have no surety as to whether the discharge is
compliant or not. Accordingly, we recommend that the VGP be amended to allow discharge 7
days after the NOI is submitted electronically, unless the vessels is advised by EPA that the NOI
is not acceptable for any reason.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this important federal policymaking
process. A robust, protective and uniform regulatory policy for vessels calling at any and all US
commercial ports is essential to ensure regulatory compliance, environmental protection and the
accommodation of our vital maritime trade.
Response: EPA disagrees that permittees would not know when the NOI has been processed
and they are thus authorized to discharge under the permit. Like the 2008 permit, the status of
paper and electronic NOIs for the 2013 VGP, including notice that a permittee is authorized to
discharge, will be posted online and can be accessed via the NOI search tool on EPA's NPDES
vessels homepage at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels. This NOI information will be regularly
updated and accessible by the permittee. Generally, discharges are authorized 7 days after EPA
receipt of an electronic NOI or 30 days after EPA processes receipt of a paper NOI; however,
based on a review of the NOI or other information, EPA may delay the discharge authorization
date for further review, or may deny coverage under this permit and require submission of an
246
-------
application for an individual NPDES permit, as detailed in Part 1.8 of the permit. In these
instances, EPA will notify the NOI submitter in writing of the delay or the request for
submission of an individual NPDES permit application.
Commenter Name: Gregg A. Thauvette, Vice President, Operations, The Great Lakes Towing
Company and Great Lakes Shipyard
Commenter Affiliation: The Great Lakes Towing Company and Great Lakes Shipyard
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0520-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2. The approach of not requiring vessels that are smaller than 300 gross tons, and do
not have the capacity to carry more than 8 cubic meters (2113 gallons) of ballast water to submit
an NOI.
As a company with a fleet of vessels that are all smaller than these abovementioned
specifications, we greatly appreciate and strongly support this aspect of the draft. First and
foremost, this eases the regulations that govern our fleet and relieves the time consuming
requirements that would otherwise need to be followed to complete NOIs for each of our vessels.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Oswald Inglese, Jr., Director, Water Permitting and
Enforcement Division, Connecticut Department of Energy
and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP)
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection (CT DEEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0523-A1
1
No
Comment: ISSUE 1: Data Collection and Availability. We support EPA's administrative
improvements with respect to the notification and recordkeeping requirements associated with
the proposed VGP. However, we suggest that the NOI and the corresponding NOI search system
could be improved. Presently, it is difficult to use the NOI search system to determine which
vessels may discharge into the waters of this State. We note that the information on the NOIs that
we would use to track that information is either missing or is too generic to be of any value. We
would recommend that EPA modify the NOI by including a required "State" field (i.e., a field on
the form that could be used to identify which States' waters that the vessel travels in). Also, if
this "State" field could be searchable, it would allow for more efficient information gathering.
On a related matter, we note that there is no way, at least electronically, to access the reports and
DMRs that vessel owner/operators submit to EPA as part of its requirements under the VGP. We
suggest that this information, like the NOIs, be made available electronically.
Response: It is not always feasible for vessels to identify in advance the ports to which they
247
-------
will travel. Often, vessels change routes unexpectedly due to various circumstances. Therefore,
EPA did not add fields that identify which state waters vessels may transit as suggested by the
commenter, as it may not be feasible for the permittee to determine and would not provide an
accurate representation of where vessels travel.
Additionally, EPA agrees with commenter that presently there is no way for the public to access
VGP reports and DMRs electronically. EPA is exploring options for making this information
available to the public electronically and may have such a system in the future. Information
submitted to EPA is publicly available to the extent it is not claimed by the submitter and
determined by EPA to be confidential business information pursuant to 40 CFR Part 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
7
No
Comment: In addition to the foregoing, we have a number of additional comments on specific
sections of the permit. In order to keep our comments clear, we will follow the permit's structure
to offer our suggestions / additions to the Draft 2013 Vessel General Permit.
1. COVERAGE UNDER THIS PERMIT
Part 1.5: Authorization Under this Permit
The EPA should clarify the timeline for obtaining coverage. More specifically, in the clause
stating that coverage will be granted 7 or 30 days after the complete NOI is processed by the
EPA, we recommend that the word "processed" be replaced by "submitted," as it is impossible
for the owner or operator to know when the NOI has been processed.
Response: The commenter is referring to Table 1 under Part 1.5.1.1 of the VGP that indicates
that permittees will receive authorization to discharge under the VGP 7 days or 30 days after the
complete NOI is processed by EPA electronically and by paper respectively. EPA has not
changed the word "processed" with the word "submitted" as requested by the commenter as an
NOI is only considered "processed" upon submission under certain circumstances. However,
based in part on this comment, EPA has specified what the Agency means by "processed" and
explains how the owner or operator will know when the NOI has been processed in the fact
sheet. Please also see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0508-A1, except 9.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
248
-------
Comment: P. 11 Part.5.1 - How to Obtain Authorization - CLIA members strongly encourage
EPA to develop adequate electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) capability to allow automatic carry-
over of relevant NOI data for vessels covered under the current VGP. Of course this re-submittal
would be certified by a certifying official, but the data entry process should be simplified as
much as possible.
P. 14. Par 1.6 - Terminating Coverage - Cruise vessel deployments are typically scheduled 18-36
months in advance. Vessels can be and are redeployed throughout the world to address market
conditions, security requirements and innumerable other contingencies. It is appropriate for EPA
to develop a process in which the General Permit is suspended rather than terminated, in those
cases where a vessel may be temporarily deployed out of waters subject to the permit. In doing
so, EPA should take the opportunity to describe applicability of monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements during those times when vessels are not sailing in permit covered waters.
Suspension rather than termination may be a consideration. These are practical considerations
that should be addressed by the General Permit. This is particularly relevant given the additional
reporting requirements of this permit.
Response: When developing the new eNOI system for the 2013 VGP, EPA will make every
attempt to reduce the amount of time it takes for vessel owner/operators to complete the NOI.
A vessel is not required to submit a NOT when a vessel is temporarily deployed out of waters
subject to the permit. When a vessel has permanently ceased operating in waters subject of this
permit, then they are required to submit a NOT. See Part 3.8.2.1 of the VGP fact sheet.
Additionally, EPA does describe the applicability of monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements when vessels are temporarily outside of US waters in Part 6.5 of the VGP fact
sheet.
Commenter Name: Douglas B. Schneider, World Shipping Council (WSC)
Commenter Affiliation: World Shipping Council (WSC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Late Comment? No
Comment: B. Notice of Intent (NOI) Submission Deadlines.
The draft VGP would require vessels previously covered under the 2008 VGP and new or
existing vessels delivered to the owner/operator after December 19, 2013 (that were not
previously covered) to submit an NOI not later than seven days prior to discharge into waters
subject to the permit. Vessels submitting electronic NOIs would then be authorized to discharge
seven days after the complete NOI is "processed" by EPA. Because it will not be known by the
NOI filer when the NOI is "processed" by EPA, this proposed requirement creates uncertainty
about whether discharge is, in fact, authorized seven days after the NOI is submitted
electronically to EPA. We recommend that Table 1 on page 12 of the draft VGP be amended to
indicate that discharge is authorized seven days after the eNOI has been submitted electronically
to EPA.
249
-------
A similar issue exists for changes in vessel ownership/operation. The draft VGP states that the
NOI deadline for such vessels is the date of the transfer of ownership/operation. Discharge
would then be authorized as of the date of transfer or as of the date EPA processes the NOI,
whichever is later. A vessel would have no way of knowing when EPA has processed the NOI.
We recommend that this block in Table 1 be amended to indicate that discharge is authorized on
the date that the eNOI is submitted electronically to EPA.
Response: EPA has made the clarification suggested by the commenter (see footnote "**"
under Table 1). With respect to how permittees can determine when their NOI has been
processed by EPA, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0508-A1,
excerpt 9.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadiens)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadiens)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2
15
No
Comment: Article 1.5.1.1 - Vessels Required to Submit Notices of Intent (NOIs)
As Table 1 of this part applies to transfer of ownership and/or operation of a vessel, we are
concerned with the processing time and discharge authorization date. The new owner or operator
of a vessel is required to submit the new NOI by the date of transfer which is acceptable.
However, as we read this table, the commencement of coverage under the VGP 2013 is the date
of transfer or the date EPA processes the NOI, whichever is later. Since EPA has not obligated
itself to process NOIs in a given timeframe, a new vessel owner or operator has no way of
knowing how soon is "soon enough" to ensure his vessel will be covered by the VGP 2013.
Therefore, we recommend EPA include in the VGP a statement to the effect that all vessels will
be considered to be covered under the VGP not later than 15 calendar days after submission of
the NOI.
Response: EPA has not made the commenter's suggested change to guarantee coverage under
the VGP 15 days after submitting a NOI, as EPA believes that permittees will be able to
determine when their NOI has been processed by EPA. Generally, permittees that submit a
complete and accurate electronic NOI prior to the transfer of ownership will be authorized to
discharge immediately upon the transfer of ownership. Unlike other NOIs submitted that have
either a 7- or 30-day period before permit authorization, NOIs submitted for permit transfers
have no delay. However, EPA reserves the right to review NOIs and the Agency may delay any
discharge authorization date for further review, or may deny coverage under this permit and
require submission of an application for an individual NPDES permit, as detailed in Part 1.8 of
the permit. EPA expects to delay few, if any, of these transfers. With respect to how permittees
can determine when their NOI has been processed by EPA, please see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0508-A1, excerpt 9.
250
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent, V. Ships
Leisure
V. Ships Leisure
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2
15
No
Comment: Item No: 19. VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: Appendix E - NOI
VGP 2013 or Fact Sheet Text: Reference to "Nearshore voyages" (without specifying if
"Pacific" or "Atlantic or Gulf' Nearshore Voyages)
Comments: The Ballast water regulations currently do not make a specific reference to "Atlantic
or Gulf Nearshore Voyages" even though these are in the Definitions sections also in the
previous/old Permit Suggestion or Proposed text: Suggest this is clarified/defined better.
Response: EPA agrees with commenter and has made changes to the VGP to clarify what type
of information EPA is looking for in the NOI form. Additionally, based on this comment, EPA
has removed the term "Atlantic Nearshore Voyage" from the definitions of the permit as there
are no permit requirements associated with these voyages. Where the term "nearshore voyages"
is used in Part 2 of the permit or on the NOI in the context of ballast water, this is used
interchangeably with "Pacific Nearshore Voyages."
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law Division, New
York City Law Department
New York City Law Department
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0598-A2
2
No
Comment: Section 1.5.1.1 Vessels Required to Submit Notice of Intent (NOIs). pg. 12.
The City requests clarification on whether operators who have previously applied are required to
submit a NOI for the VGP again, and if so, what the timeframe for submitting the NOI is.
Response: Vessels which have previously applied for coverage under the 2008 VGP will have
to seek coverage (and submit an NOI as applicable) for the 2013 VGP. However, EPA plans to
minimize burden by transferring relevant data for the old NOIs into the new database to the
extent feasible and resources allow. For discussion on whether those covered by the 2008 VGP
are required to submit another NOI for the 2013 VGP, please see Part 1.5.1 of the permit. For
discussion on the timeframe for submitting those NOIs, please see Table 1 in Part 1.5.1.1 of the
permit.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
251
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
2
No
Comment: 2. The approach of not requiring vessels that are smaller than 300 gross tons, and
do not have a capacity to carry more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water to submit a NOI.
The global transfer and introduction of aquatic invasive species is most frequently attributed to
the ballast water discharge. As such, it seems reasonable that all vessels that can contribute to the
transfer and/or introduction of invasive species be required to properly manage or treat their
ballast water before discharge.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0629-A2, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name: Patrick Stant, President, Marmac, LLC, McDonough
Marine Service
Commenter Affiliation: Marmac, LLC., McDonough Marine Service
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0627-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: Our company, Marmac, LLC, operating as McDonough Marine Service, owns a
fleet of more than six hundred (600) barges that are bareboat chartered to various customers.
Barge charter durations vary from a few days to several years. All such charters are for
unmanned and unpowered barges, without any attendant towing vessel. The chartering party
arranges for all marine towing services of our barges which may involve third party towing
companies or their owned towing vessels.
According to our understanding of the current permit requirements, all of our barges are required
to file Notices of Intent, since each barge is capable of being ballasted.
Response: The commenter is correct that each vessel in a fleet is required to receive coverage
under the VGP via the NOI or the PARI form depending on the vessel's gross tonnage and
ballast water capacity. For more discussion on authorization under the permit, please see Part
3.7 of the VGP fact sheet.
Commenter Name: Patrick Stant, President, Marmac, LLC, McDonough
Marine Service
Commenter Affiliation: Marmac, LLC., McDonough Marine Service
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0627-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: With respect to the NOI/NOT requirements under the VGP, at the advice of EPA
personnel, we maintain open NOIs on all active vessels in our fleet. Ordinarily, we would allow
252
-------
such vessels to fall under our NPDES facility/fleet permits and not maintain NOIs. This would
remove the burden of weekly inspections of barges that are off rent, as this is not a requirement
under our NPDES facility/fleet permits. We cannot, however, follow this logical operational
process because of the thirty (30) day waiting period our customers must comply with after they
have rented a barge from us. In all cases, those customers expect to be able to begin using the
rented barge at the time they pick it up. The thirty (30) day waiting period does not make
practical sense given the nature of our business.
Response: EPA clarifies that each vessel in a fleet is required to receive coverage under the
VGP. EPA clarifies that there is generally a 30 day waiting period for processing paper NOIs
and a 7 day waiting period for processing electronic NOIs. However, EPA notes that there is no
waiting period where the vessel has previous coverage (i.e., if there is merely a transfer of
ownership or operation) and the new NOI is submitted electronically. See VPG section 1.5.1.1,
Table 1 (providing that authorization in situations where there is a change of ownership or
operation of a previously covered vessel begins on date of transfer or date EPA processes the
NOI, whichever is later, and that when the NOI is submitted electronically, the NOI is
considered "processed" upon submission.) Although, EPA does not know the details of the
commenter's company's specific operation, it appears that this would be a workable approach
for the scenario the commenter describes above. Please see Part 1.5 of the VGP for more
detailed information on NOIs.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
3
No
Comment: 2. The approach of not requiring vessels that are smaller than 300 gross tons, and do
not have a capacity to carry more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water to submit a NOI.
The global transfer and introduction of aquatic invasive species is most frequently attributed to
the ballast water discharge. As such, it seems reasonable that all vessels that can contribute to the
transfer and/or introduction of invasive species be required to properly manage or treat their
ballast water before discharge.
Response: EPA made no changes to the NOI requirements in response to this comment. The
commenter does not explain how the requirement to submit an NOI relates to whether the VGP
requires owners and operators "to properly manage or treat their ballast water before
discharge," and, more importantly, does not explain how EPA's determination not to require
smaller vessels to submit NOIs is inconsistent with EPA's regulations. Vessels with small
volumes of water must meet many of the requirements under Part 2.2.3 of the permit, including
having a ballast water management plan and meeting mandatory BMPs under Part 2.2.3.3. For
discussion on how EPA determined, in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR
122.28(b)(2)(v), which vessels should not be required to submit a NOI, please see Part 3.7.1 of
253
-------
the VGP fact sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Brent Paine, Executive Director, United Catcher Boats
(UCB) and Glenn Reed, President, Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
United Catcher Boats (UCB) and Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0630-A2
1
No
Comment: 1.5.1.1 Vessels Required to Submit Notices of Intent (NOIs)
The proposed requirement to submit NOIs for vessels greater than 300 gross tons or that have the
capacity to hold or discharge more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water should exempt vessels
active in the commercial fishing industry as a class.
Under the proposal, fishing vessels engaged in the same commercial fishery would be subject to
different standards despite engaging in essentially identical operations. In order to treat all
vessels in a particular fishery similarly, a class exemption for commercial fishing vessels, fish
tenders and fish processing vessels active in the commercial fishing industry regardless of size
and ballast water capacity should be provided.
Response: The commenter recommends that EPA exempt commercial fishing vessels from
filing NOIs or completing PARI forms to receive coverage under the VGP. EPA did not make
these changes as EPA believes that gross tonnage and capacity to hold or discharge ballast
water are appropriate for determining which vessels should be required to submit NOIs. For
discussion on how EPA determined which vessels were not required to submit a NOI, please
see Part 3.7.1 of the VGP fact sheet. EPA further notes that many fish processing vessels would
not be eligible for coverage under the VGP when they are actively processing fish as this is an
industrial operation and was not subject to the former 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
5
No
Comment: In addition to posting all NOIs received, EPA needs to post if the NOI was
approved, denied, or if the permit required additional information and was reviewed as an
individual permit (page 12).
Response: Like the 2008 permit, EPA plans to post the status of paper and electronic NOIs for
the 2013 VGP at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/noisearch. That website will provide public access
254
-------
to NOI information, including the status of all submitted NOIs (including approvals, denials,
delays, etc). That website likely will not include information on any individual permit
application information as those activities will be public noticed through a formal and distinct
process.
7.2 PARI Form
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
16
No
Comment: Also, in cases where Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection (PARI) Form is
maintained, the permit should allow for such forms to be maintained electronically, with an
ability to be shown to an inspector in the same manner as a paper record.
Response: EPA notes that the VGP does allow permittees to maintain a copy of their PARI
form electronically. See Part 3.7.2.1 of the VGP fact sheet for more information.
Commenter Name: Christian LaPense, Dann Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation: Dann Marine Towing
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: c. Allow the PARI Form to Be Maintained Electronically
Dann Marine Towing recommends that EPA allow the owners and operators of vessels that need
not complete Notices of Intent to maintain the Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection
(PARI) Form electronically if they choose, as long as it is in kept in compliance with Part 4.2.1
of the proposed VGP -that is, in a format that can be read in a similar manner as a paper record,
legally dependable with no less evidentiary value than its paper equivalent, and accessible to the
inspector during an inspection to the same extent as a paper copy stored on the vessel would be.
Response: With respect to maintaining PARI forms electronically, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 16.
Commenter Name: Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Commenter Affiliation: Ingram Barge Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
255
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Late Comment? No
Comment: Also, in cases where Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection (PARI) Form is
maintained, the permit should allow for such forms to be maintained electronically, with an
ability to be shown to an inspector in the same manner as a paper record.
Response: With respect to maintaining PARI forms electronically, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 16.
Commenter Name: William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commenter Affiliation: Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Late Comment? No
Comment: Finally, vessels that are required to carry the Permit Authorization and Record of
Inspection (PARI) Form (i.e., vessels that are not required to submit NOIs) should be allowed to
be able to access that form electronically, instead of being required to physically carry it on the
vessel.
Response: With respect to maintaining PARI forms electronically, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 16.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
13
No
Comment: Allow the PARI Form to Be Maintained Electronically.
AWO recommends that EPA allow the operators of vessels that need not submit Notices of
Intent to maintain the Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection Form electronically if they
choose, as long as it is in kept in compliance with Part 4.2.1 of the proposed VGP - that is, in a
format that can be read in a similar manner as a paper record, legally dependable with no less
evidentiary value than its paper equivalent, and accessible to the inspector during an inspection
to the same extent as a paper copy stored on the vessel would be.
Response: With respect to maintaining PARI forms electronically, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 16.
256
-------
Commenter Name:
Gregg A. Thauvette, Vice President, Operations, The Great
Lakes Towing Company and Great Lakes Shipyard
The Great Lakes Towing Company and Great Lakes
Shipyard
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0520-A1
2
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: 3. The requirement that vessel owner/operators that are not required to submit NOIs
must complete, sign and maintain onboard the VGP PARI Form contained in Appendix K of the
permit.
While, as mentioned above, we are in favor of not having to submit NOIs, we find the PARI
forms to be no less burdensome of a substitute. Alternatively, we suggest removing the proposed
unnecessary recordkeeping and reporting, particularly for vessels on which noncompliance
issues have not occurred. An option would be to extend reports to match the proposed permit
term by requiring a report to be filed every four years. Additionally, we see a means by which
the requirement of a PARI for each vessel could also be simplified. We propose a change in the
PARI to instead cover each company with all vessels in the company's fleet to be documented on
the same report.
Response: EPA does not agree that the PARI form is equally as burdensome as the NOI form
and the commenter does not provide a basis for its views. While the NOI form is expected to
take 1 hour to complete, the addition of the PARI Form is assumed to represent minimal burden
for vessels as the very short form (1 page) consists of information that is readily available to the
owner and is used to document activities (annual inspections) that are already occurring under
the baseline. See Part 4.4 of the VGP Economic Analysis.
EPA does not agree that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the VGP are
unnecessary and believes that, among other things, these requirements help vessel
owner/operators implement permit requirements by ensuring that they regularly focus on permit
compliance and EPA enforcement personnel to determine whether a vessel is in compliance
with the VGP. These goals would be undermined by adoption of the commenters' apparent
recommendation to reduce the frequency by which the PARI form must be certified to show
that an annual inspection has been completed.
Additionally, EPA did not adopt the commenter's recommendation to allow each company to
keep a copy of a PARI form for a fleet. A completed PARI form is required for vessels not
required to submit a NOI to receive coverage under the VGP. The Clean Water Act and NPDES
regulations generally require that each point source, e.g. vessel, seeking to discharge pollutants
to the waters of the US must obtain a permit under the NPDES program and be compliant with
those limitations and requirements. The VGP represents the most expeditious process by which
a vessel can obtain this coverage. Any vessel that meets the conditions requiring completion of
a PARI form must complete its own PARI form for seeking coverage under the general permit
and retain a copy of that form on the vessel. Preparing and maintaining the PARI form on each
individual vessel provides additional assurances that persons directly responsible for operating
257
-------
each individual vessel are aware of the VGP and its associated requirements. Preparing and
maintaining a company-wide PARI fails to provide similar notice.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law Division, New
York City Law Department
New York City Law Department
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0598-A2
9
No
Comment: Appendix K - Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection Form (PARI) (for
vessels which need not complete NOI's), pg. 136. The City requests that EPA define who can
sign this form. For example, NYCDOT's Senior Port Engineer currently serves as the certifying
official; the City requests guidance on this position.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's question about who can sign the PARI form. Part
1.7 of the permit specifies the signature and certification requirements for the PARI form.
Certification requires that the person signing the form be authorized to certify that the document
and all attachments were prepared under their direction or supervision in accordance with a
system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the
information contained therein. EPA expects PARI signatories to meet the requirements of 40
CFR 122.22(a) specific to information required in NPDES permits. Namely, those regulations
provide that the information be signed by an "authorized representative" of the vessel. This
includes:
• For a corporation - a responsible corporate officer.
• For a partnership or sole proprietorship - a general partner or the proprietor, or
• For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency - a principal executive officer
or ranking elected official.
For vessels, EPA considers that the "master," as defined in Appendix A of the VGP, meets the
definition of an "authorized representative."
EPA notes that Part 1.13 of the VGP requires compliance with standard permit conditions found
in 40 CFR 122.41. Subsection (k) of 122.41 requires that all reports required to be submitted
under NPDES permits be signed and certified consistent with the requirements at 40 CFR
122.22. Those requirements specify who is authorized to sign reports.
7.3 Routine Visual Inspections
Response Essay:
EPA disagrees that the requirement to conduct weekly routine visual inspections will result in
an undue burden on the vessel owner/operator. A detailed analysis of this burden associated
with the inspections is included the Economic Analysis for today's permit and the 2008 VGP
258
-------
and both are available in the docket. The routine visual inspections required by the permit are
reasonable measures of good marine practice that the prudent mariner is already employing to
ensure vessel, crew, and environmental health and safety. In addition, EPA gives vessel
owner/operators multiple management options to implement this requirement in way that
maximizes efficiency with the activities already being conducted onboard the vessel. Therefore,
EPA believes that the burden associate with the inspections is justified and necessary.
The 2013 VGP provides flexibility to conduct the inspections on a schedule that coincides with
other routine inspections. For instance, the permit allows the routine visual inspections (see Part
4.1.1 of the VGP) to be conducted as part of an existing (or updated) international safety
management (ISM) code safety management system (SMS) plan, as long as all the permit
requirements are met. A commenter raised the point that their vessels are regularly inspected by
their vessel crew upon arrival at their loading and discharge docks, or when breaking and
making tows at docks or locks. Provided these inspections are conducted by an authorized
representative or duly authorized representative of that person, within the meaning of 40 CFR
122.22(b) and meet the requirements of the routine visual inspection and are documented, these
inspections can qualify as the routine visual inspection requirement in the permit. (Note that any
suggestion that individuals other than a duly authorized representative within the meaning of 40
CFR 122.22(b) should be allowed to sign inspection reports is beyond the scope of today's
permitting action.)
Where multiple voyages are conducted during a one week period, a vessel owner/operator may
choose to conduct a limited visual inspection addressing only those areas that may have been
affected by activities related to the docking and cargo operations conducted during each voyage
instead of conducting a full routine visual inspection per voyage. The goal of this provision is to
utilize the activities being conducted on a regular basis by the ship's crew and staff. In addition,
EPA has revised the final permit to clarify that for limited visual inspections, the vessel
owner/operator need only initial that the inspections were conducted as an addendum to the
documentation of the full "weekly" visual inspection, unless additional potential problems or
contamination is found.
A commenter included several examples where a ship may make multiple voyages in one day
or one week. Where a vessel calls into a U.S. port at the conclusion of a voyage and then leaves
that port the next day for a non-U.S. port, the inspection requirement may be conducted pier
side. The vessel operator may apply that inspection to the requirement for the inbound voyage.
For vessels that always operate in waters subject to this permit, if the vessel operator wants to
conduct all inspections only while pierside, they would need to conduct inspections every time
they conclude a separate voyage while pierside (unless they dock more than once per day). EPA
notes, that for vessels that do not operate in U.S. waters, the vessel would have needed to
conduct an inspection within the previous week or during that voyage before entering U.S.
waters (which can include pierside at the previous port of call) as a prerequisite to discharging
into permit waters to ensure the terms and conditions of the permit are met once entering those
waters (see Part 6.5 of the VGP fact sheet). If the vessel owner/operator only wanted to conduct
the inspection pierside, they could inspect the vessel pierside on the voyage immediately before
entering U.S. waters and once again while pierside in U.S. waters. Where multiple voyages are
conducted per day, the owner/operator need not conduct inspections on every voyage, but must
259
-------
conduct inspections at least once per day. As mentioned above, these daily inspections may be
conducted via the limited visual inspection.
A commenter raised the example of a 13 day voyage between San Diego to Fort Lauderdale and
asked about appropriate inspection regimes. The most prudent course of action might be to
conduct a weekly inspection in this instance, which would ensure that both inbound and
outbound voyage requirements are met. This would also address the commenter's concern
about complexity (instituting a weekly inspection is not complex). Alternatively, the vessel
could design an alternate inspection regime that would ensure the vessel is inspected at least
once per week or per voyage (whichever is more frequent) as the operator sees fit.
EPA acknowledges that the term voyage is complex, but the Agency notes that the detail given
within the definition attempts to consider multiple operating patterns from a wide variety of
vessel operators. Vessel owner/operators, at their discretion, can implement programs which
require regular scheduled inspections to minimize any confusion for the vessel's crew, provided
that the minimum terms of the permit are met.
One commenter noted that EPA should dispense with per voyage requirements, and instead
only require inspections on a much less frequent basis. EPA believes that the per voyage
inspection requirement ensures that an inspection regularly follows loading or unloading cargo
or passengers, as those operations can result in, for example, spillage of cargo material or
discarding of rubbish on deck or discharge into the water. At this time, EPA believes that less
frequent inspections would not afford vessel owner/operators opportunities to identify problems
which can lead to increased pollutant discharges. Vessel self-inspections are required as a
means of identifying situations that are or might lead to permit violations and allow the
owner/operator to correct the situation as soon as possible. The permit requires self-inspections
so that the owner or operator can diagnose and fix problems to remain compliant with the
permit. EPA believes that to be effective, it is essential that these inspections be conducted on a
regular basis, and that documentation of routine visual inspections will lead to increased
compliance with the VGP requirements.
Therefore, EPA declines to incorporate the suggestion made by commenters to modify the
requirement to monthly or quarterly inspections. For example, these routine visual inspections
must include all accessible areas where chemicals, oils, dry cargo, or other materials are stored,
mixed, and used. Allowing these types of areas to go uninspected for a period of a month or
longer can result in prolonged discharges of pollutants should these areas exhibit equipment
failure or improper operation or maintenance. In the Agency's view, this requirement provides
vessel owner/operators with a clear, known timeframe to conduct these inspections and
establishes a record for both the owner/operator and EPA to track compliance with the permit.
The record can help the owner/operator track which areas of the vessel cause more permit
violations or hold the most potential pollution problems. By being aware of and focusing on
these areas, the owner or operator can change or establish onboard procedures to make permit
compliance easier. For more information on the necessity of the visual inspection, the
applicable requirements, limited visual inspection, and the term "voyage" see Section 6.1 of the
fact sheet or section 6.3 of this comment response document.
260
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Roger Harris, Senior Vice President - Operations,
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0488-A1
2
No
Comment: Second, the VGP inspection and record-keeping requirements have placed a
significant burden on both our vessel and shore-side administrative personnel, and EPA should
do more to reduce the inspection and paperwork burdens on VGP permittees. The weekly VGP
inspections are a significant burden on our busy vessel crews, requiring often repetitive work in
harsh and unsafe conditions, and VGP inspection reporting pulls our captains from their many
other duties. Our vessels are regularly inspected without the rigid weekly VGP inspection and
recordkeeping requirement. Our customers inspect our vessels upon arrival at their loading and
discharge docks and regularly otherwise through their vetting processes. Our vessel crews
naturally regularly inspect our vessels when breaking and making tows at docks or locks or when
interchanging barges with other tows. Accordingly, the additional requirement of a weekly VGP
inspection is unnecessary in our industry.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 7.3 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Late Comment? No
Comment: Routine Vessel Inspections on page 59 section 4.1.1: A formal one time per week
vessel inspection is in our opinion, overly burdensome on the crew and should be made
consistent with some USCG reporting requirements on a monthly time period.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 7.3 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 22
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 59. Par 4.1.1 Routine Visual Inspections - EPA is appropriately attempting to
simplify visual inspection requirements for ships making multiple voyages in one day or even
261
-------
one week. The choice, however, is overly complex, bureaucratic, and does not address some of
the confusion associated with the original permit requirement. We list several examples where
this has occurred:
• A ship sailing into New York for one day at the conclusion of a voyage and then the
commencement of another voyage which will not call in a US port performs an
inspection on the day in port. Is this inspection for the inbound voyage or the outbound
voyage? Would two RVI's be necessary for the same day in US waters?
• A ship sails from Cabo San Lucas to San Diego in concluding one voyage, then
commences a new voyage sailing two days later through the Strait of Juan de Fuca in-
bound to Vancouver, B.C., after which it sails overnight to Seattle on a one day voyage.
From Seattle, it embarks on a seven day voyage to Alaska and back. This describes four
voyages over four days and four inspections required, certainly this is more than
necessary to assure compliance with the permit.
• A ship sails from Fort Lauderdale to San Diego without sailing in permit waters during
the 13 days in between. The ship then disembarks guests and reverses the voyage back to
Fort Lauderdale. Under current rules an RVI is required for the in-bound voyage to Fort
Lauderdale, the outbound Fort Lauderdale voyage, the in-bound San Diego voyage and
the outbound San Diego Voyage. If an RVI is done one day before arriving in Fort
Lauderdale, another must be done within seven days of departing Fort Lauderdale.
Although this would be less than seven days before arriving in San Diego, yet another
inspection must be conducted before arriving in San Diego. The situation reverses on the
way back to Fort Lauderdale on the new voyage.
EPA attempts to ease such a burden by allowing limited visual inspections during multiple
voyages, per week, deployments. The practical aspects of implementing this, including
documentation and recordkeeping, render this solution difficult to communicate and overly
complex.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 7.3 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Comment: All of this is entirely too complicated for what should be a simple inspection
requirement. As an example, one of our member lines estimates that nearly a third of its annually
reported "missing RVI's" occurred on short voyages in which the vessel was inspected every
seven days but for which the vessel erred in failing to complete and an RVI on the shorter
voyage in question. This amounts to an administrative compliance trap for an otherwise robust
management system.
Rather, EPA should further simplify the process by requiring weekly Routine Visual Inspections
and dispense with per voyage requirements. EPA has deemed weekly inspections to be adequate
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
24
No
262
-------
for hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities, also known as TSDF's (see 40
CFR part 265.174), and even less frequent inspection requirements are commonly found in
Subtitle V air operating permits (referred to as Facility-Wide Inspections) or industrial storm
water permits. Surely, if a weekly inspection requirement is adequate for a hazardous waste drum
yard it is adequate for a ship. We recommend paragraph one of this part be replaced with the
following language:
Except as provided below, a routine visual inspection must be conducted at least once per
week, unless the vessel meets the requirements for extended unmanned period inspections in
Part 4.1.1.2 of this permit.
We recommend paragraph three of this part be replaced with the following language:
In situations where multiple voyages (as defined in Appendix A of this permit) occur within a
one week period (or per day if there are multiple voyages in one day), vessel
owner/operators must take care that activities associated with the turnaround of the vessel
between voyages does not result in conditions that are in violation of applicable effluent
limitations or other requirements of this permit.
In practice, ships' crew and staff are all about the ship on a nearly daily basis-particularly if the
ship has embarked or disembarked passengers, crew or cargo. In that regard, simplifying the
routine visual inspection requirement to a weekly task (with associated recordkeeping) would not
increase the risk from that currently proposed (it could also alleviate problems commonly
associated with 'over-inspection'). Furthermore under this prescription the definition of voyage
can be deleted. Operating lines have their own definitions of voyage, many of which are based
on business accounting principles necessary for the proper administration of the business (and
accounting with respect to local and federal taxation), which would otherwise be confused with
EPA's definition.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 7.3 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jeffrey E. Parker, Vice President, Operations, Allied
Transportation Company
Allied Transportation Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0539-A2
4
No
Comment: One area of great concern to our company is the frequency of inspections for vessels
that make one or more voyages in a day. The proposed requirement to conduct a complete
routine inspection daily is burdensome. In Part 4.1.1 there is a section that refers to situations
where multiple voyages occur in a one week period and a "limited visual inspection" would be
permitted. The permit should more clearly describe the ability of a vessel conducting multiple
daily voyages and multiple voyages in a given week to use this limited inspection option. Only
the weekly full Routine Inspection should be documented and the limited inspections should
263
-------
only require documenting if a condition is found that needs addressing between the formal
inspections.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 7.3 of this comment response document.
Also, EPA acknowledges commenter's concern with documenting each visual inspection where
more than one voyage may be taken in a day. The Agency revised the permit to clarify that for
limited visual inspections (i.e., where multiple voyages occur within a day or week),
owner/operators need only initial that the inspections were conducted as an addendum to the
documentation of the full "weekly" visual inspection, unless additional potential problems or
contamination is found. Then, only those additional potential problems or contamination need
to be added to the inspection documentation.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574- A2
12
No
Comment: 4.1.1 Routine Vessel Inspections
A formal, one-time-per-week vessel inspection is overly burdensome on fishing vessel crews.
GSSA recommends the inspection period be no more than one-time-per-month. This periodicity
is consistent with some USCG reporting requirements and would be more acceptable to industry.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 7.3 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director, California
Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: 4.1.1 Routine Vessel Inspections (p.59)
A formal, one-time-per-week vessel inspection is in our opinion, overly burdensome on the crew.
To reduce the paperwork burden we recommend the inspection period be conducted quarterly, at
a minimum-
Response: Please see the response essay in section 7.3 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Patrick Stant, President, Marmac, LLC, McDonough
Marine Service
264
-------
Commenter Affiliation: Marmac, LLC., McDonough Marine Service
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0627-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: For barges that are not on charter, we are required to inspect each one that is not on
rent at least once per week, despite the fact that this inactivity results in no change during that
time. This causes a large burden to coordinate such inspections through both our own personnel
(our company has seven employees in outside operations to handle more than six hundred (600)
barges) and third party vendors. The cost in time and money to perform such inspections is
excessive for no practical gain.
Response: EPA has included provisions allowing for the use of Extended Unmanned Period
(EUP) Inspections in lieu of routine visual inspections and other monitoring requirements (e.g.,
ballast water treatment system functional monitoring) in limited circumstances. EPA included
these provisions to better address the unique circumstances of owner/operators of unmanned
barges, or as mentioned by the commenter, where the inactivity of the vessel results in no
change during that time (i.e., the barge is laid up and not in use). These inspections may also be
used when a vessel enters an extended unmanned period. A vessel is considered to be in an EUP
if the vessel is unmanned, fleeted, jacked-up, or otherwise has its navigation systems and main
propulsion shut down (e.g., a vessel in extended lay-up) for 13 days or greater. The EUP
inspection is an alternative inspection for fleeted, jacked-up, or similarly situated vessels, which
routinely go into temporary or extended periods of lay-up.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: 8. Your proposal to inspect the vessels quarterly is not reasonable. The U.S. Coast
Guard is under a similar Congressional requirement inspecting the same fleet you are suggesting
EPA permits for. The U.S. Coast Guard has found out the sheer number of vessels is
overwhelming. It is unreasonable to expect quarterly reviews of these vessels. Your permit
review should be annual or bi-annual.
Response: This comment was directed toward the sVGP and is fundamentally similar to
comments received for the Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP). For a response to your
comment see the Response to Comment document for the sVGP once that permit is finalized.
With respect to the schedule for the VGP, please see the response essay in section 7.3 of this
comment response document.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
265
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
24
Yes
Comment: Routine Vessel Inspections on page 59 section 4.1.1: A formal one time per week
vessel inspection is in our opinion, overly burdensome on the crew and should be made
consistent with some USCG reporting requirements on a monthly time period.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 7.3 of this comment response document.
7.4 Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
Commenter Name: Sarah K. Branch, Director of Government Relations,
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Commenter Affiliation: Offshore Marine Service Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0474-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: 4. We feel that the requirement for vessels in EUP be inspected every two weeks is
completely unnecessary. Oftentimes, offshore vessels that are in a EUP status are moored at
several different isolated locations with no personnel readily available at the facility sight.
Therefore, companies would have to send personnel out to these different locations every two
weeks to satisfy the suggested requirement, which puts companies at a financial burden.
Furthermore, the majority of the vessels that are in EUP status, have their fuel and materials
taken off prior to it being moored in a EUP status. This removal of fuel and materials is already
recorded in the ships log and will also be noted on the pre-layup inspection to satisfy the
requirements VGP.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment and look forward to working with the EPA on the
continual improvement of the VGP.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment regarding the availability of personnel and has
clarified, based on this and other comments, that the bi-weekly inspections may be conducted
by an "authorized representative." EPA does not agree with the commenters assertion that the
routine visual inspection requirements are unreasonable and unnecessary and burdensome.
Rather, EPA believes the EUP delivers the same environmental goals for unmanned vessels as
the routine visual inspection with a lower burden to permittees. The purpose of the periodic
external observation of the vessel and surrounding waters is to make sure the vessel continues
to not pose a risk of discharge. For example, the inspection is meant to determine whether the
vessel is adequately secured, and that no pollutants (including oily mixtures) are present in
surrounding waters which might have originated from that vessel. EPA included these
provisions to better address the unique circumstances of owner/operators of unmanned barges.
EPA appreciates commenter's statement that many, but not all, barges may be stripped of fuel
and materials before being entered into EUP status. Since some of these barges do contain fuel
266
-------
and materials, EPA believes the frequency of the periodic examination is reasonable. The
reduced frequency of EUP inspections is meant to be less extensive than the regular routine
visual inspection applicable to other vessel types, which may result in cost savings for owners
of affected vessels. In other words, the EUP inspection results in less burden and inspection
frequency relative to the terms of the 2008 Permit - terms with which the permittee should be
currently complying. EPA did not differentiate between barges that contain fuels and materials
and barges that do not contain fuels and materials in establishing this requirement as that may
not be easy to effectively implemented in practice since stripped and unstrapped barges may not
be segregated or easily identifiable in practice. For more information, see Section 4.4 of the
Economic and Benefit analysis, available in the docket.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 21
Late Comment? No
Comment: Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections (Section 4.1.1.2, pgs. 60 - 61): First
as indicated in the introduction section of these comments, we defer to our colleagues from the
Lake Carriers Association relative to the application of these provisions to Great Lakes shipping.
However, we would also like to suggest that the EUP designation can and should be applied to
any vessel where its navigational systems and main propulsion are shut down e.g. drydock or
extended lay-up. The broader application of the EUP provisions are just as justified in these
cases as they are during winter lay-up for Great Lakes vessels since discharges ("incident to the
normal operation of the vessel") to the water for all intense purposes are essentially eliminated.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment regarding the designation of EUP and, based on
this and other comments, has modified the permit language to include "navigation systems and
main propulsion shut down" as a criteria for a vessel being considered in EUP. For more
information see section 4.1.1.2 of the permit and section 6.1 of the factsheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
13
No
Comment: Section 4.1.1.2 - Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections. This section
creates an unnecessary and potentially burdensome inspection requirement for a vessel that is not
in use for period of 13 (thirteen) days or greater. The requirement of pre lay-up inspection, a
267
-------
periodic external observation, and post lay-up inspections creates a great burden for monitoring
and record keeping for an unmanned vessel, and should be stricken from the rule.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter's unsubstantiated assertion that the EUP
requirement is "potentially burdensome" for vessel owners/operators. Please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0474-A1, excerpt 7. For more information, see also Section
4.4 of the Economic and Benefit analysis, available in the docket.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
11
No
Comment: Section 4.1.1.2 - Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections - this section
creates an unnecessary and potentially burdensome inspection requirement for a vessel that is not
in use for period of 13 (thirteen) days or greater. The requirement of pre lay-up inspection, a
periodic external observation, and post lay-up inspections creates a great burden for monitoring
and record keeping for an unmanned vessel, and should be stricken from the rule.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0474-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 20
Late Comment? No
Comment: Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections on page 60 section 4.1.1.2: The
current EPA draft requirements are for a 13 day minimum 2-week inspection. A less burdensome
requirement would be for a pre-layup inspection for a 90 day minimum period and a post-layup
Inspection before returning to service with monthly inspections after 90 days if laid up longer.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0474-A1, excerpt 7.
Additionally, EPA notes the commenter recommends EPA establish an alternative less
burdensome inspection schedule of an initial period of one pre-layup inspection and then after
90 days of EUP, monthly inspection thereafter if in EUP status. While this is less burdensome,
EPA notes that the inspection regime proposed is not as thorough as a routine visual inspection
and thus there will be less likelihood of an inspection finding in a timely manner potential
environmental concerns such as leaking fuel or materials. Hence, EPA declines to make that
change of inspection regime proposed.
268
-------
Commenter Name: Anonymous Public Comment
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0517
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: Draft Permit Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.1.2. The options to conduct a limited visual
inspection (section 4.1.1) or Extended Unmanned Period inspections (section 4.1.1.2), depending
on the circumstances, may make the inspection and recordkeeping requirements slightly less
burdensome for unmanned barges. An even more effective change would be to put the
responsibility for routine inspections on the party that has custody and control of the barge at the
time the barge needs to be inspected. For instance, a tug operator would be responsible for
inspecting a particular barge while the barge is in that operator's custody, and the party loading
product from a grain elevator onto a barge would be responsible for inspections conducted at the
elevator. These parties would also be responsible for generating the inspection records for the
inspections they conduct. Making the party with custody and control responsible for routine
inspections would improve efficiency and more effectively accomplish the goals of the permit.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and has clarified that the inspections may be
conducted by an "authorized representative." For discussion of responsible parties, please see
the response to comments Section 7.14 (Responsible Parties).
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: The Extended Unmanned Period (which allows for reduced inspections) should
commence when a vessel is incapable of navigation or propulsion and end when the vessel is
again capable of both.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 21.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Late Comment? No
Comment: 4.1.1.2: Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
Requirements: If a vessel is unmanned for a period of 13 days or greater, a vessel owner/
operator may elect to either continue conducting routine inspections of the vessel consistent with
269
-------
Part 4.1.1 of this permit, or may conduct an Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspection. The
EUP inspection is an alternative inspection for fleeted, jacked-up, or similarly situated vessels,
which routinely go into temporary periods of lay-up.
Vessel owners/operators may conduct EUP inspections in lieu of routine visual inspections if
they are up-to-date with all other inspection and reporting requirements found in Part 4 of this
permit (including routine and annual inspections) and the vessel owner/operator must not have
received any VGP-related notices of violation or faced any VGP-related enforcement action from
EPA within the previous 24 months.
The EUP inspection consists of three primary components: a pre-lay-up routine inspection, a
periodic external observation of the vessel and surrounding waters, and a post lay-up routine
visual inspection.
Immediately before a vessel is placed in an EUP, the vessel operator must conduct the pre-lay-up
inspection, which will consist of:
• A routine visual inspection consistent with Part 4.1.1 of this permit.
• Ensuring Part 2.1.1., material storage and Part 2.1.1, toxic and hazardous material
requirements are met.
• Ensuring all oils and oily machinery are properly secured, covered, and protected, Any
spilled or leaked oils must be cleaned up immediately. If machinery or equipment is
leaking oil, the leaks must be stopped or appropriate containment must be in place to
capture any leaking oil.
• Documenting whether automatic bilgewater pump(s) will be engaged on the vessel
during the EUP.
• Documenting the amount of fuel on board.
• Documenting the amount of ballast on board.
• Documenting the date the EUP began.
While a vessel is in extended lay-up, the owner/operator must examine the outside of the vessel
and surrounding waters at least once every two weeks for any evidence of leaks, loss of cargo, or
any other spills which might result in an unauthorized discharge. If any deficiencies are observed
while the vessel is in EUP, the vessel owner/operator must document those deficiencies and the
corrective actions taken to resolve those deficiencies. If a visible sheen is noted on the surface of
the surrounding water, the source of the oil must be identified and corrective action must be
taken immediately. Furthermore, EPA must be notified of the visible sheen in accordance with
Part 4.4 of this permit. If these inspections are conducted as part of the routine operations of a
fleeter or similar vessel caretaker, the vessel owner/operator does not need to keep recordkeeping
documentation onboard the vessel if the owner/operator has electronic access to all records
(including records of a fleeter or other caretaker kept in a central office), and those records are
made immediately available to EPA or its authorized representative upon request.
Before a vessel reenters service, the vessel owner/operator must conduct a post lay-up routine
visual inspection. As part of this inspection, the owner/operator must document the date the EUP
ended, whether fluids (e.g. fuel, ballast water) are at their pre-EUP levels, and whether any spills
270
-------
or leaks of oily materials are observed. Any deficiencies noted must be corrected before the
vessel reenters service.
LCA Response: The 13-day period before a vessel can be deemed to be in an Extended
Unmanned Period does not reflect the operational realities of Great Lakes shipping. When
vessels reach their winter berth, Deck Department personnel will depart the vessel within 24
hours, often sooner. Engine room personnel will remain on board for a period of a week or more.
An example illustrates the difficulties of this proposal given the realities of operations. If a vessel
laid up on January 17, it may not be "unmanned" until January 25. Then, and only then, would
the 13-day countdown begin. The vessel operator would not be able to implement the reduced
inspection requirements until February 13.
We assume EPA has proposed this on the premise that if the vessel is unmanned, it is
unreasonable to require inspections. While that is true, it does not necessarily follow that just
because there is one or more persons on board, the discharges addressed in the VGP must be
monitored and controlled.
The fact is manning is not the proper criteria for determining when Lakers enter lay-up. When
laying up for the winter or an extended period during the season, navigation equipment is shut
down and the main engines and generators are turned off within hours. The vessel may be
connected to shorepower if maintenance or repairs are scheduled during the lay-up, but it is no
longer capable of navigation, cargo operations, or propulsion. To restore propulsion power on a
diesel plant takes about four days. Bringing a steamship's main engine back on line can take 10
days. Generally, every one of the discharges regulated by the VGP is generated when a vessel is
operating and underway, rather than when they are manned vs. unmanned. There is no need to
conduct full inspections if the discharges are not occurring. Accordingly, the reduced inspection
requirements should commence when the vessel is not capable of navigation or propulsion and
cease when the vessel is again capable of both.
The requirement that the owner/operator must examine the outside of the vessel and surrounding
waters at least once every two weeks for any evidence of leaks, loss of cargo, or any other spills
which might result in an unauthorized discharge needs to be amended to state that the
owner/operator may delegate these inspection to an authorized representative. The following
references to a "fleeter or similar vessel caretaker" clearly suggest this, but the additional
language will eliminate the potential for confusion.
Response: The commenter has misinterpreted the eligibility for EUP inspection option. If a
vessel has entered an unmanned period, the vessel owner/operator or an authorized
representative does not need to wait for 13 days to begin the EUP inspection process. The
vessel must be "unmanned" for 13 days or more to be considered to be in EUP, but the initial
pre lay-up inspection process can begin immediately before a vessel is placed in EUP. In
addition, EPA has modified the permit language to include "navigation systems and main
propulsion shut down" as a criteria for a vessel being considered in EUP and has clarified that
the inspections may be conducted by an "authorized representative." Please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0474-A1, excerpt 7 and EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
excerpt 21. Finally, EPA does not agree with the commenter's assertion that EPA assumes the
271
-------
routine visual inspection requirements are unreasonable. Rather, EPA believes the EUP delivers
the same environmental goals for unmanned vessels as the routine visual inspection with a
lower burden to permittees.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadiens)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadiens)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2
18
No
Comment: Article 4.1.1.2 - Extended Unmanned Period Inspections. The applicability of this
requirement requires clarification. As written, it is not clear whether this section would apply to a
foreign vessel layed-up in a U.S. port.
Response: A vessel's eligibility to utilize this requirement in lieu of the routine visual
inspection is not contingent upon a vessel's flag. A vessel is eligible for the EUP inspection if it
is operating in the U.S. and is considered to be in an EUP. This includes foreign vessels that are
in an extended lay-up in a U.S. port.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574- A2
13
No
Comment: 4.1.1.2 Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections.
The current EPA-proposed requirement of a 13-day minimum and 2-week inspection period is
overly burdensome. GSSA recommends the following, alternative EUP schedule:
1. A Pre-Layup inspection for a 90-day minimum period;
2. If the unmanned period is greater to or equal to 90 days, we recommend a monthly
inspection requirement initiated on the 90th day; and
3. A Post-Layup inspection before returning to service.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0474-A1, excerpt 7
and EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1, excerpt 20.
Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director, California
Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2
272
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Late Comment? No
Comment: 4.1.1.2 Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections (p.60)
The current EPA proposed requirements of a 13—day minimum and 2—week inspection period
is overly burdensome. We recommend the following EUP schedule:
(1) A Pre—Layup Inspection for a 90—day minimum period;
(2) If the unmanned period is greater than or equal to 90 days, we recommend a monthly
inspection requirement initiating on the 90thday;
(3) A Post—Layup Inspection before returning to service.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0474-A1, excerpt 7
and EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0505-A1, excerpt 20.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
16
No
Comment: Section 4.1.1.2: In line with our comment on Section 2.2.23. any vessel that
undergoes an Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) should be encouraged to conduct a post-EUP
bio to u ling evaluation and. if necessary, remove all bio toil ling in the same location where the
EUP occurred. Because the organisms colonizing a stationary vessel are already present in that
environment, there is minimal concern for biological contamination. This will reduce the
likelihood of a vessel presenting greater risk to its subsequent ports of call and is aligned with the
international strategy of "clean before you go."
Response: As a part of the post lay-up routine visual inspection required prior to reentering
service, vessels owner/operator or authorized representative must verify to the extent feasible
that requirements of Part 2 of the permit are being met, including provisions related to hull
fouling. For more information on the hull fouling requirements see section 2.2.23 of the permit.
Commenter Name: Sarah Branch, Director, Government Relations, Offshore
Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Commenter Affiliation: Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0760-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: Second, the addition of a section detailing the inspection process for vessels that are
in an Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) will ease compliances fears for our operators. Our
273
-------
operators are working at a third of what they were before the Macondo incident with many
vessels cold stacked. Both of these have been primary areas of concern for offshore operators
and we appreciate the EPA understand the unique operations of offshore vessels and mitigating
these issues.
Response: EPA notes that this comment was received late and the Agency has no legal
obligation to respond to it. EPA will continue to work with permittees to provide appropriate
outreach and guidance on complying with the requirements of the VGP. For information
regarding the requirements for the EUP inspection process, see section 4.1.1.2 of the permit and
section 6.1 of the factsheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section
Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology (ECY)
Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECY)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0794- A2
12
Yes
Comment: 4.1.1.2 - An extended unmanned period or any other extended layover is the worst
case circumstance for macrofouling to become established. Hull inspection should be added to
the requirements.
Response: EPA notes that this comment was received late and the Agency has no legal
obligation to respond to it. Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-
A2, excerpt 16.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 25
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: Extended -Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections on page 60 section 4.1.1.2: The
current EPA draft requirements are for a 13 day minimum 2-week inspection. A less burdensome
requirement would be for a pre-layup inspection for a 90 day minimum period and a post-layup
Inspection before returning to service with monthly inspections after 90 days if laid up longer.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0474-A1, excerpt 7
and EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1, excerpt 20.
274
-------
7.5 Comprehensive Annual Vessel Inspections
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 25
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 61, Part 4.1.3 Comprehensive Annual Vessel Inspections - This part specifies the
requirements for comprehensive annual inspections and provides a bulleted list of areas for
inspections. Ballast tank inspections are included in this list; however this task is distinctly
different than the other bulleted items in that it involves the high-risk associated with a confined
space entry. The permit allows that inaccessible areas may be deferred to dry-dock. Ballast tanks
are not inaccessible, but their entry and inspection carries an elevated safety risk. We believe
such entries should be minimized. Given the enhanced ballast water discharge monitoring
requirements of this permit, we believe it more appropriate to align the frequency of such
inspections with dry-dock scheduling. We recommend the following language:
• Ballast water tanks, as entries occur but no less frequently than the normally scheduled
dry dock periods.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comments that the entry and inspection of some areas of the
vessel, including ballast tanks, may potentially pose a safety risk for the person conducting the
inspection. It is EPA's intent that the comprehensive annual inspection be conducted for areas
of the vessel can be safely accessed. EPA has added additional language to clarify this point and
notes that in the event that a portion of the inspection cannot be conducted for safety reasons,
the vessel owner/operator must document that these areas of the vessel were not accessible and
inspectable in their recordkeeping documentation. For more information see section 4.1.3 of the
permit and section 6.1 of the factsheet.
Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Late Comment? No
Comment: 4.1.3 Annual Inspection
GSSA recommends that the EPA consider developing a simple, standardized annual inspection
form "check list", after consultation with the commercial fishing industry. This would serve as
the annual inspection report, would reduce paperwork and provide a standardized reporting
process industry-wide, which would be consistent for all vessel sizes.
Response: EPA acknowledges the suggestion to develop an inspection "check list" and will
275
-------
continue to work with permittees to provide appropriate outreach and guidance on complying
with the requirements of the VGP. After EPA issues the permit, the Agency will develop
additional implementation tools. After working with permittees, the Agency may consider
developing such a list if resources allow and it believes it is needed.
Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director, California
Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? No
Comment: 4.1.3 Annual Inspection (p. 61)
We also recommend the EPA consider developing a simple, standardized annual inspection form
"check list" after input from the commercial fishing industry. This will serve as the annual
inspection report, reduce paperwork, and provide a standardized reporting process industry-wide.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574-A2, excerpt 14.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
17
No
Comment: Section 4.1.3: The first bullet point should read (with underline for proposed text
and strikethrough for removed text) "Vessel hull, including intakes, recesses, and appendages,
for attached living fouling organisms ..." This important distinction acknowledges that many
underwater surfaces other than a vessel's hull are susceptible to biofouling, and also that fouling
organisms include both those that "attach" to the ship and mobile organisms that are associated
with a ship.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment to further specify the areas of the vessel intended
for inspection. EPA has revised the permit to include reference to the inspection of "niche
areas" in addition to the vessel hull for this provision. These niche areas include all the areas
identified by the commenter. The term "niche areas" was included to be consistent with the
international inspection guidelines "2011 Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships'
Biofouling to Minimize the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species" established in resolution
MEPC.207(62). A definition of "niche area" has been added to Appendix A of the permit. For
more information see section 4.1.3 of the permit and section 6.1 of the factsheet. Per the
commenter's suggestion, EPA has also revised the permit language to refer to "fouling" instead
of "attached living" organisms.
276
-------
7.6 Drvdock Inspections
Commenter Name: Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Commenter Affiliation: Ingram Barge Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Late Comment? No
Comment: Section 4.1.4 - Dry-Dock Inspection Reports - this section, as well as other sections
throughout the permit, should be modified to clarify that unscheduled dry-dock events for
emergency maintenance do not prompt inspection and/or reporting requirements under the
permit.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's concern and the Agency modified the permit to
include a definition of "drydocking" or "next drydocking" in Appendix A of the permit to
clarify that the term as used throughout the permit means the next scheduled drydocking,
consistent with the requirements of 46 CFR 31.10-21 (typically, at least every five years or
sooner). In the context of ballast water implementation schedule, it means hauling out of a
vessel or placing a vessel in a drydock or slipway for an examination of all accessible parts of
the vessel's underwater body and all through-hull fittings and does not include emergency
drydocking and emergency hull repairs.
Commenter Name: Christian LaPense, Dann Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation: Dann Marine Towing
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Late Comment? No
Comment: e. Dann Marine Towing urges EPA to make explicit in the permit that its
requirements pertaining to dry-docking -in particular, those under Part 2.2.3, Part 2.2.4, and Part
4 -refer to scheduled drydocking, and that unscheduled dry-docking for the performance of
repairs do not automatically trigger these requirements. As EPA writes in Part 4.4.3.5 of its Fact
Sheet, "vessels drydock on a three to five year cycle and vessels typically arrange for drydocking
many months to years in advance." However, there are frequently instances in which
unscheduled maintenance must be performed on drydock. For example, it is not unusual for
inland towing vessels to be dry-docked as often as once a year to investigate emergent
operational conditions and address mechanical or performance problems, such as a fouled
propeller caused by drift or debris. Under these circumstances, vessel owners and operators may
not have the time or the resources to install ballast water treatment equipment, apply hull
coatings, or undergo a drydock inspection. EPA should clarify that unscheduled or emergency
277
-------
dry-dockings do not activate the drydocking-related requirements of the VGP, so long as the
vessel undergoes its scheduled drydocking according to its regular cycle.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 14.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
12
No
Comment: Section 4.1.4 - Dry-Dock Inspection Reports - this section, as well as other sections
throughout the permit, should be modified to clarify that unscheduled dry-dock events for
emergency maintenance do not prompt inspection and/or reporting requirements under the
permit.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commenter Affiliation: Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Late Comment? No
Comment: We also urge EPA to explicitly state in the permit that its requirements pertaining to
drydockings (Sections 2.2.3, 2.2.4, and 4) refer to scheduled drydockings, and that unscheduled
drydockings for the performance of repairs do not automatically trigger these requirements.
Frequently, we will have to drydock our vessels to perform unscheduled maintenance, and there
is no time to install additional equipment or undergo a drydock inspection. EPA should clarify
that unscheduled or emergency drydockings do not activate the VGP's drydocking-related
requirements.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 14.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
22
No
Comment: 15. References to Dry-Docking Activities
278
-------
The Commenters note that the Draft VGP includes numerous activities that should be undertaken
while a vessel is in dry-dock. See Draft VGP Parts 2.2.3.3, 2.2.7, 2.2.8, 2.2.9, 2.2.23, 4.1.4. The
Commenters are concerned that these requirements are overly intrusive and unnecessarily
burdensome. The dry-docking of a vessel occurs at regularly scheduled times and is extremely
expensive. Vessel owners typically dry-dock their vessels to meet the requirements of the USCG
ACS A program or to meet USCG loadline and classed vessel standards and otherwise do not
dry-dock their vessels unless necessary for safety, stability, upgrades, or other significant
maintenance activities. By identifying numerous activities that should occur during vessel dry-
dock, EPA is imposing a significant cost and an overly intrusive burden on vessel owner/
operators. It does not appear that EPA has considered or analyzed the economic cost of the
additional activities being required during dry-docking. Many of the activities EPA has identified
to occur during dry-docking can be achieved through alternative means. EPA should provide the
vessel owner/operators with discretion on how to comply with the permit requirements.
The Commenters request that EPA eliminate the references to dry-docking activities in the Draft
VGP.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters assertion that activities that can be performed
during drydocking to comply with permit requirements impose significant cost and an overly
intrusive burden on vessel owner/operators. Most references in the permit to drydocking are to
identify an opportunity when it may be more opportune to perform certain maintenance and
inspection activities. When a vessel is in drydock, it is much easier to access a wide range of
areas on the vessel that are not easily accessible while the vessel is in water. The thorough
examination of the vessel that occurs while it is in drydock provides owners/operators with an
additional opportunity to implement the permit's requirements. Hence, EPA did not eliminate
the reference to drydocking activities. In limited instances, e.g., chain locker cleaning
requirements in Part 2.2.8 of the VGP, the permit does require owner/operators to perform
measures to minimize the discharge of pollutants although those activities are generally
considered to be part of a vessel's regular drydock service. Thus, for most of the sections
referenced by the commenter, the permit allows the vessel owner/operator to conduct
compliance activities in a more efficient and thorough manner, rather than requiring these
activities be conducted regularly while the vessel is in operation. If the vessel operator believes
that these requirements can be met more efficiently when the vessel is out of drydock, the
vessel operator may complete these requirements during other maintenance periods (e.g., during
an annual renewal survey), provided the vessel owner/operator notes in their recordkeeping
documentation that they completed the work.
Therefore, EPA does not believe these requirements will impose a significant cost on vessel
owners/operators. For a more detailed discussion of the cost associated with the drydock
inspection report, see section 6.4 of the Economic and Benefits Analysis of the Final Vessel
General Permit (VGP) completed for the 2008 permit. This document is included in the docket
for today's permit issuance.
Commenter Name: Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
279
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
21
No
Comment: AWO urges EPA to make explicit in the permit that the requirements pertaining to
drydockings - in particular, those in Part 2.2.3, Part 2.2.4, and Part 4 - refer to scheduled
drydockings, and that unscheduled drydockings for the performance of repairs do not
automatically trigger these requirements. As EPA writes in Part 4.4.3.5 of its Fact Sheet, "vessels
drydock on a three to five year cycle and vessels typically arrange for drydocking many months
to years in advance." However, there are frequently instances in which unscheduled maintenance
must be performed on drydock. For example, it is not unusual for inland towing vessels to be
drydocked as often as once a year to investigate emergent operational conditions and address
mechanical or performance problems, such as a fouled propeller caused by drift or debris. Under
these circumstances, vessel operators may not have the time or the resources to install ballast
water treatment equipment, apply hull coatings, or undergo a drydock inspection. EPA should
clarify that unscheduled or emergency drydockings do not activate the drydocking-related
requirements of the VGP, so long as the vessel undergoes its scheduled drydocking according to
its regular cycle.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 14.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William R. Barr, Vice President Safety & Compliance,
Amherst Madison, Inc.
Amherst Madison, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0524-A1
12
No
Comment: We further support A WO's position relative to drydockings that unscheduled
drydockings for performance of repairs do not automatically trigger the drydocking-related
requirements of the VGP so long as the vessel undergoes its scheduled drydocking according to
its regular cycle. Many times time or budget money would be a constraint to following through
with other VGP requirements.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 26
Late Comment? No
280
-------
Comment: P. 62, Part 4.1.4 Dry Dock Inspection Reports - We refer EPA to the comment on
Part 2.2.8 noted above with regard to chain locker effluent. We recommend the following
language for the corresponding bulleted item in this part:
The Dry dock report must note that: The chain locker has either been cleaned or flushed in
accordance with requirements of Part 2.2.8 of this permit.
With regard to the requirement that the drydock report note that pollution control equipment is
properly functioning, it is rare but not inconceivable that a drydock period could be concluded
with pollution control devices such as advanced wastewater treatment or ballast water treatment
systems that are not fully functional. In that case the vessel would operate in a manner consistent
with applicable laws and regulations, managing such discharges appropriately outside permit
waters. Thus, it is possible for a vessel to exit drydock and manage its discharges in compliance
with this permit without properly functioning pollution control devices. Additionally, it is
common to terminate discharges from advanced wastewater treatment systems while plumbing
to shore based facilities for the duration of the drydock period. Therefore, with respect to
gray/sewage treatment, it may not be possible to verify pollution control equipment operational
status during the drydock period. The monitoring and verification processes under Part 5.1, as
well as requirements applicable to cruise ships operating in Alaska, the Alaska permit, and other
similar discharge monitoring requirements implemented in U.S. Waters should provide ample
opportunity for the owner/operator to document the operational status of the system(s). We
recommend the last bullet be modified to read, "the operational condition of pollution control
equipment."
Response: EPA agrees with commenter regarding suggested language for the chain locker
effluent bullet for drydock inspection reports. EPA has modified the permit to make this
clarification. For more information, see section 4.1.4 of the permit and section 6.2 of the
factsheet.
Also, EPA agrees with commenter that it is conceivable that a drydock period could be
concluded with pollution control equipment that is not functioning or that the vessel has not had
an opportunity to assess during the drydock period and that in those instances, the vessel could
still operate and manage such discharges outside of waters subject to the VGP. As such, EPA
modified the permit to require that the dry dock report must note the operational condition of
pollution control equipment. This includes identifying any actions taken to fix pollution control
devices that were not properly operating should be provided in the inspection report. Use of
data taken before and after the drydocking, such as monitoring data for AWTS taken by Cruise
Ships, can be used to help document the operational status of pollution control equipment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
18
281
-------
Late Comment? No
Comment: Section 4.1.4: The fourth bullet point should include a requirement to indicate
whether sacrificial anodes are flush-fitted to the hull to remove biofouling "hotspots."
Response: EPA agrees with commenter and the final VGP reflects the requirement that the
inspection reports note whether sacrificial anodes are flush-fitted to the hull to remove
biofouling hotspots.
7.7 Recordkeeping (Except Ballast Water)
Commenter Name: January 11, 2012 Public Hearing Oral Comments by PVA's
Jennifer Wilk and Ed Welch
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: Draft VGP - Reduce administrative burden on operators as mucb as possible.
PVA appreciates EPA's effort to enable operators of covered vessels to file required reports
electronically and PVA will encourage this mode of communication. However, EPA should
preserve the ability for an operator to file by paper, and there should be no need for the operator
to request a waiver from the government before choosing this option. The draft VGP should
"come down on the side" of making the process most convenient for the citizen-operator, not
what is most convenient for the government.
Response: EPA has retained mandatory electronic reporting, which includes a provision to
request a waiver for hard copy submittal under certain conditions. EPA notes that the vast
majority of Notices of Intent submitted on the 2008 VGP were submitted electronically. As of
December 2012, of the 72,891 total NOIs submitted over the five year permit term, 71,659 were
submitted electronically (i.e., >98%). As electronic reporting continues to expand and improve
and as owner/operators continue to gain access to adequate broadband internet, EPA expects
owner/operators to use this method for reporting. However, EPA has retained an option not to
submit records electronically in the event that an operator cannot use the electronic system. For
more information on the conditions necessary to request a waiver see section 1.14 of the permit
and section 3.14 of the factsheet.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 26
Late Comment? No
282
-------
Comment: Question 6. The requirement that vessel owner/operators must outline their training
plans in their recordkeeping documentation to show they have made good faith efforts to assure
their crews can adequately maintain and use pollution prevention equipment and otherwise meet
the terms of this permit.
CSA believes this to be duplicative of requirements already in place and implemented by vessels
as part of the International Safety Management (ISM Code) program. Documentation of training
plans of all types is part of this program and thus should not also be required in VGP
recordkeeping documentation.
Response: It is EPA's intention that, to the extent feasible, the training requirement and
documentation not produce duplicative processes for vessel owners/operators. EPA believes
that the training requirement is necessary to ensure that crews are adequately trained to
implement all the terms of the VGP and operate all pollution prevention equipment on board.
For some vessels with existing Integrated Safety Management (ISM) plans, this may mean
simply assuring those plans are consistent with the terms of the VGP, and that crews are aware
of any other VGP requirements and how they must meet them. In fact, EPA believes that most
vessels with ISM plans would already be meeting the VGP's training requirements. The
requirement to provide documentation is simply to show they have made good faith efforts to
assure their crews can adequately maintain and use pollution prevention equipment and
otherwise meet the terms of this permit. That documentation can be part of the vessels ISM
plan. EPA believes that this minimal effort on the part of the vessel owner/operator is critical to
ensure that vessel owner/operators and their crew are aware of any other VGP requirements and
how they must meet them. Therefore, EPA believes that vessel owner/operators can eliminate
any duplicative efforts dependent upon their business decisions of how they manage their
records. For those vessels that do not maintain these records, they may have to modify their
recordkeeping approaches. Hence, EPA believes that the requirement that vessel
owner/operators must outline their training plans in their recordkeeping documentation is
appropriate, necessary, and generally will not cause any significant increased burden and EPA
has maintain this requirement.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
15
No
Comment: Section 4.2 - Recordkeeping
This section, as well as the section on recordkeeping in general, should be modified to ensure
that all of the forms used for recordkeeping and reporting explicitly state that only the
information that is applicable to the vessel itself is required to be recorded. Otherwise, it may
create a substantial burden on the recordkeepers to ascertain in various situations what
information to include, or not to include, in the forms.
283
-------
Additionally, we would request that the subsections 1 and 9 of this section be modified in such a
way that a vessel would not be required to have all the details of each barge that it has in tow at
any moment, whether owned by that company or another. The requirement that a vessel
accompanying barges should have all of the information listed in subsection 1 and subsection 9
would present a tremendous burden for the operators, with limited utility for the regulators.
Response: Regarding the comment to specify that only applicable information need to be
recorded, EPA agrees and notes that only applicable information needs to be recorded. EPA has
clarified the permit, by adding in "as applicable" in Part 4.2 of the permit, so that the first
sentence now reads: "Vessels covered by this permit must keep records on the vessel or
accompanying tug that include the following information (as applicable)" (emphasis added).
EPA notes that this is consistent with its interpretations throughout the permit, including on the
Annual Report, which allows a vessel owner/operator to easily indicate which provisions do not
apply to their vessel by either selecting "no" or "not applicable." The form, like other portions
of the permit, is intended to apply to all vessel categories generally; therefore there may be
information on the forms that is not applicable to your vessels. EPA believes that the
recordkeeping requirements of the permit provide an easy way for the vessel owner/operator to
ensure permit requirements have been met and identify troublesome areas of the vessel that
cause more pollution-related issues. The information to be recorded is intended to be simple,
basic, and straightforward.
Regarding the comment to modify the reporting to requirements exempt barges from
maintaining records for subsection 1; EPA disagrees with commenter's request to not require
retention of this information for barges. However, EPA agrees with the commenter that barge
operators need not maintain the specific information contained in subsection 9.
EPA believes that the specific information in subsection 1 is necessary to allow EPA to assess
permit compliance and identify the vessel. Additionally, EPA notes that most of the specific
recordkeeping information in number 9 (e.g., (d)-(i)) is generally not be applicable for most
barges. However, EPA appreciates the unique recordkeeping challenges faced by operators of
tugs pushing unmanned, unpowered barges. In order to meet the needed environmental goals of
the permit, while taking into account some of the unique challenges of barges, EPA has
clarified in the permit that records of subparts 2, 5, 9, and 11 need not be maintained for barges,
provided that areas where the vessel has operated and general applicable maintenance records
are made available to the Agency upon request. EPA notes that if the tug operator would not
have access to areas where the vessel has operated and the general records and would be unable
to make those records available to EPA on request, they must maintain specific records on the
tug or accompanying tug. EPA further notes that elements of 9(b) which require recording of
observations of visible sheen must still be recorded under subsection 3 as this is a permit
violation. The same requirements apply for any other permit violation observed by the vessel
operator.
EPA believes the burden associated with this provision should be minimal and has not
incorporated the suggested change. For more information see section 4.4 of the Economic and
Benefit analysis, available in the docket.
284
-------
Commenter Name: Christian LaPense, Dann Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation: Dann Marine Towing
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Late Comment? No
Comment: d. Clarify Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements and Forms
In order to eliminate confusion on the part of vessel owners and operators, Dann Marine Towing
believes that all recordkeeping and reporting requirements should explicitly state that
only information applicable to their vessel is required to be maintained or reported (Le., barges
need not record their call signs under l.h of Part 4.2 of the proposed permit, nor must non-
passenger vessels report compliance with passenger training requirements, as in the current one-
time report form). In addition, electronic forms with multiple-choice fields that must be
completed in order to successfully submit the form must have a "Not Applicable" option when
necessary.
Response: With respect to specification of applicable records to retain, please see the response
to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1, except 15. In addition, EPA has amended the
final permit to specify that owners/operators of unmanned, unpowered barges need not maintain
records for voyage logs, records of training, and maintenance logs. However, owners/operators
of unmanned, unpowered barges must provide a history of areas where the vessel has operated
and general maintenance information to EPA upon request if they do not maintain records of 2,
5, 9, and 11 onboard the vessel. For the revised language and additional discussion see section
4.2 of the permit and section 6.3 of the factsheet. Finally, EPA acknowledges the comment
regarding the electronic forms and will ensure that, where appropriate, "not applicable" will be
an option for selection.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
13
No
Comment: Section 4.2 - Recordkeeping
This section, as well as the section on recordkeeping in general, should be modified to ensure
that all of the forms used for recordkeeping and reporting explicitly state that only the
information that is applicable to the vessel itself is required to be recorded. Otherwise, it may
create a substantial burden on the recordkeepers to ascertain in various situations what
information to include, or not to include, in the forms.
Additionally, we would request that the subsections 1 and 9 of this section be modified in such a
way that a vessel would not be required to have all the details of each barge that it has in tow at
285
-------
any moment, whether owned by that company or another. The requirement that a vessel
accompanying barges should have all of the information listed in subsection 1 and subsection 9
would present a tremendous burden for the operators, with limited utility for the regulators.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0486-A1, except 15.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Timothy D. Sullivan, Manager of Regulatory Affairs and
Environmental Compliance, Hornbeck Offshore Operators,
LLC
Hornbeck Offshore Services
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0502-A1
3
No
Comment: Section 4.2.9.1 of the Draft. Additional recordkeeping requirements to estimate the
volume and location of graywater discharged while in waters subject to the permit are an
excessive and unnecessary burden to the vessel operator. Vessel operators already will be
sampling and testing graywater systems twice a year, and therefore there is no justifiable need
for the additional and burdensome discharge record keeping requirement.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that there is no justifiable need for information
on graywater discharges, as these records provide information that establishes compliance with
the permit. In addition, EPA disagrees with the commenter that this is an excessive and
unnecessary burden. EPA does not expect the owner/operator to record exact volumes and
locations for discharges of graywater. The permit requires owner/operators to estimate the
volume and location of discharges. Finally, EPA notes that this requirement applies generally to
all vessels, including those that do not have specific graywater monitoring requirements.
Therefore, EPA has retained the requirement in the final permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
4
No
Comment: Finally, the Commenters request that EPA revise and/or clarify the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements of Parts 4.2 and 4.4 to allow vessels to use records or reports
prepared pursuant to USCG regulations (such as the Oil Record Book, Shipboard Oil Pollution
Emergency Plan, ballast water records, etc.) to satisfy the requirements of the permit.
To further minimize the recordkeeping burden, EPA should only require records from the most
recent year to be retained onboard the vessel and records for the three-year period to be retained
on shore. Draft VGP Part 4.2.
286
-------
Response: EPA agrees with commenter regarding the use of existing records or reports
prepared pursuant to USCG regulations and the Agency has added the Oil Record Book and
Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans as specific examples of the types of records that may
be kept on board to satisfy this requirement. For the revised language and additional discussion
see section 4.2 of the permit and section 6.3 of the factsheet.
For purposes of the VGP, EPA allows the records to be stored electronically on company-
secure internet resources, provided accessibility conditions outlined in the VGP fact sheet are
met, including that the vessel operator is able to, immediately, upon request, provide to
government officials or authorized representatives:
a. Paper or electronic copies of requested records required to be maintained pursuant to the
VGP; and
b. Electronic access, using hardware and software available on the vessel or tug, to
required VGP records via electronic storage on the vessel or tug, or via direct access to
an electronic system of records stored elsewhere, provided that the location of the
original record is within the United States.
Hence, provided these terms are met, EPA notes that the VGP's interpretation of "retained" on
the vessel allows the vessel owner/operator with the flexibility to determine how best to store
and retain records. Therefore, EPA declines to incorporate the suggested revision to the
recordkeeping requirements to ensure that records are available for at least three years on-board
the vessel (be it in paper or via electronic access). See Part 6.3.1 of the VGP fact sheet for
further discussion about electronic recordkeeping minimum requirements.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Late Comment? No
Comment: Recordkeeping Confidentiality: EPA does not state in either draft permit whether the
logbooks and reports required will be considered and kept confidential or will be provided on
request under the Freedom of Information Act and citizen suit provisions. UFA strongly
recommends that data be kept confidential.
Response: With respect to confidential information and Freedom of Information Act
provisions, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2, excerpt 15.
With respect to citizen suit provisions please see EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574-A2, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
287
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
21
No
Comment: Recordkeeping on page 65, section 4.2: We would recommend EPA change the
recordkeeping requirement to require only the current year logbooks "on the vessel" and that 3
years of permit records and logbooks must be stored and made available upon request by EPA as
a less burdensome requirement.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 4.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
14
No
Comment: Clarify Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements and Forms
In order to eliminate confusion on the part of vessel owners and operators, AWO urges EPA to
clarify all recordkeeping and reporting requirements by explicitly stating that only information
applicable to a given vessel is required to be maintained or reported (i.e., barges need not record
their call signs under l.h of Part 4.2 of the proposed permit, nor must non-passenger vessels
report compliance with passenger training requirements, as in the current one-time report form).
In addition, electronic forms with multiple-choice fields that must be completed in order to
successfully submit the form must have a "Not Applicable" option when necessary.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 9.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Peter Vickers, Chairman & Managing Director, Vickers
Oils
Vickers Oils
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1
6
No
Comment: Recordkeeping - Clause 4.2
12. We recommend that an additional sub-clause be added to Clause 4.2.9, requiring
manufacturer's data sheets for each environmentally acceptable lubricant in use on the vessel, to
be available on board. These data sheets must specifically state the bases on which compliance to
the VGP is claimed by reference to the appropriate tests results for the environmentally
acceptable lubricant in question.
288
-------
Response: EPA agrees with commenter to require manufacturer's data sheets or other
appropriate documentation for each environmentally acceptable lubricant in use on the vessel
and has made such a change to the permit. When assessing compliance with use of EALs, EPA
could require documentation that lubricants used by the vessel either meet the approved
labeling requirements or have undergone and met the requirements of independent testing. This
could include material safety data sheets (MSDSs) that clearly document such labeling or
testing. However, EPA notes that MSDSs are not required to list such labeling or testing. It is
up to the vessel owner/operators to demonstrate compliance with this provision, and EPA will
encourage vessel owner/operators to maintain such information.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Peter Vickers, Chairman & Managing Director, Vickers
Oils
Vickers Oils
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1
12
No
Comment: Certification and Recordkeeping
The requirement to provide evidential proof of compliance with the draft VGP proposals to use
EALs is not defined and therefore open to abuse. Whilst the use of the European labelling
schemes in theory provides several routes to accreditation by an external auditing body, claims
such as "meets the requirements of can be used to imply compliance when in fact it may not
exist. Thus those manufacturers who have formulated to meet, and be audited to, these
environmental standards could find themselves at a disadvantage and the VGP being
undermined. Similarly there is no definition within the draft VGP as to whether, or how,
products claiming to directly meet the definitions of biodegradability, bioaccumulation and
toxicity would be examined. Thus it appears that for the time being, the scheme will rely largely
on self-certification by the lubricant manufacturer.
We recommend that an additional sub-clause be added to Clause 4.2.9, requiring manufacturer's
data sheets for each environmentally acceptable lubricant in use en the vessel, to be available
on board. These data sheets must specifically state the basis on which compliance to the VGP is
claimed by reference to the appropriate tests results for the environmentally acceptable lubricant
in question.
Response: With respect to requiring manufacturer's data sheets for lubricants, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1, excerpt 6. In addition, for a response
to commenters concerns about defining biodegradability, bioaccumulation and toxicity, see
Section 6.2 of this response to comments document.
Commenter Name: William R. Barr, Vice President Safety & Compliance,
Amherst Madison, Inc.
Commenter Affiliation: Amherst Madison, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0524-A1
289
-------
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
10
No
Comment: During our one time filing, I noted areas on the form requesting information that did
not pertain to our operations such as the following: training for passengers, but we do not carry
passengers. Initial registration of a vessel should allow one to mark in a space non applicable in
areas where the question does not apply; barges to not have call signs, etc.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0486-A1, except 15.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Comment: P. 64, Part 4.2.9.a Recordkeeping - We recommend that this section be amended to
conclude, "...or shall be made available by the ship's owner/operator upon request." Vessels
are not always the best place to archive such records. While seagoing internet and email access
have made vast improvements, it seems reasonable to allow shore based support services to
provide records within a reasonable amount of time. This section describes deck maintenance
recordkeeping requirements, specifying applicability to significant maintenance of the deck
surface(s) (e.g. more than routine daily cleaning activities such as sweeping). Of course there are
numerous routine daily activities that involve more than sweeping, but are less than significant.
We recommend the following language:
a) Deck Maintenance. Record dates, materials used, application processes, etc. for any
significant maintenance of the deck surface(s) (e.g. more than routine daily activities
such as cleaning, sweeping, scraping or touch-up paint).
P. 65, Part 4.2 Recordkeeping - The concluding paragraph of this part states
The vessel owner/operator must retain copies of all reports, certifications, records,
monitoring data, and other information required by this permit, and records of all data used
to complete the NOI to be covered by this permit, for a period of at least 3 years from the
date that your coverage under this permit expires or is terminated.
This in effect says that all records must be maintained for three years beyond the coverage of the
vessel under the permit. Assuming a vessel life of 30 years, is there value in retaining RVI's for
33 years? Elsewhere in the permit it states retention requirements in terms of three years. EPA
should be both consistent and reasonable in establishing a record retention period. We
recommend the following language:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
27
No
290
-------
The vessel owner/operator must retain copies of all reports, certifications, records,
monitoring data, and other information required by this permit, for three years unless
otherwise specified in this permit. Records of all data used to complete the NOI to be
covered by this permit must be retained for a period of at least 3 years from the date that
your coverage under this permit expires or is terminated.
Response: EPA agrees with commenter's suggestion regarding deck maintenance and the
Agency has incorporated the suggested text into the final permit. See section 4.2 of the permit
for the revised language. With respect to retaining records on board the vessel, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 4.
For the comment regarding the amount of time records must be retained, EPA believes the
commenter misinterpreted the requirement. The requirement states records must be retained for
a period of at least 3 years from the date your coverage expires or is terminated. This applies to
the date of permit expiration, not the life of the vessel as the commenter suggests. The 2013
permit expires in 2018. So if a vessel owner/operator maintains coverage under this permit until
2018, they would only need to retain the records required under this permit until 2021. The
vessel owner/operator would not have to also retain the records from the 2008 VGP until 2021.
Those records would only need to be retained until 2016. Therefore, EPA did not incorporate
the suggested revision. EPA is requiring records to be kept for a period of three years from
when permit coverage expires or is terminated consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(j).
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 52
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 162, Applicability of Inspection and Recordkeeping Requirements for Vessels
Leaving Waters Subject to This Permit - EPA describes here the concept that the vessel must be
in compliance with the permit's requirements that apply to their discharges before those
discharges occur in waters subject to the permit. EPA over-reaches, however, in stating that
periodic inspection requirements are a pre-requisite to discharge in those waters. Periodic
monitoring is just that - periodic. As such, it is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition (pre-
or otherwise) to assure compliance with the effluent limits of the permit. Rather, periodic
monitoring is one element of the overall management system employed by a ship to manage the
requirements of the permit.
EPA concedes that it has no authority to mandate activities outside permit waters, but by
asserting such monitoring as a precondition for discharging, EPA establishes a practical
requirement extending beyond its authority. Consider, a ship sailing into permit waters for one
day would have to complete the annual inspection prior to entry, while a ship newly launched
and sailing in permit waters all year would have an entire year to complete the same inspection.
291
-------
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that the Agency overreaches in requiring periodic
inspections as a pre-requisite to discharging. Once vessels enter waters subject to this permit,
they must be in compliance with the permit's requirements (which in most cases will be at the
moment they enter waters subject to the permit, because many discharges occur continuously
during vessel operation). With respect to how the permit's periodic inspection and reporting
requirements apply in situations where a vessel transits in and out of waters subject to the VGP,
EPA intends for such conditions to be read in light of what they are - conditions prerequisite to
discharge into waters of the U.S. Thus, for example, a vessel transiting in and out of waters of
the U.S. would be in compliance with a weekly inspection requirement if the vessel had
conducted a compliant inspection in the week prior to discharging or on the voyage during
which they will discharge into waters subject to the VGP. EPA does not intend for the permit to
be read to require that the weekly inspection also would have had to have occurred, for
example, two, three, or four weeks prior to the discharge into waters subject to the permit.
EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that periodic monitoring is neither a necessary
nor sufficient condition to assure compliance with the limits of the permit. EPA maintains that
inspections, recordkeeping, and monitoring are directly related to ensuring that the vessel is in
compliance with the permit prior to discharging into waters subject to the permit, and that the
amount of time spent in waters subject to this permit does not preclude the vessel from having
to meet those requirements. For instance, if a Cruise Ship's graywater discharge must meet
permit limits when being discharged, it is reasonable for EPA to require vessels to monitor over
the course of the year. EPA has provided flexibility that that monitoring can be outside of
permit waters, but the permittee is naturally welcome to (and encouraged to as appropriate)
monitor in permit waters. However, no matter where a vessel monitors, those data help ensure
to EPA that the vessel's pollution control equipment is properly functioning or to help
characterize a discharge being generated onboard a given vessel. A vessel owner or operator
wishing to sail in waters subject to this permit must meet the requirements of the permit,
regardless of the length of the operation.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: 4.2 Recordkeeping
The requirement to maintain permit reporting records for the most recent 3-year period,
physically on the vessel is excessive and overly-burdensome, particularly when the EPA could
request the records be made available in a reasonable time period. GSSA recommends that the
Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection (PARI) be maintained on board at all times but
that any other paperwork be stored on shore and made available within a reasonable time period
and upon request by the EPA. We also recommend the EPA provide the necessary log books
after consultation with the commercial fishing industry in order to reduce the paperwork burden
and provide a standardized reporting process for the entire industry.
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574- A2
15
No
292
-------
Response: With respect to maintain permit reporting records, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 4. In addition, EPA has retained Part
4.2.1 of the Permit (Electronic Recordkeeping) which allows records such as the PARI to be
kept electronically, provided they meet the requirements listed in that part. Though EPA does
not believe the current VGP is overly burdensome, EPA would invite the commenter to provide
additional specific proposals for the next iteration of the VGP for how EPA can make the
permit more streamlined and reduce burden, while meeting the information management
standards needed to ensure environmental protection.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574- A2
19
No
Comment: Availability of Individual Vessel Permit Information
The Agency has not clarified whether the recordkeeping information submitted by permitted
vessel owners or operators will be made available to the public. We believe the information
submitted to the EPA by permitted individuals should be protected to the greatest extent
possible.
Response: With respect to public availability of data, please see the response to comment EPA-
HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2, excerpt 15. In addition, EPA will consider requests to provide
access to such records to the public on a case-by-case basis.
Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director, California
Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Late Comment? No
Comment: 4.2 Recordkeeping (p.65)
The requirement to maintain permit reporting records for the most recent 3—year period
physically on the vessel is excessive and overly burdensome, especially when the EPA can
request the records be made available in a reasonable time period. Thus, we recommend the
PARI be maintained on board at all times but that any other paperwork can be stored on shore
and made available in a reasonable time period and upon request by the EPA.
Response: With respect to the requirement to maintain permit reporting records, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 4. In addition, EPA has
retained Part 4.2.1 of the Permit (Electronic Recordkeeping) which allows records such as the
293
-------
PARI to be kept electronically, provided they meet the requirements listed in that part.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Brent Paine, Executive Director, United Catcher Boats
(UCB) and Glenn Reed, President, Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
United Catcher Boats (UCB) and Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0630-A2
13
No
Comment: 4. Inspections, Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping
We note that while some of the requirements in this Part in and of themselves are overly
burdensome, taken as a whole they represent a substantial amount of time and increase in
paperwork for vessel owners/operators. To the extent that these requirements can reference and
incorporate the relevant recordkeeping requirements of other federal statutes it would help to
lessen this new burden. Specifically, we request that EPA revise and/or clarify the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements of Parts 4.2 and 4.4 to allow vessels to use records or reports
prepared pursuant to USCG regulations (such as the Oil Record Book, ballast water records, etc.)
to satisfy the requirements of the permit.
Response: With respect to the use of existing records, please see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 4. In addition, EPA has included a number of
provisions intended to reduce the recordkeeping burden for vessel owner/operators. These
changes have included allowing for electronic recordkeeping (see Part 4.2.1 of the permit),
reducing some of the information that was required to be kept under Part 4.2 of the permit, the
combined annual report option (see below), and the Extended Unmanned Vessel Inspection
option. With respect to future modification of recordkeeping requirements, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574-A2, excerpt 15.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
19
No
Comment: Section 4.2: Subpart 9c (paint application), should include the specific vessel surface
(e.g. hull, sea chest, rudder) that a paint or coating is applied to.
Response: EPA believes that the information specifically related to the "application process"
for paint application is sufficient for this provision and declines to incoporate the commenter's
suggested text.
294
-------
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 26
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: Recordkeeping on page 65, section 4.2: We would recommend EPA change the
recordkeeping requirement to require only the current year logbooks "on the vessel" and that 3
years of permit records and logbooks must be stored and made available upon request by EPA as
a less burdensome requirement.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-05Q4-A1, excerpt 4.
7.8 Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting (Except Ballast Water)
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: Electronic Reporting Requirements (Section 1.14, pg. 17): CSA welcomes the
inclusion of electronic reporting capability with regard to the VGP subject to the three waiver
criteria included in the proposed VGP. We would however propose that waiver submissions
should be submitted and processed by EPA Headquarters and not the EPA region where the
vessel spends the most time. Vessels trade to a number of US ports (and EPA regions) and thus
waivers should be centrally processed and stored and provide EPA regions the capability to
access these records.
Response: EPA acknowledges that CSA has welcomed the inclusion of electronic reporting
and supports these requirements. Additionally, in response to this and other comments, EPA has
revised Part 1.14 of the Permit to require that all waiver submissions be requested through EPA
Headquarters in Washington, D.C. instead of at EPA Regional offices. EPA headquarters
personnel will ensure that the submissions get to the right EPA office. See Part 1.14 of the
Permit for additional information.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 37
295
-------
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question 20. Inclusion of factors associated with electronic recordkeeping to ensure
that records created and/or maintained in such systems are readable and legally dependable with
no less evidentiary value than their paper equivalent and the implementation guidance provided
in the fact sheet. CSA welcomes the acceptance of electronic recordkeeping and the guidance
provided in the fact sheet.
Response: EPA notes CSA's support for electronic recordkeeping.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
18
No
Comment: Overall, we would urge the EPA to improve its electronic reporting system before
increasing reporting obligations, since otherwise significant delays and technical problems will
create costly delays in complying with the requirements of the permit.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. EPA continues to improve its electronic reporting
capabilities. The Agency has included provisions in the final VGP whereby a vessel can obtain
an automatic waiver from electronic reporting if EPA's electronic systems are not yet
implemented or obtain a waiver in the event of other difficulties. Please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Roger Harris, Senior Vice President - Operations,
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0488-A1
4
No
Comment: Third, EPA must improve its electronic reporting systems to make electronic
reporting more convenient and work better. We have experienced significant problems when
entering data into EPA's computer reporting system, including too-frequent timed logoffs and
system freezes. These problems have unnecessarily increased the burden of VGP compliance.
Also, EPA should continue to allow all records, including the PARI form, to be maintained
electronically.
Response: With respect to EPA's electronic reporting system, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 7.
296
-------
EPA has retained Part 4.2.1 of the Permit (Electronic Recordkeeping) which allows records
such as the PARI to be kept electronically, provided they meet the requirements listed in that
part.
Commenter Name: Christian LaPense, Dann Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation: Dann Marine Towing
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: b. Improve Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting
Dann Marine Towing thanks EPA for explicitly allowing electronic recordkeeping in the
proposed VGP. As a practical matter, paper records are impracticable for vessel operators to
maintain -in particular, the operators of unmanned barges, as barges frequently change custody
over short spans, and tows can range in size from one to 40 barges. Transferring the written
records of each barge from custodian to custodian as a barge is transferred from a tow to a fleet
to another tow is simply infeasible. As vessel operators increasingly make use of electronic
means of keeping records required by the U.S. Coast Guard or as part of their safety management
system, we appreciate EPA's clear recognition that electronic recordkeeping is permissible to
satisfy the requirements of the VGP as well.
With that said, there are a few ways that EPA can improve its technical requirements for
electronic recordkeeping to facilitate permittees' compliance. For instance, Dann Marine towing
strongly urges EPA to improve its electronic reporting systems before increasing the amount of
electronic reporting it requires. We experienced significant delays and technical problems, and
incurred substantial costs, associated with the implementation of both the eNOl system and the
electronic system for filing the required one-time report. These difficulties have not only failed
to make electronic reporting more convenient than paper reporting, but have in some cases
endangered members' compliance with the permit. We urge EPA not to expand requirements for
electronic reporting until the agency has corrected these deficiencies and can ensure that
electronic reporting systems decrease, rather than increase, burdens on permittees.
Response: EPA acknowledges your comment and notes your support of electronic
recordkeeping and reporting. EPA also acknowledges issues that users experienced with the
electronic reporting system during its early stages of development and testing. As noted in Part
1.14 of the Permit, EPA is continually updating its online system, and new electronic reporting
capabilities will be implemented as they become available. EPA intends that new versions of
the system will be more user-friendly and have fewer issues. EPA will take your comments into
account as the Agency continues to update and improve the system. EPA points out that if the
vessel owner/operator has issues regarding available computer access or computer capability,
the VGP does provide an approach to obtain a temporary waiver. Please check the VGP website
(www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels) for the most up-to-date electronic reporting information.
297
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
17
No
Comment: Overall, we would urge the EPA to improve its electronic reporting system before
increasing reporting obligations, since otherwise significant delays and technical problems will
create costly delays in complying with the requirements of the permit.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commenter Affiliation: Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Late Comment? No
Comment: Another problematic provision is the requirement that companies submit all reports
electronically. One of the reasons it currently takes us so long to submit reports to EPA is
because the agency's electronic reporting system is extremely problematic. Even when it is
working as designed, it is very difficult to navigate, and uploading and certifying information
takes many times longer than it should. When the website isn't working as designed, it will not
allow us to upload information at all, or the webpage "times out" before we have completed all
of the required data entry. While we support electronic recordkeeping and reporting, it is
premature to require companies to use EPA's electronic system when it is so cumbersome and
flawed.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
5
No
Comment: 1. Electronic Reporting Requirement (Draft VGP Part 1.14).
The Draft VGP states "[a]ll vessel owner operators must submit all NOIs, NOTs, annual reports,
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), and other reporting information as appropriate
electronically," unless one of three exemptions apply and a temporary waiver would be granted.
Draft VGP at p. 17.
298
-------
The Commenters note that it may not be technologically feasible for some fishing vessels and/or
owner/operators to comply with mandatory electronic data reporting. We request that EPA revise
the Draft VGP to make electronic reporting optional and allow vessel owner/operators to
continue submitting their reporting documentation via the U.S. Postal Service or express mail as
has been the customary practice.
Response: EPA has retained mandatory electronic reporting, but has included a provision for
hard copy submittal under certain conditions. For purposes of the VGP, temporary waivers from
electronic reporting may be granted if:
• EPA has not yet implemented such electronic reporting;
• If the owner/operator's headquarters is physically located in a geographic area (i.e., zip
code or census tract) that is identified as under-served for broadband Internet access in
the most recent report from the Federal Communications Commission and the vessel
never travels to any areas with adequate broadband Internet access; or
• If the vessel owner/operator has issues regarding available computer access or computer
capability.
If and when a waiver is granted, vessel owner/operators may continue submitting their reporting
documentation via hard copy. See Part 1.14 of the Permit for more details on obtaining
temporary waivers for electronic reporting.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Late Comment? No
Comment: VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 (VGP)
Electronic Reporting Requirements on page 17 section 1.1.4: EPA proposes requiring that all
reporting be done electronically and that temporary waivers may be granted if justifiable. Vessels
should be encouraged to submit electronically but waivers should not be granted only on a
temporary basis. It is not feasible to submit electronic records in all parts of Alaska and these
vessels should be allowed to submit paperwork via the U.S. Postal Service or an express mail
service to provide less burdensome options.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 5.
Though EPA has included a waiver provision, the Agency is retaining issuance of temporary
waivers for electronic reporting because EPA's capability for implementing electronic reporting
continues to expand and improve, and because owner/operator access to adequate broadband
internet continues to expand. Owner/operators may seek future waivers if they remain unable to
file electronically.
299
-------
Commenter Name:
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
12
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Improve Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting.
AWO thanks EPA for explicitly allowing electronic recordkeeping in the proposed VGP. As a
practical matter, paper records are impracticable for vessel operators to maintain - in particular,
the operators of unmanned barges, as barges frequently change custody over short spans, and
tows can range in size from one to 40 barges or more. Transferring the written records of each
barge from custodian to custodian as a barge is transferred from a tow to a fleet to another tow is
simply infeasible. As vessel operators increasingly make use of electronic means of keeping
records required by the U.S. Coast Guard or as part of their safety management system, we
appreciate EPA's clear recognition that electronic recordkeeping is permissible to satisfy the
requirements of the VGP as well.
However, there are several ways that EPA can improve its technical requirements for electronic
recordkeeping to improve practicability and facilitate compliance. For instance, EPA writes that
in order to ensure legal dependability, it expects an electronic recordkeeping system to
"automatically identify] any person who creates, certifies, or modifies an electronic record using
electronic signatures that meet the same signature, authentication, and identity-proofing
standards set forth at 40 CFR § 3.2000(b) for electronic reports (including robust second-factor
authentication)."42 While 40 CFR § 3.2000(b) outlines the security requirements for electronic
documentation systems, it does not prescribe specific methods of second-factor authentication
that are consistent with these requirements, which creates ambiguity for vessel operators. AWO
believes that onboard a vessel, a practical approach to second-factor authentication includes
options such as requiring a username and password to create an electronic record and the use of a
security question to which only the signer knows the answer to authenticate the signature (a copy
of which would be kept on file by the vessel operator). In order to give vessel operators clarity,
AWO urges EPA to affirm in the permit that such measures are sufficient to meet its legal
dependability standards. Options such as tokens and smart cards are not practical in a vessel
environment and should not be required by EPA.
The Fact Sheet also states that in order to meet its definition of accessibility, vessel operators
must be able to, immediately, upon request, provide "electronic access, using hardware and
software available on the vessel or tug, to required VGP records via electronic storage on the
vessel or tug, or via direct access to an electronic system of records stored elsewhere, provided
that the location of the original record is within the United States."43 Because not all towing
vessels, and no barges, have computers on board, AWO believes EPA should expressly allow
vessel operators to satisfy this requirement by sending the required records via email to the EPA
inspector, or his or her designee, on his or her laptop or mobile device as an email attachment in
an easily readable format (e.g., Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, Adobe Acrobat PDF, etc.) or via a
link to a Website where the inspector could access the requested records.
300
-------
In addition, AWO strongly urges EPA to improve its electronic reporting systems before
increasing the amount of electronic reporting required. AWO member companies have
experienced significant delays and technical problems, and incurred substantial costs, associated
with the implementation of both the NOI system and the electronic system for filing the required
one-time report. These difficulties have not only failed to make electronic reporting more
convenient than paper reporting, but have in some cases endangered members' compliance with
the permit. We urge EPA not to expand requirements for electronic reporting until the agency
has corrected these deficiencies and can ensure that electronic reporting systems decrease, rather
than increase, burdens on permittees.
42 U.S. EPA 2011b, Part 6.3.1.
43 T1 • ,
Response: EPA acknowledges AWO's support of electronic recordkeeping. With respect to
general support of electronic recordkeeping and concerns with EPA's past electronic reporting
system, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 7.
EPA notes your input regarding second-factor authentication; however, EPA declines to
prescribe specific methods of second-factor authentication, preferring to instead provide
owners/operators flexibility in satisfying the security requirements for electronic records and
allowing for developments in technology and methods. Regarding the accessibility of records
onboard vessels such as tugs, EPA acknowledges that not all vessels have computers on board.
For this reason, Section 6.3.1 of the VGP Fact Sheet clarifies that these electronic records can
be provided "via direct access to an electronic system of records stored elsewhere, provided that
the location of the original record is within the United States." EPA declines to prescribe
specific methods that vessel owners/operators must use to provide such records to government
officials or authorized representatives, preferring to instead provide owners/operators flexibility
in satisfying the accessibility requirements for electronic records. However, EPA notes that
there are several systems developed in other applications that make use of smartphones, tablets,
PDAs, and laptops to provide instantaneous access to electronic records. Additionally, as
suggested by the commenter, it is reasonable for the vessel operator to have those records
emailed immediately to the inspector provided the records meet all other electronic
recordkeeping requirements in the permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Director, Environment &
Sustainability, Maerks Line North America Liner
Operations
Maersk Line
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0513-A1
8
No
Comment: e. Electronic reporting waivers are to be requested from "the EPA region where your
vessel spends the most time." This delegation to the regions make this process challenging for
vessels assigned to routes calling ports in multiple regions. An example is the Maersk Line
301
-------
TP3/TP9 service which calls in Newark, Norfolk, Savannah, and Seattle - four different EPA
Regions (it also calls in Suez, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Vancouver and Korea).
Response: EPA acknowledges Maersk's implied request for waivers to be requested by EPA
headquarters. Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt
6.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gregg A. Thauvette, Vice President, Operations, The Great
Lakes Towing Company and Great Lakes Shipyard
The Great Lakes Towing Company and Great Lakes
Shipyard
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0520-A1
3
No
Comment: Also, we foresee electronic reporting by use of the EPA's e-reporting system to be a
potential problem. There are currently significant delays without yet taking on the submissions of
the proposed reports; additional problems will surely arise upon such requirements being
enacted.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William R. Barr, Vice President Safety & Compliance,
Amherst Madison, Inc.
Amherst Madison, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0524-A1
9
No
Comment: We had troubles with the electronic filing which I had to seek assistance from the
"help desk;" Advanti Corporation. Had we not filed early, the delay in submitting the report due
to system difficulties, then we could have become non-compliant.
We support the maintenance of electronic recordkeeping for vessels and barges. Vessel staff is
not available to maintain the volumes of paper required in an orderly manner that allows for
quick access. In our case where we handle barges for our customers, issues of barge
noncompliance would be sent to the barge owner who would then have to follow through with
corrective actions. We maintain daily documentation of our customers' barges we handle and
often times after handling that barge for a week will not see the barge again for over a month and
may never see it again. To maintain written records on board the boat of handling that barge
would be constrained by space and the lack of talent dedicated to handling that project.
Response: EPA notes the Amherst Madison's support for electronic recordkeeping
requirements. Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt
302
-------
7.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
9
No
Comment: Part 1.14: Electronic Reporting Requirements.
While the inclusion of an electronic reporting capability is a welcome addition to the VGP, we
would recommend changing the wording related to the requirements for submitting a waiver
from "the EPA region where your vessel spends the most time" to "EPA headquarters", and
suggest that this information be made available to regional offices. This will provide vessels
trading in multiple U.S. ports the assurance that the waiver will be recognized in the multiple
regions in which they conduct operations.
Response: EPA acknowledges the Shipping Federation of Canada's support for electronic
reporting and its request for waivers to be processed by EPA headquarters. Please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 31
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question #20: Are electronic records readable and legally dependable with no less
evidentiary value than their paper equivalent and the implementation guidance provided in the
fact sheet?
LCA response: Yes. There are numerous federal agencies that not only permit, but require
regulated entities to only provide electronic records. For example, the Investment Company Act
of 1940 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 require mutual funds and other registered
investment companies, registered investment advisers ("RIAs"), and others to make and keep
certain books and records electronically. The Electronic Signatures in Global and National
Commerce Act encourages federal agencies to accommodate electronic recordkeeping. The
Securities and Exchange Commission permits both investment companies and RIAs to maintain
and preserve required records using electronic storage media such as magnetic disks, tape, and
other digital storage media. Clearly EPA has the authority to permit the use of electronic
recordkeeping. There is no reason why it should not do so.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment and notes LCA's support for both electronic
recordkeeping and mandated electronic reporting.
303
-------
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 55
Late Comment? No
Comment: d. 40 CFR Part 122.41 (1)(6) requires 24 hour notification of non-compliance which
may endanger health or the environment with a written submission within 5 days. While vessel
crew and officers will be trained on the requirements of this General Permit, they will not likely
have the requisite background, education or in-depth environmental expertise required when
making such determinations and interacting with regulatory agencies. Vessel operations occur 24
hour a day, 365 days a year, and are conducted remote from the corporate offices which will be
managing these reports. Their removal, in both distance and time, from the necessary shore-side
support may stretch the time frames in which it is possible even to determine whether an event
poses a danger to health or the environment. Experience has shown that subsequent
investigations, also removed in distance and time from the vessel, are likely to take more than
five days to produce meaningful results.
In this respect we recommend that EPA incorporate longer reporting time frames into the
General Permit, and specifically exempt the vessel from this section of the standard permit
conditions. We recommend language in our comments on section 4 of this General Permit
relative to this requirement in section 4.4.3 - Additional Reporting.
Response: The additional reporting requirements found in Part 4.4.4 are standard permit
conditions applicable to every NPDES permit. Therefore, EPA did not incorporate longer
reporting time frames into the VGP as requested by the commenter. For additional information
see Part 1.13 of the Permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jeffrey E. Parker, Vice President, Operations, Allied
Transportation Company
Allied Transportation Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0539-A2
5
No
Comment: Lastly, the new permit proposes allowing electronic record keeping. This is good
news. I would suggest that in order to promote consistency, the EPA should design an online
system similar to the National Ballast Information Center where they enlist an online format that
greatly facilitates compliance.
Response: EPA acknowledges Allied Transportation Company's comment and their support of
electronic recordkeeping and reporting. Regarding electronic recordkeeping, vessel
304
-------
owners/operators have the flexibility to implement electronic recordkeeping utilizing program
or approaches as they see fit, provided those approaches meet the requirements of Part 4.2.1 of
the Permit. Vessel owner/operators retain the option of maintaining paper records under certain
circumstances. Regarding electronic reporting, as specified by Part 1.14 of the Permit, EPA
mandates electronic reporting using EPA's VGP website at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels. EPA's
reporting website is specifically designed to facilitate submission of required records, which
facilitates compliance. EPA continues to update, expand, and improve the electronic reporting
system. Please check the VGP website (www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels) for the most up-to-date
electronic reporting information. As EPA develops systems, it will look to other models,
including the National Ballast Water Clearinghouse, for what approaches most cost effectively
meet vessel owner/operator and EPA needs while providing a usable reporting platform.
Commenter Name: Abigail Blodgett, Legal Fellow, San Francisco Baykeeper
Commenter Affiliation: San Francisco Baykeeper
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0549-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: l.The VGP Electronic Reporting Requirements Should Include the Comprehensive
Annual Vessel Inspection Results.
Baykeeper strongly supports Section 1.14 of the VGP because it ensures that the public will be
able to access most public records that are necessary to determine how vessel discharges impact
local US waters. According to this provision, "All vessel owner operators must submit all NOIs,
NOTs, annual reports, Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), and other reporting information
as appropriate electronically." (VGP 17) Also, the provision states that "EPA will make any
ballast water monitoring information transmitted to the Agency in electronic form available to
the public in electronic form." (VGP 18) These requirements are crucial for promoting
transparency and facilitating public oversight of vessel operations.
However, the VGP's electronic reporting requirements do not go far enough. Section 4.1.3 of the
VGP requires permittees to have qualified personnel conduct comprehensive vessel inspections
at least once every twelve months. (VGP 61) However, the VGP only requires that the results
from these annual inspections are kept onboard in each vessel's "recordkeeping documentation
or logbook." (VGP 62) Since the annual vessel inspections will reveal detailed information on
each vessel's compliance with the VGP, this information must be readily available to the public
and the EPA. The EPA should revise Section 1.14 of the VGP so permittees are required to
submit the results from their annual comprehensive vessel inspections along with the other
reporting requirements.
Response: EPA acknowledges the Baykeeper's support of electronic reporting. However, EPA
disagrees with the suggestion to require vessel owners/operators to submit the results of the
annual comprehensive vessel inspection as part of their reporting requirements. While EPA
agrees that these inspection results contain important information regarding vessel compliance,
EPA is concerned that requiring full reporting of additional Part 4.2 records could carry with it
305
-------
the risk of overwhelming the Agency with too much information while generating unnecessary
burden for permittees. Furthermore, EPA notes that the Agency, and its authorized
representatives, are currently conducting records inspections when they board and inspect
vessels. At this time, EPA believes that the Agency's approach is an appropriate one because it
balances the need to receive information from it permittees regarding compliance with the
permit, and it takes into account current practice regarding on-board recordkeeping.
Additionally, by receiving annual reports from permittees, EPA will be able to target its
oversight resources towards those vessels with noteworthy noncompliance issues.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and
Governmental Affairs, Foss Maritime Company
Foss Maritime Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0560-A2
5
No
Comment: Although Foss appreciates EPA's acceptance of electronic recordkeeping, especially
in light of the fact physical recordkeeping is impractical on unmanned barges, we have
experienced tremendous difficulty in utilizing EPA's electronic reporting system. Foss spent
many manhours trying to submit the required reporting via both the NOI system and electronic
system for filing the required one-time report. After multiple failed attempts Foss eventually had
to contact the EPA staff directly who informed us that they also were not able to get the system
to work as described. This was only resolved two weeks prior to the deadline for submittal. We
have had other issues with the electronic system but have been told that it may take weeks or
months to get them resolved. We have on outstanding issue changing the administrator on the
account that was submitted December 9, 2011 that still has not been resolved. We urge EPA to
devote resources to correct the problems with its electronic reporting systems.
In addition, the entire recordkeeping data set requirements should be reviewed to eliminate
duplicative and non germane information fields. As an example, a null choice option should be
allowed on the electronic forms requiring completion of multiple choice fields in order to
successfully submit the form.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574- A2
2
No
Comment: 1.14 Electronic Reporting
306
-------
The Agency is proposing a requirement that all reporting be done electronically and that
temporary waivers may be granted if justifiable. Requiring all commercial fishing vessels over
79 feet to submit electronic reports is not technologically feasible. We recommend the EPA
encourage vessels to report electronically but also allow vessel operators to submit paperwork to
the Agency via mail services so that compliance can be ensured for all entities.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 5.
EPA notes that waiver provisions are available in the permit if vessel owner operators cannot
meet certain conditions.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Late Comment? No
Comment: 20. Inclusion of factors associated with electronic recordkeeping.
The requirement for electronic recordkeeping should be no different than for the application of
electronic recordkeeping for any other purpose by the vessel owners/operators. Inconsistent
recordkeeping requirements should be avoided.
Response: Vessel owners/operators have the flexibility to implement an electronic
recordkeeping of their choice, provided it meets the requirements of Part 4.2.1 of the Permit. As
described in Section 6.3 of the VGP Fact Sheet, EPA intends that vessel owners/operators can
use their existing vessel recordkeeping practices as a framework into which the recordkeeping
requirements of the permit can be integrated. For those owner/operators who take this approach,
EPA believes this flexibility can streamline recordkeeping requirements and allow vessel
owner/operators to be fully compliant with the permit without imposing significant additional
paperwork.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Patrick Stant, President, Marmac, LLC, McDonough
Marine Service
Marmac, LLC., McDonough Marine Service
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0627-A2
8
No
Comment: Record keeping and reporting of information to EPA has become a burden on our
operations, especially when we are required to provide data for vessels that have not had any
instances of noncompliance (the majority) and given the inability to upload batches of forms to
the EPA website successfully. We struggled, unsuccessfully, to utilize the EPA batch upload
process recently for the One Time Report. We propose that reporting be limited to only those
vessels that experience some noncompliance issue. In addition to the time demands on our seven
operational personnel to conduct inspections of barges under our control (i.e., off charter), we
307
-------
have had to add an employee to handle the information collection and data submittals required
under this regulation. We are unable to forward these operational expenses on to our customers,
many of whom have their own issues of compliance with these same permit rules for barges
owned and/or chartered for their operations, but see these costs impacting our bottom line. The
section III, Summary of Today's Permit (B) (2) states the draft VGP will authorize a combined
annual report for unmanned, unpowered barges that meet specified criteria... but it is not clear
that only vessels that experience noncompliance issues are to be reported. We do not think it
reasonable or useful to report on vessels without noncompliance issues, unless such report was to
simply report the number of similar vessels without the need to file individual reports on each
one.
Since unmanned, unpowered barges have no practical means of maintaining records of weekly
inspections, we fully support the use of electronic files to maintain such records. Such files can
be maintained at whatever shore side office a company determines is practical, as long as they
can be made available reasonably quickly to any requesting authority. Such records should be in
compliance with current rules and unalterable from the original record. We also believe the
original record is no longer necessary if the above conditions are in place.
Response: With respect to deficiencies in EPA's electronic reporting system, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 7.
For the 2013 permit, EPA has consolidated the one-time report and annual noncompliance
report into one annual report. EPA found that the 2008 VGP reporting requirements resulted in
confusion among some permittees, specifically with regards to the annual noncompliance
report. EPA believes that having a single annual report that permittees must file would reduce
this confusion and result in better information for the Agency. All instances of noncompliance
must be reported as part of the Annual Report, instead of separately, as previously required by
the 2008 VGP. Previously, there were no parameters for how an annual noncompliance report
was to be submitted; the new Annual Report provides a structured format to alleviate frequent
concerns from vessel owner/operators and EPA regarding whether sufficient information was
submitted.
Additionally, the draft VGP would authorize a combined annual report for unmanned,
unpowered barges if they meet specified criteria to maximize efficiency and reduce burden on a
significant portion of the regulated universe. See Part 4.4.2 of the Permit for more information.
EPA believes that many of these barges are fundamentally similar and have a limited number of
discharges. Furthermore, vessel owner/ operators may have several thousand barges with these
similar characteristics. Hence, EPA identified this provision as an efficient way to gather
information by the agency without sacrificing data quality.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that reporting should be limited to only those vessels that
experience noncompliance issues; EPA requires reporting from all vessels regarding vessel
compliance and other requested information and data as prescribed by the annual report.
The Permit and Fact sheet discuss how and where recordkeeping documents must be stored.
Please see those documents for further discussion.
308
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
20
No
Comment: 20. Inclusion of factors associated with electronic recordkeeping.
The requirement for electronic recordkeeping should be no different than for the application of
electronic recordkeeping for any other purpose by the vessel owners/operators. Inconsistent
recordkeeping requirements should be avoided.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2, excerpt 19.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tim Sizemore, Manager Waterway Regulatory Programs,
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0631-A2
7
No
Comment: In addition, we strongly urge the Agency to improve its electronic reporting systems
before increasing the amount of electronic reporting required.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
7
No
Comment: Electronic Reporting Requirements have no deadlines or time periods, with the
exception of the annual report. EPA needs to set specific requirements for how often reporting is
required and it should be often enough for the EPA to adequately evaluate if a vessel is in
compliance with standards put forth in the VGP. (page 17).
Response: The deadlines and reporting time periods are the same for electronic and traditional
reporting methods. These reporting requirements are outlined in Part 4.4 of the Permit and are
not limited to the annual report, although generally, the required reporting can occur on the
same schedule as the annual report. EPA believes that these reporting requirements, along with
309
-------
inspections, monitoring requirements, and recordkeeping requirements are adequate to evaluate
a vessels compliance with the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section
Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology (ECY)
Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECY)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0794- A2
6
Yes
Comment: 1.14 - WSF has found the electronic reporting to be confusing and burdensome.
Without the help of the on call consultants it would have been extremely difficult to navigate the
electronic filing. With 20 vessels to report on, WSF decided to file via the US Post Office rather
than do the electronic filing for the one time report. The staff person responsible for filling out
the NOIs had to assist the certifying manager with the certification process because it was not
intuitively easy to certify. Staff has spent many hours trying to use the electronic system and
navigate the automatic password invalidations. Therefore, WSF/WSDOT objects to the
requirement for only using a computer-based reporting system found in Section 1.14, Electronic
Reporting Requirement. Make reporting as easy as possible for the general public by giving them
as many ways as possible to prepare and send the reports. WSF/WSDOT recommends that this
section be removed.
Response: With respect to deficiencies in EPA's electronic reporting system, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 7. With respect to the need
for mandatory electronic reporting, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0504-A1, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: 4. Electronic Monitoring. It is not feasible to submit electronically records in all
parts of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Northern California. These vessels should be allowed
to submit paperwork on an annual basis. Most of the West Coast fishing industry are less than 79
feet, deliver shoreside, and are tied up half of the year.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 5.
Additionally, EPA notes that the vessels less than 79 feet would be eligible for coverage under
the sVGP if that permit is finalized. Though beyond the direct scope of the VGP, the proposed
sVGP would require annual noncompliance reports for those vessels that have said
310
-------
noncompliance, and those reports may be submitted in paper form. Generally, EPA expects
most vessels that would be eligible for coverage under the sVGP to not experience compliance
problems, and therefore, minimal reporting would be required of these smaller vessels under
that permit.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 22
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: Electronic Reporting Requirements on page 17 section 1.1.4: EPA proposes
requiring that all reporting be done electronically and that temporary waivers may be granted if
justifiable. Vessels should be encouraged to submit electronically but waivers should not be
granted only on a temporary basis. It is not feasible to submit electronic records in all parts of
Alaska and these vessels should be allowed to submit paperwork via the U.S. Postal Service or
an express mail service to provide less burdensome options.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-05Q5-A1, excerpt 17.
7.9 General Monitoring (Not Discharge Specific)
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michelle Bonnett, Director, Division of Water, Water
Quality Section, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0534- A2
2
No
Comment: Not Included in the Current Draft Vessel General Permit (VGP)02/21112.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC or the Department) recommends
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develop and include as an appendix to the
permit, a generic Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) or at least a sampling checklist in order
to assist operator compliance. Sampling and observation methods may differ, and EPA's
expectation in a vessel-specific QAPP would aid in obtaining representative and comparable
samples. Collecting monitoring samples without training, knowledge of quality control/
assurance procedures, and the ability to meet parameter holding times is not within the capability
of most onboard operations.
Response: EPA believes that the existing procedures included in the permit provide necessary
requirements for operator compliance and that the development of a specific sampling checklist
or QAPP is not necessary as part of the permit issuance. Where the collection of analytical
311
-------
monitoring data is required, EPA specifies approved methods. Vessel operators must maintain
records of the analytical results of all monitoring, including sample documentation, results, and
laboratory quality assurance (QA) documentation. The methods authorized in the permit
typically provide collection criteria and quality control procedures for sampling.
If the operator, or person conducting the sampling, has additional questions regarding the
method procedures, EPA recommends they consult their laboratory to ensure the samples are
collected in a way that is consistent with the laboratory's processing procedures. In addition, if
EPA should find that sampling guidance is needed during implementation of the permit, EPA
will consider providing such assistance after permit issuance.
7.10 Annual Report
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Whitney Leake, on behalf of Patriot Maritime Compliance,
LLC
Patriot Maritime Compliance, LLC
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0447
2
No
Comment: We readily agree with the EPA's proposal on electronic record keeping and to
consolidating reports to one annual report. We believe that the current system of reporting non-
compliance is burdensome and confusing, especially for non-US flag vessels.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and support for consolidating reporting
requirements into a single annual report.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Adam Binsfeld, Brennan Marine Inc.
Brennan Marine Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0484-A1
2
No
Comment: We have had several questions regarding the annual report of non-compliance, all of
which were promptly answered by people at the Chicago EPA office. Now, under the proposed
2013 VGP, the report is changing to an annual report of compliance for reasons that are unclear
to us. Company representatives participated in the VGP webinar on 1/19/12, and were told the
reason for the change is to clear up confusion and make it less of reporting burden. We dedicate
many resources and take great pride in environmental compliance; however, we believe an
annual report of compliance is adding a significant burden when we are already required to
report every instance of noncompliance to the VGP. The added report of compliance is
redundant and does not add value to the VGP.
Response: The annual report replaces the annual noncompliance report and one-time report
312
-------
requirements found in the 2008 VGP by consolidating those requirements into one reporting
form. Therefore, EPA disagrees that the annual report is redundant and lacking value. In
addition, the new annual report provides a structured format to alleviate frequent concerns from
vessel owner/operators and EPA regarding whether sufficient information was submitted, as
was the case with the previous noncompliance reports. For more information on the annual
report see section 4.4.1 of the permit and section 6.4 of the factsheet. In addition, for a
discussion of the estimated burden associated with the inclusion of the annual report, see
section 4.4.2 of the Economic and Benefit analysis, available in the docket.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 22
Late Comment? No
Comment: Reporting (Section 4.4, pgs. 66 - 68): We congratulate EPA for several significant
changes in the reporting requirements contained in this proposed VGP. First, replacing the
annual non-compliance report and one time report with the annual is a logical step which still
assures that EPA is receiving the necessary information to assess compliance with the VGP.
Second, we welcome the allowance to permit submission of a single annual report for multiple
barges subject to the 5 conditions found at Section 4.4.2, pg. 67). Finally, we welcome the
provisions in Section 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 at pgs. 67 - 68 which permit a single report to the National
Response Center in lieu of reporting to the EPA regional office at the 24 hour mark and 5 day
follow-up mark.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment from Chamber of Shipping of America regarding
their support of the revised reporting requirements.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
17
No
Comment: Similarly, if a vessel is in compliance, we would urge EPA to remove the
requirement for reporting; as such documentation does not provide any significant benefit to
EPA and would create an unnecessary burden on the operators.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that documentation of compliance provides no
benefit to EPA and creates an unnecessary burden on the operators. The submission of these
reports ensures EPA is receiving signed and certified compliance information, provides an
313
-------
opportunity for an owner or operator to assess and take credit for their permit compliance, and
can identify troublesome areas of the vessel that cause more pollution-related issues. For more
information on the annual report see section 4.4.1 of the permit and section 6.4 of the factsheet.
In addition, for a discussion of the estimated burden associated with the inclusion of the annual
report, see section 4.4.2 of the Economic and Benefit analysis, available in the docket.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Roger Harris, Senior Vice President - Operations,
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0488-A1
3
No
Comment: Regarding the burden on our shore-side personnel, VGP record-keeping and
compliance currently requires about two days of work per week by one of our employees, along
with an additional two or three days of intensive work at Annual Report time. EPA should
implement ways to reduce this administrative burden permitees, including eliminating the
Annual Report requirement for vessels that have no instances of noncompliance.
Response: The submission of the annual report ensures EPA is receiving the necessary
information to assess continued compliance with the VGP. Therefore, EPA disagrees with the
commenter's suggestion to remove the reporting requirement for vessels that have no instances
of noncompliance. In addition, the annual report replaces the annual noncompliance report and
one-time report requirements found in the 2008 VGP by consolidating those requirements into
one reporting form. While there is a burden associated with the completion of the annual report,
a large portion of that burden is offset by the removal of the other two reporting requirements.
For a discussion of the estimated burden associated with the inclusion of the annual report, see
section 4.4.2 of the Economic and Benefit analysis, available in the docket.
Commenter Name: Christian LaPense, Dann Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation: Dann Marine Towing
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: Further Reduce Unnecessary Paperwork Burdens on Vessel Owners and Operators.
Dann Marine Towing appreciates EPA's efforts to simplify the inspection, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of the VGP, however we believe that more must be done to reduce
unnecessary burdens on vessel owners and operators.
a. Eliminate the Annual Report Requirement for Vessels in Compliance
Most importantly, EPA should eliminate its proposed requirement for vessels that have had no
instances of noncompliance and are not required to perform analytical monitoring to submit an
annual report. Dann Marine Towing understands the agency's need to gather permit data, and
314
-------
supports the desire to both consolidate and provide templates for reporting. However, the
proposed annual report requirement will significantly increase the reporting burden on compliant
permittees, without demonstrating any environmental or enforcement benefit to EPA. Further, a
vessel owner or operator's answers to many of the questions on the annual report form are
unlikely to change meaningfully from year to year, making the data collection redundant. Dann
Marine Towing recommends that EPA continue to require a one-time permit report, which
permittees may choose to combine with their annual noncompliance report using the form
provided, and that EPA create a separate annual noncompliance report form for the use of vessel
owners and operators reporting violations of the permit.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0488-A1, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
16
No
Comment: Similarly, if a vessel is in compliance, we would urge EPA to remove the
requirement for reporting; as such documentation does not provide any significant benefit to
EPA and would create an unnecessary burden on the operators.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 17.
Commenter Name: William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commenter Affiliation: Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Late Comment? No
Comment: While CBC appreciates that EPA has attempted to reduce paperwork in some areas,
results are mixed at best. For example, for barges, EPA proposes combining the Annual
Noncompliance Report and the One Time Report to, according to the Economic Analysis,
"reduce compliance costs" (Page 109). This would require companies to provide information on
every single vessel each year, as opposed to the current process, wherein we provide information
on only the vessels with noncompliances over the past year, and file information on every vessel
required by the One Time Report only once in a permit cycle. This year in our company,
completing the One Time Report alone required the input of about a dozen staff members.
Furthermore, this report was submitted to EPA after it released VGP 2.0, so its stated purpose of
providing EPA with information to use to draft the next permit was completely lost. We strongly
urge EPA to, instead of combining the two reports, eliminate the requirement to provide any
information on vessels that have not had any noncompliances. The submission of information on
315
-------
vessels with noncompliances should be a batch upload with one certification stating that all other
vessels had zero noncompliances.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0488-A1, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name: Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
Commenter Affiliation: The American Waterways Operators
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Late Comment? No
Comment: Further Reduce Unnecessary Paperwork Burdens on Vessel Operators
AWO appreciates EPA's efforts to simplify the inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of the VGP, which for many vessel operators are the most costly and burdensome
aspects of permit compliance. However, we believe that more can and must be done to reduce
unnecessary burdens on vessel operators, without undermining the environmental objectives of
the permit in any way.
Eliminate the Annual Report Requirement for Fully Compliant Vessel
AWO urges EPA to eliminate the proposed requirement for vessels that have had no instances of
noncompliance and are not required to perform analytical monitoring to submit an annual report.
AWO understands the agency's need to gather permit data, and supports the desire to both
consolidate and provide templates for reporting. However, the proposed annual report
requirement will significantly increase the reporting burden on compliant permittees, without any
corresponding environmental or enforcement benefit to EPA. Furthermore, a vessel operator's
answers to many of the questions on the annual report form are unlikely to change meaningfully
from year to year, making the data collection redundant. AWO recommends that EPA continue
to require a one-time permit report, which permittees may choose to combine with their annual
noncompliance report using the form provided, and that EPA create a separate annual
noncompliance report form for use by vessel operators in reporting violations of the permit.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0488-A1, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Adam Binsfeld, Brennan Marine
Brennan Marine
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0518-A1
2
No
Comment: I have had several questions regarding the annual report of non-compliance, all of
which were promptly answered by a gentleman at the Chicago EPA office. Now, under the
proposed 2013 VGP, the report is changing to an annual report of compliance for reasons that are
unclear to me. I participated in the VGP webinar on 1/19/12, and was told the reason for the
316
-------
change is to clear up confusion and make it less of reporting burden. We dedicate many
resources and take great pride in environmental compliance; however I believe an annual report
of compliance is adding a significant burden when we are already required to report every
instance of non compliance to the VGP. The added report of compliance is redundant and does
not add value to the VGP.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0484-A1, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William R. Barr, Vice President Safety & Compliance,
Amherst Madison, Inc.
Amherst Madison, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0524-A1
5
No
Comment: Operating companies should not be required to double report pollution events when
currently the event is immediately verbally reported to the Coast Guard's National Response
Center when it happens and followed up within five days by a paper notification on Coast Guard
form 2692. Once the National Response Center is notified, the NRC notifies the affected EPA
district office, local Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit, affected state EPA office and any other
necessary governmental body. The Coast Guard form 2692 asks how the event would be
remedied from happening again / corrective actions taken; same information currently VGPI
requires to be filed with the annual reporting requirement of VGP discharge events. Inland
Waterway Towing Vessels are governed by the Coast Guard MARPOL standards prohibiting
discharge of plastics and garbage within the boundaries of the United States of America and
towing vessels with installed toilets must applicable Coast Guard approved Type I, II or III
devices to treat sewage.
Response: EPA agrees with commenter that in the case of reporting quantities of hazardous
substances or oil, if a report is provided to the National Response Center, it is not necessary to
report to EPA as outlined in part 4.4.4 of the permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William R. Barr, Vice President Safety & Compliance,
Amherst Madison, Inc.
Amherst Madison, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0524-A1
8
No
Comment: Annual reporting for fully compliant vessels does not need to be done. This adds
extra administrative and paperwork requirements to the operator and little benefit is received for
EPA. We can understand completing an annual report on vessels or barges that have had
environmental issues during the year. Our company has thirty three vessels that fall under VPG
317
-------
requirements and my one time filing took an aggregate of a whole day to complete, but was
completed over a several day period.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0488-A1, excerpt 3.
Comment: P. 66. Part 4.4 Reporting - Many of the elements required in the Annual Report
form (Appendix H) are required in the Original NOI; to require reporting annually is redundant.
EPA should scrub the Annual Report form to eliminate such redundancies.
The second paragraph requires that all monitoring results must be submitted to EPA as part of
the Annual Report. This is problematic in several respects which we describe below:
• Vessels will conduct monitoring for many locations outside the U.S. waters, the
applicability of which to compliance monitoring for this permit is questionable.
• Many times samples are taken while the vessel is not actually discharging (i.e. is re-
circulating or directing the effluent to a tank). For example, sampling conducted in
order to obtain US Coast Guard "Murkowski" certification is frequently conducted in
this manner. While representative of the effluent, inclusion of this data in annual
reporting does not equate to a discharge monitoring event. For example, if a vessel
experiencing treatment system disruptions receives data indicating it is out of permit
limits, a typical response is to terminate discharges in permit waters until corrective
actions have been verified with additional samples taken when not discharging in
permit waters. Reporting of these data, where no discharge in permit waters is
occurring, is of questionable if any value.
• Many vessels will choose not to discharge a particular effluent in permit waters on
some itineraries yet will conduct analytical monitoring to determine system
functionality. For example many ships sample their effluent on a monthly basis even
though itinerary specifics may dictate that they discharge in permit waters only during
part of the year. Vessel operators will adjust discharge practices accordingly
(typically in terms of distance off-shore).
• Effluent samples drawn and analyzed outside permit waters may not be analyzed in
accordance with USEPA approved methods, or in conformance with EPA approved
quality assurance procedures.
For these and similar reasons, the broad statement that all analytical monitoring results must be
submitted to EPA as part of the Annual Report is inappropriate. We recommend the following
language:
Commenter Name:
Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
29
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
318
-------
All required analytical monitoring results for samples taken while the vessel is discharging
in waters subject to the requirements of this permit must be submitted to EPA as part of the
Annual Report. Treated ballast water samples taken while the vessel is in permit waters,
regardless of whether the vessel is discharging ballast water at the time of the sampling
procedure, must be submitted to EPA as part of the Annual Report.
Response: While there is some overlap between information submitted in the annual report and
the NOI, this information is generally necessary for identifying and characterizing the vessel
and is readily available to the vessel owner/operator. EPA does not believe this inclusion of this
information will result in an excessive burden on the owner/operator and ensures that EPA and
the public receive an accurate record of the vessel's activities. EPA further notes that the
Agency is striving to design an electronic annual report system that will input data from the
NOI automatically. Hence, for the vast majority of vessels which have already submitted an
NOI and will report electronically, the practical implications of this information being included
on the report are minimal.
Any monitoring conducted to demonstrate that the vessel discharges do or will meet the terms
of the VGP, including functional monitoring required to demonstrate that pollution control
equipment is in proper order, must be submitted to EPA and must be performed using test
procedures specified in the permit of approved under 40 CFR Part 136. Pursuant to 40 CFR
122.41(1)(4)(ii) (as incorporated by reference in Part 1.13 of the VGP), if a permittee monitors
any pollutant more frequently than required by the permit using test procedures specified in the
permit or approved under 40 CFR Part 136, the results of such analysis must be submitted to
EPA. For example, even though a vessel may only be required to monitor a given effluent
stream once, if that vessel monitors that stream monthly, using approved methods as described
above, data from all 12 sampling events must be submitted. Whether and how EPA would rely
on any such reported data in determining permit compliance is speculative and, to the extent the
comment relates to compliance issues, a response would be premature. EPA agrees, however,
with the commenter's suggestion that samples collected using unapproved methods cannot and
should not be used to meet the monitoring requirements of the permit nor should the results
from such non-compliant monitoring events to be submitted to EPA.
EPA disagrees with commenter that the applicability to this permit of monitoring conducted
outside U.S. waters is questionable, particularly given the commenter's concession that such
monitoring is intended to be representative of discharges that do occur (regardless of where
such discharges occur). Once a vessel enters waters subject to this permit, it must be in
compliance with the permit's requirements that apply to its discharges. In most cases this will
be at the moment it enters waters subject to the permit, because many discharges occur
continuously during vessel operation.
EPA acknowledges that some vessels may operate intermittently in waters subject to this
permit. Where monitoring requirements do apply (and because the VGP does require
representative monitoring), the VGP provides the vessel owner/operator with flexibility to
conduct the monitoring anywhere worldwide, provided approved methods, as described above,
are used. Therefore, any monitoring conducted to demonstrate that the permittee meets the
terms and conditions of the VGP must be submitted to EPA in the Annual Report, regardless of
319
-------
the location the monitoring was conducted.
The VGP, in implementing the underlying NPDES permitting regulations, require these data to
be submitted because, among other things, the data help assist in the ongoing characterization of
theses discharges into U.S. waters, as well as to ensure that both the technology based limits in
the permit are being met and to ensure that the vessel is not causing or contributing to water
quality standard exceedances.
EPA agrees with the commenter that some data would not need to be submitted to the Agency,
and EPA believes the existing language in the permit is consistent with that comment. For
instance, data collected when a system is not discharging (e.g., data collected when an AWTS is
in active recirculation mode and the monitoring is being conducted to evaluate maintenance or
repair activities) would not be required to be submitted unless the permittee elects to rely on
such data as representative of the actual discharge. In the example provided by the commenter
though, if the vessel is discharging and obtains data at that time indicating that the vessel is
exceeding permit limits, terminating the discharge at that point would not invalidate the data
collected when the discharge was, in fact, occurring. While EPA concurs that it is appropriate to
terminate the discharge in this instance, those data are still required to be submitted, albeit
demonstrative of a reduced quantity/duration of discharge. Any subsequent monitoring, for
example to demonstrate the vessel is within the permit limitations, must also be submitted.
Based on this comment, EPA has clarified section 4.4 of the permit. The clarifications do not,
however, incorporate the commenter's specific language consistent with the explanations
above. For additional information on the applicable monitoring requirements, see sections 2, 4
and 5 of the permit. In addition, see section 6.1 of the fact sheet for guidance on how these
requirements apply to vessels frequently outside waters subject to this permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and
Governmental Affairs, Foss Maritime Company
Foss Maritime Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0560-A2
4
No
Comment: The requirement for vessels to submit an annual report even when there is no
instance of non compliance seems an unnecessary paperwork burden. Foss recommends EPA
move to an exception based reporting system for any violations occurring under the permit.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0488-A1, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name: Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent, V. Ships
Leisure
Commenter Affiliation: V. Ships Leisure
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2
320
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? No
Comment: Item No: 11. VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: 4.4.1 Annual reporting and
Appendix H - Annual Report Form(at)
VGP 2013 or Factsheet text: Ballast water capacity; availability onboard of ballast water
treatment system, exhaust gas scrubber, OWS, AWWT.
Comments: some redundant information is required that has been already provided via the NOI
Suggestion or Proposed text: Make a reference to the NOI and avoid redundant information.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-053Q-A2, excerpt 29.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law Division, New
York City Law Department
New York City Law Department
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0598-A2
8
No
Comment: Appendix H - Annual Report, pg. 127.
The City requests that Question 3a be reworded to apply solely to "vessels that are subject to
ballast water requirements." The City also requests that EPA define who can sign the Annual
Report.
Response: The current question in the annual report is intended to identify any discharges of
ballast water in waters of the U.S. and is not restricted to vessels that are subject to ballast water
requirements. Therefore, EPA disagrees with the commenters suggestion to revise Question 3a.
In addition, the annual report shall be completed, and signed, by the vessel owner or operator
which means a signatory or duly authorized representative of the owner/operator consistent with
40 CFR§ 122.22(b).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tim Sizemore, Manager Waterway Regulatory Programs,
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0631-A2
6
No
Comment: USEPA's efforts to simplify the inspection, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of the VGP are appreciated, however, AEP River Operations believes that more
must be done to reduce unnecessary burdens on vessel owners and operators. For example,
annual reports should not be required for vessels that have had no instances of noncompliance
321
-------
during the year and are not required to perform analytical monitoring. Much of the information
captured in the annual report form is already required to be maintained by the vessel owner and
made available to EPA inspectors upon request.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0488-A1, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 30
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: 7. The reporting for fishing vessels delivering product shoreside should be done
annually not quarterly. These vessels typically only operate less than 6 months.
Response: EPA believes that the commenter has potentially misunderstood the permitting
requirements. Vessel owner/operators are required to submit an Annual Report for each year
that they have active permit coverage under the VGP. There is no quarterly reporting
requirement in the permit.
7.11 Combined Annual Report
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 38
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question 21. The authorization to combine the annual report for unmanned,
unpowered barges because many of these vessels are fundamentally similar and have a limited
number of discharges. Specifically, EPA is seeking comment on whether there are any other
categories of vessels for which owner/operators should be allowed to submit a combined annual
report instead of the annual report instead of the annual report for each of their vessels. Please
submit specific information as to why such an approach is appropriate for certain vessel types.
CSA supports the EPA's decision to permit the combination of annual reports for unmanned,
unpowered barges due to their fundamental similarity. Although we have no data to offer, we
would suggest that a similar combination of annual reports would be appropriate upon a showing
to EPA that a group of vessels were "fundamentally similar".
Response: EPA appreciates CSA's support for EPA's combined annual report option. Based on
this and other comments suggesting that EPA reduce burden for smaller vessels, EPA has
expanded the combined annual report eligibility to include vessels less than 300 gross tons
acknowledging that these smaller vessels, where multiple such vessels are owned by one
322
-------
company, typically perform very similar operations and will have smaller reports with much less
or no effluent monitoring data. Reviewing the information required on the one time report, it is
realistic to expect many vessel owner/operators of these smaller vessels will be able to provide
EPA accurate information on a single report for some or all of their vessels. EPA views this
option as a measure to streamline reporting for vessel owner/operators with numerous vessels
without comprising the quality of the most important information submitted to the Agency.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 32
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question #21: Is it appropriate to allow for a combined annual report covering all
unmanned barges in a fleet/company? Is it appropriate to allow other types of vessels to do a
combined annual report?
LCA response: Yes and yes. A combined annual report will reduce the paperwork load on our
members and would in no way deny the EPA the information it needs to assess compliance with
the VGP.
Response: EPA has expanded the combined annual report option to include vessels less than
300 gross tons. However, most Lakers would not be less than 300 gross tons, nor would they be
unmanned, unpowered barges. EPA did not include the combined annual report option for
Lakers because each individual Laker would likely need to report individual monitoring data,
information on sediment disposal, information about routine maintenance etc. This level of
detail is important for EPA as it administers the VGP to ensure that permit terms and conditions
are being met, and to ensure that the permit's conditions are sufficient to protect water quality
standards.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 20
Late Comment? No
Comment: 21. The authorization to combine the annual report for unmanned, unpowered barges
because many of these vessels are fundamentally similar and have a limited number of
discharges. It is our recommendation that annual reporting be as consistent as possible for all
vessel owners/operators.
Response: EPA notes that reporting requirements are generally consistent in terms of the
information that must be reported. Where vessels must conduct analytical monitoring or utilize
ballast water treatment systems, owner/operators of those vessels will have additional reporting
323
-------
than those that do not. However, for those vessels types that had less variability in their reports,
or did not have as much information to report, EPA has allowed for the combined annual report
option. EPA does not view this streamlining option as creating inconsistency.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
21
No
Comment: 21. The authorization to combine the annual report for unmanned, unpowered barges
because many of these vessels are fundamentally similar and have a limited number of
discharges. It is recommended that annual reporting be as consistent as possible for all vessel
owners/operators.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2, excerpt 20.
7.12 Training
Commenter Name: January 11, 2012 Public Hearing Oral Comments by PVA's
Jennifer Wilk and Ed Welch
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: Draft VGP - Training should be allowed to take place in-house.
PVA urges EPA to preserve that part of the draft VGP (2.1.6) that states any expected training in
permit compliance can be done "in-house" within a company and that attending an outside
course or a certified institution is neither required nor expected.
Response: The general training requirements of the VGP are provided in Part 2.1.6 of the
Permit and discussed in Section 4.3.1.6 of the VGP Fact Sheet. EPA retained the statement that
training need not be formal or accredited courses. The Permit language is written to provide
flexibility to owners and operators in providing training programs, requiring only that vessel
staff is given the necessary information to conduct shipboard activities in accordance with the
terms of this permit and specific training to operate all pollution prevention equipment on
board.
Commenter Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Division of Water, Water
Quality Section, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC)
324
-------
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0534-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.1.6 - General Training.
The Department recommends that EPA develop basic training resources for owners and
operators. While large companies, such as cruise ship companies or ferries, may already have an
internal training system, smaller companies and single ships eligible for coverage under the VGP
may not. Basic training developed by EPA to be delivered on-line or by a training manual would
aid owners and operators in complying with the requirements of the VGP.
Response: EPA may assist in the development of training or other implementation tools based
upon the needs of the regulated universe after permit issuance. However, development of such
resources is beyond the scope of today's permit issuance. EPA notes, in addition to outreach and
explanatory materials developed by EPA for the 2008 VGP, several industry trade groups
developed implementation guidance that those organizations made publicly available.
The Permit language is written to provide flexibility to owners and operators in providing
training programs, requiring only that vessel staff is given the necessary information to conduct
shipboard activities in accordance with the terms of this permit and specific training to operate
all pollution prevention equipment on board. For some vessels with existing Integrated Safety
Management (ISM) plans, this may mean simply assuring those plans are consistent with the
terms of the VGP, and that crews are aware of any other VGP requirements and how they must
meet them. Others may require that the vessel chief engineer or Master read the permit and
inform crew of their responsibilities. Please refer to Section 4.3.1.6 of the VGP Fact Sheet for
more information.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A3
3
No
Comment: 6. Issue: The requirement that vessel owner /operators must outline their training
plan in their recordkeeping documentation to show that they have made good faith efforts to
assure their crews can adequately maintain and use pollution prevention equipment and
otherwise meet the terms of this permit.
Response: In accordance with the provisions of the International Safety Management Code, all
critical (i.e., safety, environmental, operational, etc.) training must be documented by the vessel
operator. Thus, there are existing international requirements which require vessel
owner/operators to conduct and record such training. We are opposed to requiring additional,
325
-------
duplicative documentary requirements to support the VGP 2013. However, if existing
documentation will be acceptable, then we are not opposed to these requirements.
Response: EPA does not intend for the requirement that vessel owner/operators must outline
their training plan in their recordkeeping documentation to be duplicative to practices already
being conducted by the vessel owner/operator, provided those practices sufficiently document
training plans or that training was completed. Part 4.2 of the Permit states that if vessel
owners/operators include their training plans as part of their ISM or similar environmental
management plans, and they can document that they fully implement those plans, then they will
meet the recordkeeping requirements of this part. Additionally, EPA expects that vessels will
only need one ballast water management plan to meet both EPA and USCG training and
recordkeeping requirements (see Part 2.2.3.2 of the Permit for more details).
7.13 Corrective Actions
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Chamber of Shipping of America
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
20
No
Comment: Corrective Actions (Part 3, pgs. 56 - 58): Specifically relative to the deadlines for
eliminating problems found in Section 3.3, at page 47, we note that the second (3 months) and
third (drydock) bullets include text that reads "you must address the underlying cause of the non-
compliance. .." We further note that no similar text exists in the first bullet. We would request
EPA to elaborate on why that text is not in all three bullets and what additional actions must be
taken to "address the underlying cause of the non-compliance"? It seems to us that any
discovered problem should require the vessel to "address the underlying cause of the non-
compliance and would appreciate further clarification on the practical meaning of this text.
Response: In response to your comment EPA has added the phrase "you must address the
underlying cause of the noncompliance and return to compliance and/or complete necessary
adjustments or repairs" to the first bullet in Part 3.3 of the Permit.
The commenter requests further clarification of the phrase "address the underlying cause of the
non-compliance" in Part 3.3 of the Permit. As discussed in Part 3.2 of the Permit, following the
identification of any of the problems listed in Part 3.1 of the permit, the vessel owner/operator
must conduct a corrective action assessment into the nature, cause, and potential options for
eliminating these problems. The corrective action taken must then ensure that the underlying
cause of the problem is addressed and will not be repeated by implementing appropriate
operating and maintenance requirements; adjustments to control measures; installation of new
equipment or parts, and/or renovations, alterations, or repairs.
326
-------
Commenter Name:
Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
21
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: P. 56 Part 3.2 Corrective Action Assessment - The Part 3.1 requirement for
corrective actions or violations of "one or more effluent limits in part 2 or Part 5 or any other
requirement of this permit." [emphasis added] in combination with the 3.2 corrective action
assessment requirements for "any of the problems listed in Part 3.1..." create an inappropriate
administrative burden for corrective action assessments for a minor administrative or BMP
discrepancies that do not result in a discharge. Such an approach is logical and appropriate for
discharges in violation of requirements found in Part 2 or Part 5, but is overkill for the
administrative requirements found in parts 3 and 4 of the permit. At the same time, the
requirement to correct such deficiencies is appropriate and any permittee would take those
corrective actions. We recommend the following language in Part 3.2.
Following the identification of any of the problems listed in Part 3.1 that result in, or have the
potential to result in, a discharge in violation of the effluent limits in Part 2 or Part 5, you must
conduct a corrective action assessment into the nature, cause, and potential options for
eliminating these problems. The assessment must include the following:
This will have the effect of focusing the corrective action assessment process on effluent
limitations while relieving the ship of the administrative burden of the corrective action
assessment process with respect to relatively minor administrative or recordkeeping
discrepancies. This is not to imply that administrative or recordkeeping processes would not
require that corrective measures be taken, but rather would allow the permittee some latitude in
the degree of assessment for those corrective actions. Such minor discrepancies would still be
subject to the requirements to take corrective action under Part 3.1, as well as discrepancy
logging and Annual Reporting, etc. under Part 4, but do not rise to the level of requiring the
corrective action assessment requirements of Part 3.2.
P. 57, Part 3.3 Deadlines for Eliminating the Problem - Experience has shown that the corrective
action process is not as easily fitted into the three boxes described in this part. Invariably, the
first step taken is to terminate the discharge or discrepant activity which, in the most basic sense,
terminates the non-compliance. Corrective actions may then be determined, planned and
executed as appropriate, with additional flexibility with respect to time. To incorporate this
practice within the existing framework we recommend the following language be added at the
conclusion of this Part:
If the vessel owner/operator is able to terminate the discrepant discharge or other non-
compliance with this permit immediately in permit waters, this will be deemed to meet the above
deadlines. Any re-initiation of the discharge in permit waters before completion of the
appropriate corrective actions would constitute a separate violation of this permit, as well as a
violation of the corrective action requirements of this part.
327
-------
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's recommended changes to Part 3.2 of the
Permit (Corrective Action Assessment). EPA disagrees with commenter's unsubstantiated view
that performing corrective action assessments for compliance problems related to administrative
requirements is 'overkill.' EPA believes that administrative activities such as inspections,
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping are critical tools to increase compliance with the VGP
requirements. For example, written records provide a means to identify troublesome areas of the
vessel that cause more pollution-related issues, and by identifying which areas consistently
require more cleaning or repair work, the owner or operator can establish and implement
procedures specifically designed to minimize pollution and streamline cleaning and
maintenance efforts in those areas. Additionally, EPA believes that the permit provides enough
flexibility (e.g., requiring corrective action as soon as possible but no later than 2 weeks after
discovery of the problem) in the corrective actions requirements so that the burden of correcting
deficiencies are appropriate and feasible for both violations of administrative requirements
found in Parts 3 and 4 of the Permit and effluent limit violations outlined in Part 2 and 5 of the
Permit.
EPA also believes that Part 3.3 of the Permit sufficiently outlines types of problems that trigger
the need for corrective action and stipulates appropriate time periods for implementing actions
to remedy deficiencies and violations. When any of the listed problems are identified, such as
discovery that effluent limits are being violated, the owner/operator must take steps to ensure
the problems causing the violations are eliminated. This includes, if possible, immediate
termination of the discharge pending completion of the appropriate corrective action. If the
original inadequacy constitutes a permit violation, then that violation is not excused by the time
frame EPA has allotted for corrective action. Time limits are included specifically so that
problems are not allowed to persist indefinitely although EPA agrees that termination of the
discrepant discharge is an appropriate response. Any subsequent discharge before corrective
action is taken would be considered a separate violation as well as a violation of the corrective
action requirements of the permit for failure to correct the problem causing the initial violation.
Lastly, though beyond the scope of today's permit issuance, EPA will consider the timeliness
and appropriateness of the corrective action in determining an appropriate response to the
violation.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Brent Paine, Executive Director, United Catcher Boats
(UCB) and Glenn Reed, President, Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
United Catcher Boats (UCB) and Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0630-A2
12
No
Comment: 3.4 Effect of Corrective Action
We suggest that, to the extent that a problem triggering the need for corrective action (Part 3.1) is
identified, if Parts 3.2 (Corrective Action Assessment) and 3.3 (Deadlines for Eliminating
328
-------
Problem ) are fully complied with, the vessel should be absolved of any liability for the original
violation. Accidents will happen and appropriate responses should be incentivized.
Response: EPA did not include a provision in the permit that would, in defined circumstances,
relieve responsible owner/operators that violate the terms of the permit from potential liability
for those permit violations. Vessel owners and operators remain liable for their vessels activities
and permit violations regardless of any subsequent corrective actions. Furthermore, the failure
to respond to violations may result in more significant enforcement action. EPA notes that Part
3.4 of the VGP clarifies that conducting the Part 3.2 assessment and correcting the problem
according to Part 3.3 does not absolve and owners or operators of liability of the original
violation. Moreover, it provides that failure to comply with Parts 3.2 and 3.3 constitutes an
additional permit violation.
Commenter Name: Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section
Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology (ECY)
Commenter Affiliation: Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECY)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0794-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: 3.3 - None of the deadlines for corrective actions seems to fit the case of significant
biofouling noted during an inspection. Language should be provided for remediating hull
fouling.
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. The deadlines for corrective actions described in
Part 3.3 of the Permit pertain to any violations of effluent limits described in Part 2 or 5 of the
Permit. Significant hull fouling could be a permit violation. See Part 2.2.23 of the VGP. Part
2.2.23 of the Permit requires in water inspection, cleaning, and maintenance of hull, and
thorough hull and other niche area cleaning when a vessel is in dry dock. If an inspection
identifies that hull has not received appropriate in water cleaning and maintenance (i.e.,
activities that are typically not performed using on-board equipment), then the timeframe
provided in Bullet 2 of Part 3.3 would apply. If an inspection identifies the need for thorough
hull and other niche area cleaning (i.e., activities that should take place in dry dock), then the
timeframe provided in Bullet 3 of Part 3.3 would apply. Accordingly, EPA declines to provide
additional language at Part 3.3 specific to vessel biofouling.
7.14 Responsible Parties
Commenter Name: Patrick Stant, President, Marmac, LLC, McDonough
Marine Service
Commenter Affiliation: Marmac, LLC., McDonough Marine Service
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0627-A2
329
-------
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
3
No
Comment: Our business of chartering barges can result in more than four thousand (4000)
different transactions during a year to more than two thousand (2000) customers. It is
implausible to expect collection of the current required voyage inspection reports from such a
large, diverse group. With respect to bareboat chartering companies in our industry, we would
like clear confirmation in the permit that responsibility for maintenance of such inspections
remain with the operating company, but that the owner must provide to regulators a list of those
chartering companies when asked for them.
Response: The VGP does not require "voyage inspection reports" for "transactions" or
"customers" but instead requires routine visual inspections of vessels at least once per week or
per voyage, whichever is more frequent. The term "voyage" for the purposes of the VGP is
defined in Appendix A of the VGP. The results of routine visual inspections are not "collected."
The VGP requires the finding of the inspections to be documented in the official ship logbook
or as a component of other recordkeeping documentation. See Part 4.1.1.1 of the VGP. The
permit also contains an alternative scheme for less frequent inspections if the vessel meets the
requirements for extended unmanned period inspections as outlined in Part 4.1.1.2 of today's
permit. See additional discussion in response to comments for routine visual inspections
(Section 7.7) and extended unmanned period inspections (Section 7.4).
EPA declines to include the confirmation requested by commenter in today's permit because
the permit is sufficiently clear in its requirement that an owner/operator is responsible for
conducting routine visual inspections and for compliance with the VGP. It was not EPA's intent
to require those without any ability to control or modify the day-to-day operation of the vessel,
or the activities that are necessary to ensure compliance with the permit, to conduct inspections.
For this reason, the VGP contains a definition of "owner/operator" and "owner or operator" in
Part 7, and includes a separate definition of "operator." EPA believes these definitions provide a
clear explanation of the Agency's intent with regard to which entities are responsible for
complying with the VGP's requirements.
The definition in the final VGP reads as follows:
"Owner or operator" and "Owner/Operator" means the owner or operator of any facility or
activity subject to regulation under the NPDES program. For the purposes of this permit, an
"operator" means a party, including a charterer by demise, who:
(1) Has operational control over vessel activities, including the ability to modify those
activities; or
(2) Has day-to-day operational control of those activities that are necessary to ensure
compliance with the permit or to direct workers to carry out activities required to
comply with the permit.
An "operator" will always be included in the terms "owner or operator" and "owner/operator."
In some instances, an "owner" will simultaneously be an "operator."
330
-------
The commenter raises a specific concern about requiring owners, as differentiated from
"bareboat chartering companies" (or operators), also known as charterers by demise, to be
responsible for compliance with the permit's requirements. In response, EPA notes that where
an owner of a vessel does not meet either of the two criteria for being considered an "operator",
that person would not be considered the responsible party. On the other hand, as stated above,
an owner may very well have the type of operational control that is described in the definition
of "operator", and would therefore be the responsible party. EPA emphasizes this point by
stating in the "operator" definition that "in some instances, an 'owner' will simultaneously be
an 'operator'."
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
3
No
Comment: II. EPA Should Eliminate Effluent Limit, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements that are Already Imposed Under Other Laws
The Commenters note that many of the requirements of the Draft VGP are already imposed and
required by other statutes and regulations. For example, in many parts, the Draft VGP imposes
requirements that duplicate those required by the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) (which
implements MARPOL), the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) and the National Invasive Species Act
(NISA). See, e.g., Draft VGP Parts 2.1.1; 2.1.3; 2.1.4; 2.2.2; 2.2.3; 2.2.9; 2.2.11; 2.2.16; 2.2.17;
and 2.2.18.
In general, MARPOL, APPS, and OPA regulate the discharge of oil and oily mixtures, noxious
liquid substances, and garbage; and NISA regulates ballast water management. The U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG) is the lead agency for APPS, OPA, and NISA implementation and has
promulgated regulations applicable to vessels covered by the Draft VGP. See, e.g., 33 C.F.R.
Parts 151 and 155. Accordingly, much of the Draft VGP duplicates existing requirements and
does not advance EPA's purpose of protecting the environment. Instead, the Draft VGP would
impose a significant paperwork burden on small, family-run organizations with limited time and
resources on board to fill out redundant forms.
The Commenters are concerned that the current approach taken in the Draft VGP, which imposes
these requirements on a piecemeal basis, may result in inconsistent requirements, increase the
burden on regulated vessels, and generally complicate compliance with the Draft VGP. The
Commenters note that, in Executive Order 13563, the President ordered greater coordination
between agencies to reduce redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping regulatory requirements in
order to reduce costs to regulated industries through the simplification and harmonization of
331
-------
rules. The Executive Order imposes this obligation on a continuing basis, specifically stating that
"[i]n developing regulatory actions and identifying appropriate approaches, each agency shall
attempt to promote such coordination, simplification, and harmonization." E.O. 13563, at § 3
(Jan. 18, 2011). In addition, in his 2012 State of the Union address, the President again called on
agencies to reduce the regulatory burden on affected industries.
The Commenters request that EPA incorporate by reference the existing requirements of APPS,
OPA, and NISA into the Draft VGP and eliminate the piecemeal imposition of these
requirements throughout the permit. It appears that EPA has already included the language
necessary to do so in Draft VGP Part 2.1.5. In addition, EPA should also consider how to
incorporate and harmonize relevant state requirements to ensure that vessels are not subject to
multiple, and potentially conflicting, requirements.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the VGP is piecemeal in how it imposes
existing APPF, OPA, and NISA requirements and that EPA should instead simply incorporate
these requirements by reference, which the commenter also believes would be consistent with
Executive Order 13563. EPA developed the VGP consistent with Executive Order 13563,
including providing numerous and varied public participation opportunities and coordinating
with relevant Federal agencies and other interested stakeholders. In developing the permit, EPA
evaluated existing mechanisms provided under international agreements and other Federal law
to identify opportunities to eliminate or minimize redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping
regulatory requirements. As such, many of the conditions in the VGP are drawn from or reflect
such requirements (e.g., use of the MARPOL Annex I 15 ppm oil standard in VGP Part 2.2.2;
use of 33 CFR Part 151 Subparts C and D ballast water exchange requirements). However, for
example, Coast Guard requirements were developed based upon the requirements of
NANPCA/NISA, and not the Clean Water Act (CWA) so while EPA has drawn heavily on
those existing Coast Guard requirements, the Agency has included additional provisions
necessary to satisfy the Agency's legal obligations under the CWA.
EPA has issued the VGP because of 2006 and 2008 court decisions vacating the regulatory
exclusion at 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) exempting discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel from NPDES permitting. That exclusion covers any discharges incidental to normal
vessel operation. See Part 2 of the VGP for the list of discharges incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel. If the VGP were not issued, vessels with discharges incidental to their
normal operation would be subject to fines and citizen suits for violating the CWA's prohibition
against discharging into waters of the U.S. without an NPDES permit. EPA must meet the
mandates of the CWA when developing permit limits.
Also, EPA disagrees that merely including of Part 2.1.5 into the VGP meets Clean Water Act
requirements while meeting the goal of requiring compliance with existing requirements of
APPS, OPA, and NISA. In order to comply with the VGP, a vessel owner/operator must
comply with any requirements of those other statutes and regulations for discharges incidental
to the normal operation of vessels, including, for example, any prohibitions on those discharges
pursuant to the implementing regulations of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Compliance
with permit terms, in some instances, establishes an expectation that Operators will comply
with other laws as a component of being able to demonstrate compliance with this permit. For
332
-------
example, the permit requires Operators to use "best marine practices" to "minimize" discharges.
As these terms are defined in Appendix A of the permit, Operators must use practices that
comply with, among other things, "relevant legal requirements" to reduce and/or eliminate
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessel to Waters of the United States. The term
"minimize" is used to provide a reasonable approach by which EPA, permittees, and the public
can determine or evaluate appropriate control measures for vessels to control specific
discharges. See Section 4.1.2 for a discussion of the use of "minimize" and how its use
comports with CWA requirements to meet the applicable levels of control. Part 4.3.1.5 of the
fact sheet provides additional detail on EPA's rationale for determining that inclusion of these
additional federal regulations in fact is reasonable. These effluent limits contain the requirement
to comply with other applicable statutes and regulations dealing with vessel discharges.
Reliance on other statutes and regulations to develop the permit requirements is reasonable
because these statutes and regulations have gone through an extensive process of evaluation and
analysis by federal agencies that have considerable expertise in vessel management.
Also, EPA disagrees that the permit imposes a significant paperwork burden on certain small
Operators to fill out redundant forms rather than advancing EPA's purpose of protecting the
environment. Details of EPA's cost assessment are provided in its "Economic and Benefits
Analysis of the Final 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)," a copy of which is included in the
administrative record for this permit. That analysis took into account existing federal and state
requirements in assessing the additional burden resulting from the VGP, and shows in Part 4.4
of that document that additional paperwork burden associated with the VGP is expected to be
minimal for all sectors of vessels covered under the permit. In addition, Part 6 of that document
provides a benefit analysis for the permit resulting from additional control on ballast water and
other pollutants discharged that are incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. EPA notes
that commenter did not provide a basis for its assertion that the permit imposes an undue
paperwork burden.
Additionally, EPA disagrees and finds unsupported the statement that the VGP's approach with
regards to other statutes and regulations may result in inconsistent requirements, increase the
burden on regulated vessels, and generally complicate compliance with the VGP. As described
above, EPA developed the VGP with input from many other federal agencies and stakeholders
to attempt to eliminate inconsistent or conflicting requirements. Also, while EPA acknowledges
a burden associated with permit compliance, the approach of coordinating the various other
statutes and regulations in fact reduces the burden and simplifies compliance versus an
approach that did not consider those other statutes and regulations. For example, the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements found in the VGP may be kept as part of logs or records which
are already required to be kept under other regulations, and do not create any additional burden
that would be incurred from duplication of existing records or reports.
Regarding the comment that EPA should consider how to incorporate and harmonize relevant
state requirements to ensure that vessels are not subject to multiple and potentially conflicting
requirements, EPA agrees that consistency between states is a reasonable goal, but pursuant to
the CWA, States have a right to impose additional requirements they deem necessary to, among
other things, protect their water quality standards. Conducting the process of requesting state
certification is mandated by the CWA in section 401, and EPA cannot limit this statutory
333
-------
requirement, as commenter suggests. EPA did, on several occasions, work with the States to
ensure that the States were using the best science available, coordinating with each other, and
had access to EPA technical resources as they needed. EPA believes the States' final 401
certification requirements do not conflict with other requirements in the permit, nor has the
Agency identified any direct conflicts between states. With respect to 401 certifications, please
see section 12 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
6
No
Comment: 2. Material Storage (Draft VGP Part 2.1.1)
The Draft VGP requires that vessel owner/operators minimize the amount of time cargoes or
onboard materials, which might wash overboard or dissolve as a result of contact with
precipitation or surface water spray or which may be blown overboard by air currents, are
exposed to such conditions by locating storage areas in covered spaces where feasible. If water
draining from storage areas comes in contact with "oily materials" the vessel owner/operators
must use dry cleanup methods or absorbents, store the water for onshore disposal, or run the
water through an oily water separator. Draft VGP at p. 19.
The Commenters note that many fishing vessels store fishing gear, such as nets, lines, and pots,
on deck in exposed conditions by necessity. Therefore, the fishing gear is frequently exposed to
wash, precipitation, and spray. Because fish contain naturally-occurring oils, it is possible that
water draining from such on-deck storage areas contains "oily materials." The Commenters note
that the Draft VGP does not define "oily materials." Given the waters and weather conditions
where fishing vessels frequently operate, and the constraints imposed by vessel design, it is
impracticable and infeasible to require fishing vessels to attempt to clean up such wastewater
with dry cleanup methods or absorbents. Likewise, fishing vessels are not equipped to store such
wastewater or route it through an oil water separator.
The Commenters request that EPA provide a definition of "oily materials" and that such
definition exclude fish oils and fish oil residue. This could also by accomplished by similarly
revising the definition of "oil," as explained below. Alternatively, the Commenters request that
EPA clarify that Part 2.1.1 does not apply to fishing gear stored on deck.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's concern regarding the challenge for fishing
vessels to comply with the Part 2.1.1 permit requirement that water that comes in contact with
fish oil and fish oil residue from fishing gear exposed to wash, precipitation, and spray be
controlled by cleaning up the water, storing the water for on-shore disposal, or running the
water through an oily water separator. Rather than revise the definition of "oily materials" as
requested by the commenter, EPA believes it is more appropriate to specifically clarify that the
cleanup requirements specified in Part 2.1.1 of the permit are not applicable to fish oils. Thus,
334
-------
the final permit states "If water draining from storage areas comes in contact with oily
materials, except for naturally occurring fish oils from fishing gear stored on deck, you
must:..."
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
7
No
Comment: 3. Toxic and Hazardous Materials (Draft VGP Part 2.1.2)
The Draft VGP requires vessel owner/operators to "locate toxic and hazardous materials in
protected areas of the vessel." Draft VGP at p. 19.
The Commenters note that the Draft VGP does not define "protected areas of the vessel."
Accordingly, it is unclear where such materials should be located and what types of protections
must be afforded. While it appears that "protected areas" is intended to mean a location where
exposure to ocean spray and precipitation is minimized, the Draft VGP should be revised to
explicitly provide that definition.
The Commenters request that EPA provide a definition of "protected areas of the vessel" to
clarify the vessel owner/operators' compliance obligation.
Response: EPA agrees with Commenter's interpretation of the permit that the location is
intended to be where exposure to ocean spray and precipitation is minimized. EPA modified the
permit to reflect such a change so the first sentence of Part 2.1.2 now reads: "Where consistent
with vessel design and construction, you must locate toxic and hazardous materials in protected
areas of the vessel to minimize exposure to ocean spray and precipitation, unless the Master
determines..." In making this change, the Agency does not believe a definition of "protected
areas" is necessary.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Late Comment? No
Comment: Effluent Limits and Related Requirements: Change from the "extent achievable" to
the "extent practicable" and change "economically practicable and achievable" to "economically
practicable". Some control measures could be "achievable" but may be the effort and expense
are significantly out of proportion to any significant risks, the measures are not "practicable".
335
-------
Similarly, some control measures could be economically achievable (if it took every cent you
have) but are not necessarily practicable.
Response: EPA received a number of comments regarding use of the term "minimize" in the
VGP and the meaning of that term. After consideration of comments received, the Agency will
continue to use the term "minimize" as defined in the draft permit as a key aspect of its
technology-based effluent limitations. EPA believes use of the term "minimize" provides a
reasonable approach by which EPA, permittees, and the public can determine/evaluate
appropriate practices for vessels to control specific discharges for which one-size-fits-all
approaches are infeasible. EPA did not make the commenter's suggested changes to the
definition, as the definition is meant to reflect the technology-based requirements of the Clean
Water Act - which requires limits based on the "best available technology economically
achievable." CWA section 301(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added) While there is no hard and fast
definition of what is "economically achievable," it is not necessarily limited to that which is
"economically practicable," as Congress contemplated that imposition of technology-based
limits could in some cases result in plant closures. See CWA Leg. Hist, at 1282, cited in
American Iron and Steel v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027, 1052 (Noting that "[w]hile it is clear that the
Administrator must consider cost, some amount of economic disruption was contemplated as a
necessary price to pay in the effort to clean up the nation's waters, and the Administrator was
given considerable discretion in weighing costs."). Details of EPA's rationale for use and
interpretation of the term "minimize" in the final permit follows.
EPA believes the key to a clearer understanding of the term minimize is to provide further
clarification of the term "best marine practices" as used in the definition of minimize. "Best
marine practices" establish the threshold upon which practices are to be considered to meet the
effluent limits. That is, where the permit uses the term "minimize," best marine practices must
be used to the extent technologically available and economically practicable and achievable.
EPA clarifies here that a "best marine practice" includes any practice used to meet the effluent
limitations that complies with manufacturer specifications, industry standards and
recommended industry practices related to the operation of a vessel, relevant legal
requirements, and other provisions that a prudent operator would implement to reduce and/or
eliminate discharges to waters of the United States. Logically, EPA expects that a "prudent
operator's" discharge is consistent with manufacturer specifications, industry standards and
recommended industry practices related to the normal operation of a vessel, relevant legal
requirements and other provisions. Best marine practices can be actions (including processes,
procedures, schedules of activities, prohibitions on practices and other management practices),
or structural or installed devices to prevent or reduce water pollution. The key is determining
what measure is appropriate for an operator's situation in order to meet the effluent limitation.
In this permit, operators are required to implement site-specific best marine practices to meet
these effluent limitations. The permit along with this fact sheet provides examples of best
marine practices, but operators must tailor these to their situations as well as improve upon
them as necessary to meet the effluent limitations.
The consideration of using best marine practices in this permit is consistent with the CWA as
well as its implementing regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(k)(4). Section 402(a)(2) of the CWA
states: "The administrator shall prescribe conditions for such permits to assure compliance with
336
-------
the requirements in paragraph (1)... including conditions on data and information collection,
reporting and such other requirements as he deems appropriate." (Section 402(a)(1) includes
effluent limitation requirements.) This statutory provision is reflected in the CWA
implementing regulations, which state that best management practices can be included in
permits when, "[t]he practices are reasonably necessary to achieve effluent limitations and
standards or to carry out the purposes and intent of the CWA." 40 CFR 122.44(k)(4).
When interpreting the term "minimize" for the permit, EPA believes that for some vessel
discharges, minimization of pollutants in those discharges can be achieved without using highly
engineered, complex treatment systems. For other vessel discharges, highly engineered,
complex, treatments systems that are reliable and approved for use on vessels are not currently
available. EPA did not add definitions for terms such as "reduce," "technologically available,"
or "economically practicable" with respect to the word "minimize." Rather, EPA is relying on
the phrase "in light of best marine practice" to guide prudent operators in selecting appropriate
controls to comply with the minimize requirement and to record and report those instances of
non-compliance. EPA believes that the factors and considerations relevant to minimizing
discharges are adequately set out in Part 2.1 of the VGP. Therefore, EPA generally is not
mandating the specific best marine practices operators must implement to meet the limitations.
This is analogous to an industrial situation where discharges to Waters of the United States are
via pipes and a numeric effluent limitation may be specified as a given quantity of pollutant that
may be discharged, but EPA would not specify what technology should be employed to meet
that limitation. Thus, a given best marine practice may be acceptable and appropriate in some
circumstances but not in others. In this respect, the non-numeric effluent limitations in this
permit are similar to numeric effluent limitations, which also do not require specific control
technologies as long as the limitations are met. Similarly, EPA is not distinguishing between
what constitutes compliance and non-compliance with respect to the term "minimize" and what
must be recorded and reported on the Annual Report. The permit provides operators with
flexibility in what best marine practices will be implemented to meet the minimize standard; to
establish expectations beyond what is required in the permit (and detailed in the fact sheet) and
believes further defining those terms compromises the necessary flexibility. Permittees may
want to document their rationale for their approach to comply with the permit to provide
supporting information that may be useful to EPA during any compliance assessment activities.
Finally, consistent with a number of commenters, EPA added the definition of "minimize" to
Appendix A (Definitions) of the VGP.
Commenter Name: Abigail Blodgett, Legal Fellow, San Francisco Baykeeper
Commenter Affiliation: San Francisco Baykeeper
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0549-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: 4. The VGP Should Expressly Prohibit Permittees from Using Fuel Dispersants.
Section 2.1.3 of the VGP discusses the control measures that permittees must use to reduce
harmful discharges of oil from fuel spills and overflows, but it does not instruct permittees on
337
-------
how to respond to such spills. (VGP 20) The EPA should revise the VGP to include instructions
for oil spill response, and these instructions should expressly disallow the use of toxic
dispersants to control spills.
Response: EPA notes that harmful discharges of oil from fuel spills and overflows are not
incidental to the normal operation of vessel, and therefore, not eligible for coverage under
today's permit. EPA acknowledges commenter's concern that the permit does not instruct
permittees on how to response to fuel spills and overflows although EPA expects permittees to
have such procedures and implement those procedures, as necessary, to expeditiously stop,
contain, and clean up fuel spills and overflows consistent with requirements under the Oil
Pollution Act as referenced in Part 2.1.5 of the permit. In addition, Part 2.1.6 of the permit
specifies that appropriate vessel personnel who manage or otherwise may affect discharges be
trained in procedures for implementing the permit. EPA envisions appropriate personnel being
trained consistent with this requirement for those responding to fuel spills and overflows,
including notification of appropriate vessel personnel, emergency response agencies, and
regulatory agencies.
Also, while the VGP does not specifically prohibit the use of dispersants to control spills, the
permit likewise does not authorize the discharge of such materials. Specifically, Section
311(b)(3) of the CWA prohibits the addition of dispersants or emulsifiers to oil to be discharged
that would circumvent the provisions of 311(b)(4) of the CWA. As such, EPA did not feel it
was necessary to modify the permit to reflect such.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A2
6
No
Comment: 2.1.1 Material Storage
Under this section, water which has been contacted or combined with oil or oily waste is
permitted to be discharged in accordance with MARPOL and 33 CFR § 151.09. Clearly this oil
and oily waste meets the definition at 1.2.3.3 which is used or spent oil no longer being used for
their intended purposes. Thus according to 1.2.3.3 discharges of such oil cannot be covered
under this permit. We recommend EPA amend 1.2.3.3 to address this conflict.
2.1.4 Discharges of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
The issue here is identical to 2.1.1 Material Storage. We recommend EPA amend 1.2.3.3 to
address this conflict.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter's assertion that Part 1.2.3.3 of the permit, that
prohibits the discharge of used or spent oil no longer being used for their intended purposes, is
inconsistent with Parts 2.1.1 and 2.1.4, both of which allow for some discharges containing oil.
Discharges of small amounts of oil incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, such as those
338
-------
authorized in Parts 2.1.1 and 2.1.4, are permissible provided appropriate effluent limits are met,
including that oil is not discharged in quantities that may be harmful, pursuant to 40 CFR Part
110.3. The Agency uses the term "used or spent oil no longer being used for their intended
purposes" are not considered "used" or "spent" simply because that oil has dripped or otherwise
been released to the environment during its normal course of use. Used or spent oils would be
oils that say, for example, have broken down or been contaminated during use and as a result
are then drained from that piece of equipment for replacement with fresh oil.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574- A2
5
No
Comment: Regarding the requirement to maintain sufficient oil absorbent material onboard, we
are concerned that auxiliary purse seine skiffs do not have the storage space available to
accommodate this material. These vessels should be exempt from this permit requirement.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that auxiliary vessels, such as purse seine skiffs,
should be exempt from the requirement to use oil absorbent materials or any other appropriate
device when fueling such vessels. The commenter implies that the auxiliary vessel is to store
the necessary absorbent materials; however, the permit only requires that such materials or
other appropriate devices are used. Reasonably, these materials may be stored on-shore or on
the parent vessel.
Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director, California
Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2 Effluent Limits and Related Requirements (p.21).
The EPA is proposing that any visible sheen (from engine, oil or bilge or fish residue) in the
surrounding waters requires suspension of the discharge until the problem is corrected and
cleaned up. Is it unclear if every appearance of a "visible sheen" constitutes a non-compliance
event that must be recorded and reported on the Annual Non-Compliance Form.
CWPA is concerned that fishermen who are already doing all they can to minimize their
discharges to the extent achievable under the sVGP or VGP will not clearly understand what
constitutes true non-compliance vis a vis a visible sheen.
339
-------
CWPA recommends that the EPA provide clarification regarding persistence (rather than mere
appearance) of a visible sheen to better educate permitted fishermen as to what constitutes a
non-compliance event. We believe that a sheen that is minor in size that dissipates in a relatively
brief period of time (or is caused by biodegradable oil) should not be defined as a visible sheen
constituting a non-compliance event.
Regarding the requirement to maintain sufficient oil absorbent material onboard, we are
concerned that if not exempted, auxiliary purse seine skiffs do not have the storage space
available to accommodate this material. Vessels of this size and auxiliary nature should be
exempted from these permit requirements.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's concern regarding the appearance and persistence
of a visible sheen and what is considered non-compliance with respect to a visible sheen. EPA
interprets noncompliance with visible sheen requirements of the VGP consistent with
longstanding regulations at 40 CFR 110.3 prohibiting discharges of oils in such quantities that
may be harmful to the public health or welfare or the environment of the United States. This
includes discharges of oil that cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the
water or adjoining shorelines. As defined for those regulations, the term oil means "oil of any
kind or in any form, including, but not limited to: fats, oils, or greases of animal, fish, or marine
mammal origin; vegetable oils, including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, or kernels; and, other oils
and greases, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, synthetic oils, mineral oils, oil refuse, or oil
mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil." Thus, any reportable visible sheen, as regulated
by 40 CFR Part 110, is considered noncompliance under the VGP and must be reported. The
VGP defines "visible sheen" to mean a "silvery" or "metallic" sheen, gloss, or increased
reflectivity; visual color; iridescence, or oil slick on the surface consistent with Appendix 1 to
Subpart A of Part 435 - Static Sheen Test. Those test procedures describe to some extent the
significance of persistence and appearance to evaluate when discharges are acceptable to
continue (i.e., and no longer considered non-compliance). [Source: 58 FR 12507]. Thus, any
reportable visible sheen under those regulations should be reported on the Annual Non-
Compliance Form for the VGP.
With respect to storing oil absorbent material onboard auxiliary purse seine skiffs and similar
vessels, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0574-A2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
8
No
Comment: The statement "You may not add any constituent to any discharge that are not
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel" needs to be modified. Constituents are permitted
for the treatment of ballast water and even required by certain state ballast water regulations.
This statement would make a vessel in violation of either a state or federal standard if attempting
340
-------
to follow the law. Furthermore, later in the VGP, addition of constituents is permitted for ballast
water which is an inconsistency with this statement. We recommend clarifying that this provision
does not apply to ballast water treatment methods, (page 19)
Where consistent with vessel and design construction, toxic and hazardous materials should have
a secondary containment system for any unintentional spills that may occur.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that the statement in Part 2 of the permit "You may
not add any constituents to any discharge that is not incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel" needs to be modified since other parts of the permit as well as certain state ballast water
regulations allow for such additions. The permit allows for addition of constituents for ballast
water, a discharge that is incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, and as such, not subject
to the prohibition on addition of constituents.
EPA acknowledges commenters statement regarding secondary containment for toxic and
hazardous materials, although the Agency is not requiring such. Given the variability of the
types of vessels and types and uses of toxic and hazardous materials that may be present on
vessels, EPA believes the requirement that toxic and hazardous materials be located in protected
areas consistent with vessel design and construction is adequate. EPA expects that many vessels
may opt to use secondary containment for toxic and hazardous materials as a way to minimize
the potential for release of these materials.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: Effluent Limits and Related Requirements: Change from .the "extent achievable" to
the "extent practicable" and change "economically practicable and achievable" to "economically
practicable". Some control measures could be "achievable" but may be the effort and expense are
significantly out of proportion to any significant risks, the measures are not "practicable".
Similarly, some control measures could be economically achievable (if it took every cent you
have) but are not necessarily practicable.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-05Q5-A1.
9. Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
341
-------
Late Comment?
No
Comment: II. The Invasive Species Problem
All regulations and actions pursuant to the Clean Water Act must support the statute's objective
to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."6
Furthermore, such regulations must prohibit the discharge of "toxic pollutants in toxic amounts"
and achieve, where attainable, "water quality which provides for the protection and propagation
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water."7 The CWA
defines "pollutant" and "toxic pollutant" to include the introduction of invasive species.8
Aquatic Invasive Species ("AIS") are a persistent and unique problem in U.S. coastal and inland
waters, and make up an injurious portion of the approximately 50,000 plant, animal, and microbe
invasive species that have successfully established reproducing populations in United States
territory.9 Ship-borne AIS may be introduced through a variety of vectors, including ballast
water and sediment from ballast tanks, chain lockers, anchor chains, and vessel hulls. Additional
vectors include research and education facilities, the aquarium and pet industry, and the live-food
trade.10 Though no reliable and comprehensive estimates of total AIS introductions nationwide
exist, case studies of several major bodies of water across the country do provide a sense of the
rates of species introduction.11 AIS establishment is not only directly related to how often—and
in what concentration—members of that species are introduced. Additional variables that
influence survival, reproduction, and establishment include—but are not limited to—genetic
species traits; reproductive techniques; mobility; the abiotic characteristics of the landscape; and
biological interactions with resident species.12
AIS pose several dangers to aquatic ecosystems, including: outcompeting native species,
threatening endangered species, damaging habitat, changing food webs, and altering the
chemical and physical aquatic environment. Furthermore, AIS have caused substantial damage to
recreational and commercial fisheries, infrastructure, and water based recreation and tourism.
A. Invasive Species Threaten Biodiversity and Ecosystems
AIS can affect the "composition, density, and interactions of native species" and cause
"significant changes to the ecosystem, such as alterations to the food webs, nutrient dynamics
and biodiversity."13 "Without co-evolved parasites and predators, some non-indigenous aquatic
species can out-compete and even displace native populations."14 Invasive species are thought to
have been involved in 70% of this century's extinctions of native aquatic species, and 42% of
current endangered species are impacted significantly by invasive species. 5
In the Great Lakes Region, invasive Zebra mussels—native to the Caspian Sea—have achieved
densities as high as 700,000 per square meter.16 This has led to a much greater filtration rate of
particulate matter and algae, resulting in lower turbidity in the water column.17 The greater
filtration of light through the water column affects plant viability, and the removal of algae that
other native species depend on as a food source allow Zebra and quagga mussels to outcompete
and extirpate native filter feeder populations.18 The effects continue through the food web to fish,
potentially causing increased competition, decreased survival, and decreased biomass of native
fish species.19 For example, fish biomass has decreased by about 95% in Lake Huron and
significantly in Lake Michigan due to zebra and quagga mussels filtering out plankton at the base
342
-------
of the food chain.20 Another disturbing example is the invasive snowflake coral, which is
threatening the ecologically sensitive Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem
Reserve through its ability to out-compete native species for space on the reef.21
6 CWA § 101(a), (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)).
7M
8 The CWA defines "pollutant" to include "biological materials" (33 U.S.C. 1362(6)) and toxic pollutants as "those
pollutants, or combinations of pollutants, including disease-causing agents, which after discharge and upon
exposure, ingestion, inhalation or assimilation into any organism, either directly from the environment or indirectly
by ingestion through food chains, will, on the basis of information available to the Administrator, cause death,
disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions in
reproduction) or physical deformations, in such organisms or their offspring" (33 U.S.C. 1362(13) (emphasis
added)). Thus, the CWA narrative standards also are applicable to organisms and disease agents that may exist in
ballast discharge.
9 David Pimental et al, Biological Invasions: Plant, Animal, and Microbe Invasive Species in the United States and
World, Ecological Studies, Volume 193-6, 315-330 (2007).
10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008 Proposed Issuance of NPDES VGP for Discharges Incidental to the
Normal Operation of Commercial and Large Recreational Vessels, Fact Sheet at 16. See also David Reid et al,
Identifying and Establishing Options for Best Management Practices for NOBOB Vessels, NOAA Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory available at http://www.glerl.noaa. gov/res/Task rpts/2004/aisreid04-1 .html
(2007) (studies found that a majority of ships and a near-majority of tanks surveyed contained non-indigenous
strains of pathogens known to cause human health impacts).
11 See, e.g., A. Ricciardi, Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation to changes in vector activity,
12 Diversity and Distributions 425-433 (2006) (estimating that there have been approximately 182 invasions to date
within the Great Lakes Region, and subsequent invasions are occurring at least once every 28 weeks); USCG, U.S.
Coast Guard Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Standards for Living Organisms in Ship's
Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters. Retrieved from www.regulations.gov (Docket ID: USCG- 2001-10486-
0139.1) (2009) (estimating that there have been approximately 234 invasions to date within the San Francisco Bay
Region, and subsequent invasions are occurring at least once every 14 weeks); M. Sytsma et al, Lower Columbia
River Aquatic Non-indigenous Species Survey 2001-2004: Final Technical Report. Prepared for the U.S. Coast
Guard and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from http://www.clr.pdx.edu/docs/LCRANSFinalReport.pdf
(2004) (estimating that there have been approximately 81 invasions to date within the Lower Columbia River Basin,
and subsequent invasions are occurring at least once every 22 weeks).
12 National Academy of Sciences, Assessing the Relationship between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in
Ballast Water, Fig. 3-1 (p. 57) (2011).
13 Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality available a? http://www.michigan.gOv/deq/0,4561,7-135-
3313_3677_8314-18366-,00.html.
14 Id.
15 U.S. EPA, Invasive Non-Native Species available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademv/acad2000/invasive.html.
16 David K. Britton, Zebra and Quagga Mussels, ANS Task Force,
http://www.anstaskforce. gov/spoc/zebra mussels.php (last visited Feb. 21, 2012).
17 United States Dept. of the Interior: Geological Survey (2009) available at
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?speciesid=5.
18 Id. See also David K. Britton, Zebra and Quagga Mussels, ANS Task Force,
http://www.anstaskforce. gov/spoc/zebra mussels.php (last visited Feb. 21, 2012).
19 Id.
20 Janet Pelley, "Musseling Out Algae: Water Quality: Invasive mussels may turn the Great Lakes into a biological
desert," Chemical & Engineering News (Mar. 30, 2011); see also Scott Fields, "Great Lakes Resource at Risk,"
Environmental Health Perspectives, 113 (Mar. 2005): A164-A173.
21 R. Toonen, Reproduction and developmental characteristics of an alien soft coral in Hawaii (2005) available at
http://www.hawaii.edu/ssri/hCTi/research/projects/threats/inv_spec-invert-bio-01.shtml. In the Great Lakes Region,
the round goby takes over prime spawning sites of native species such as the logperch and mottled sculpin, and is
changing the balance of the ecosystem. In Ohio, the round goby's presence in Lake Erie led the state to shut down
the smallmouth bass fishery to help prevent predation on smallmouth eggs. See U.S. Geological Survey
343
-------
Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Round Goby (2011) available at
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/ciueries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=713.
Response: Commenter's information on aquatic invasive species lends further support to
EPA's views that aquatic nuisance species need to be addressed under the NPDES program.
EPA issued the VGP consistent with the CWA and implementing regulations with control of
aquatic invasive species one of the areas addressed by the permit. Please see Part 2 of the VGP
for effluent limits contained in the permit, including limits designed to reduce the risk of
introducing and dispersing invasive species. See also Part 3.4 of today's Fact Sheet (discussion
of EPA's views on its authority to regulate aquatic nuisance species). Please see sections 9.1,
9.1.1, 9.1.2, 10, 10.1, 10.1.1 of this comment response document for how EPA developed
effluent limits applicable to limit invasive species introduction and dispersal.
Commenter Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Division of Water, Water
Quality Section, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC)
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0534-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: While the VGP does address the mixing (commingling) of sewage and graywater, it
does not address the mixing or commingling of other waste streams, such as the discharge of
boiler/economizer blown down into bilge water. Please provide a description of EPA's
requirements when waste streams other than sewage and graywater are mixed.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's question regarding commingled discharges and
the applicability of permit requirements to these discharges. Unless otherwise specified,
commingled discharges are subject to the most stringent discharge restrictions and requirements
applicable to either component of those commingled discharges, or as applicable, restrictions
and requirements applicable to both.
Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2 Effluent Limits and Related Requirements
The EPA is proposing that any visible sheen (from engine, oil, bilge, or fish residue) in
surrounding waters requires suspension of the discharge until the problem is corrected and
cleaned up. It is unclear if every appearance of a 'visible sheen' constitutes a non-compliance
event that must be recorded and reported on the Annual Non-Compliance Form. GSSA is
344
-------
concerned that fishermen, who would be doing all that they can to minimize their fishing vessel
discharges under the draft permits, will not clearly understand the difference between the
persistence of and mere appearance of a visible sheen (which could also be produced from a
biodegradable oil). We believe that a sheen which is minor in size and dissipates in a relatively
brief period of time should not be defined as a visible sheen constituting a non-compliance event.
Response: With respect to visible sheens, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-
2011-0141-0575-A2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Brent Paine, Executive Director, United Catcher Boats
(UCB) and Glenn Reed, President, Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
United Catcher Boats (UCB) and Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0630-A2
2
No
Comment: 2.2 Effluent Limits and Related Requirements for Specific Discharge Categories.
We strongly support the application of technology-based effluent limitations and related
requirements as opposed to water quality based limits. Such an approach is the most rational and
feasible for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's preference for technology-based effluent
limitations over water quality based effluent limitations; although, the final VGP includes both
technology-based and water quality-based effluent limitations. The final permit approach is
consistent with the CWA requirement that NPDES permits include technology-based effluent
limitations for all discharges, and then if necessary for a specific discharge, water quality-based
effluent limitations (WQBELs). Specifically, permit writers are to assess whether the
technology-based effluent limitations are protective of water quality, and if not, also include
WQBELs as necessary to ensure that the discharge will not cause, have the reasonable potential
to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any state water quality standard, including state
narrative criteria for water quality (see 40 CFR 122.44(d)). In developing WQBELs, permit
writers must consider the potential impact of every permitted surface water discharge on the
quality of the receiving water.
Also, before issuance, EPA permits require CWA §401 certification by states, territories, and
tribes. The states, territories, and tribes have reviewed the VGP and certified that it will, among
other things, meet their water quality standards. In this process, some states, territories, and
tribes added additional conditions. Part 6 of the permit includes those additional conditions so
required by any state, territory, or tribe in areas where this permit is available.
A detailed discussion of the basis for water quality based effluent limitations is provided in Part
4.5 of the fact sheet.
345
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section
Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology (ECY)
Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECY)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0794- A2
2
Yes
Comment: Vessel discharges are most risky when vessels are nearshore and stationary.
Therefore, the most risky discharges are pier-side in a port or at a major industry pier. Given that
many of the VGP requirements for reducing discharge risk are conditioned on the availability of
onshore reception and treatment facilities, it makes sense to consider expanding responsibility
for ship discharges to include the ports and major industries benefitting from the shipping
industry. An expansion of responsibility seems both practical and fair. Ships have limited space
and energy and also have an ultimate responsibility for vessel and crew safety. The advantages,
including economy of scale, are with shore-based facilities.
Response: Imposing requirements on any entity that is not "an owner or operator of a vessel
being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation" is outside the scope of this action.
Discharges from vessels that occur on-shore are considered industrial discharges and subject to
the NPDES permitting program and must be covered under an NPDES permit from the
appropriate permitting authority in the location where that discharge occurs (e.g., an authorized
NPDES state permitting agency). With respect to shore based treatment specific to ballast water
discharges, please see section 9.1.18 of this comment response document.
9.1 Ballast Water
Response Essay:
In this section, EPA received a large number of comments that raised general concern with the
impacts of Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) on the Great Lakes (some of which stressed
concerns about Asian carp), and also were often accompanied by expression of the need for
action and/or more effective action to prevent invasive species from entering the Great Lakes.
Because these comments were general in nature, they typically did not address specific aspects
of the VGP or suggest specific measures to be undertaken to address the concerns expressed. In
some cases, while not containing specific recommendations, the general comment might target
a specific subject area for attention, such as expressing a general desire for more stringent
standards or faster implementation schedules. In finalizing the VGP, we have reviewed and
considered each such comment, which are included in the administrative record for the final
permit.
As a general matter, we recognize the significant impacts of invasive species on the Great Lakes
as discussed in the VGP Fact Sheet and other documents in the administrative record for those
346
-------
permits. Information submitted by many of the commeters lend further support to the already
well-documented identification of the problem and the need for action under the CWA. We note
that those permits contain terms and conditions establishing effluent limits to control vessel-
related discharges, including those that may be vectors for the introduction, dispersal, or spread
of ANS. With respect to those general comments raising concerns regarding Asian carp, we also
note that apart from the ANS-related effluent limits in the VGP, EPA is involved with other
federal, state, and local agencies in efforts to control Asian carp, including participation in
development of the 2012 Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework, a copy of which is available
in the record. With respect to comments generally requesting action to address the introduction
of pollutants and ANS into the Great Lakes, we note the final VGP takes such action by
establishing effluent limits for a wide variety of discharges incidental to the normal operation of
vessels, including those that may be vectors for the introduction, dispersal, or spread of ANS.
Refer to the final VGP Fact Sheets and permits for further detail.
Lastly, with respect to those general comments that identified particular subject areas for action
(e.g., comments suggesting adoption of more stringent standards or quicker implementation),
we note that EPA has prepared an index of all comments received categorized by the types of
issues raised. A copy of that index appears at the start of this response to comment document,
and commenters with a particular interest in a given subject area can use that index to see
EPA's specific responses on those subjects. Commenters can also review essays in other
response to comments sections (e.g., those in section 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 of this comment response
document) which go into detail regarding EPA's rationale on other specific ballast water issues.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Douglas W. Craven, Director, Natural Resource
Department, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Natural
Resource Department
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0433-A1
1
No
Comment: Ballast water is the largest source of aquatic invasive (nuisance) species in the Great
Lakes. Invasive species that have already been introduced though ballast water cost the United
States billions of dollars annually. Invasive species currently cost the eight Great Lakes states
more than $1 billion every five years. There are also economic and cultural costs for LTBB.
Over 180 of those have come from ballast water discharges.
The EPA's former attempts to regulate ballast water discharge have led to little gain in the
protection of the nation's largest freshwater system from invasive species. Furthermore it has
been an extremely slow process, starting when EPA was petitioned to start exploring the
regulation of ballast water under the Clean Water Act A 2005 court order finally required EPA
CW A. The current draft vessel general permit provides an opportunity for of lacking
commitment to protect the nation's waters. LTBB NRD, like so many other tribes, taxpayers,
businesses, and communities, has endured the devastating impacts of invasive species. EPA has a
chance to take strong preventative action that could protect culturally and economically
347
-------
significant waters, as well as native species and ecosystems, by issuing a permit that prevents
further introduction of aquatic invasive species to the Great Lakes. The current draft permit is not
strict enough to ensure prevention of new and dispersal of present invasive species.
LTBB NRD would like to request that the following concerns be considered and remedied before
the draft vessel general permit is approved.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Press Release March 8, 2011.
Alliance for the Great Lakes - Great Lakes United -National Wildlife Federation - Natural Resources Defense
Council, Press Release, December 1, 2011.
m John Flesher, AP, November 30, 2011.
Response: EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and other
documents in the administrative record, that ballast water has been a major source for the
introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the Great Lakes and other water
bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and social costs. EPA notes that the
limits and other requirements contained in the VGP are expected to substantially reduce the
environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS introductions and establishments.
With respect to concerns regarding EPA's prior actions addressing aquatic nuisance species,
they are outside the scope of today's action. In any event, EPA believes that the December 2008
final VGP does help prevent further introductions of ANS to freshwater ecosystems, for
example, by requiring ballast water exchange and saltwater flushing. Lastly, EPA notes that the
draft and 2012 final VGP will help further reduce the risk of ANS introductions into the Great
Lakes for vessels by, among other things, requiring compliance with a numeric concentration-
based ballast water discharge standard and by requiring that ocean going vessels that uptake
ballast water in freshwater or brackish water must conduct ballast water exchange in addition to
treatment before entering the Great Lakes. The specific concerns raised by the commenter are
addressed elsewhere in this response to comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Douglas W. Craven, Director, Natural Resource
Department, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Natural
Resource Department
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0433-A1
5
No
Comment: Cultural and Economic Impacts
The economic and environmental costs of invasive species released by ballast water have been
passed on to taxpayers and tribal governments now having to forever manage and subdue the
devastating effects. The impacts invasive species have on the Great Lakes ecosystem,
specifically disruption of the food web and fish populations, negatively affect LTBB, both
culturally economically. LTBB has treaty fishing rights in three of the Great Lakes as well as in
inland water bodies across a large portion of Michigan. Commercial and substance fishing are
essential activities to tribal members. LTBB actively manages its natural resources for the
betterment of tribal members and to sustain thousand year old traditions, such as subsistence
348
-------
fishing, for the next seven generations and beyond. The introduction of every new invasive
species impacts these activities and requires the tribe to act and adapt accordingly. Preventing
new invasive species from entering the Great Lakes is vital for the continued cultural and
economic prosperity of the tribe.
The EPA has the opportunity now to protect aquatic ecosystems from further devastation by new
invasive species introduced by ballast water discharges. LTBB NRD feels that the current draft
permit is not in accordance with EPA's requirements under the CWA to regulate discharges of
pollutants into the waters of the United States. The current draft permit cannot guarantee that
environmental, economic, and cultural impacts will be minimized. LTBB NRD requests that
EPA (1) adopt a standard in the draft permit that attempts to achieve 'zero detection' of living
organisms; (2) removes the Laker exemption in Part 2.2.3.5.3.3; and (3) shorten the time vessels
are given to comply with the new permit. LTBB NRD also asks EPA to consider the impacts that
new invasive species would have on the tribe, both culturally and economically. Thank you for
the opportunity to comment on the draft permit. If you have any questions or would like to
discuss the matter further please feel free to contact Lucas Evans at (321)242-1570 or
leavens@ltbbodawa-nsn.gov.
Response: With respect to commenter's concerns regarding economic and environmental costs
of invasive species introductions, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0433-A1 excerpt 1. With respect to the permit's compliance with CWA requirements,
EPA believes, as explained in the Fact Sheet and response to comment document for today's
permit, that the VGP is in full compliance with the requirements of the CWA. With respect to
this comment's three specific requests, as further explained elsewhere in this response to
comment document: (1) EPA does not believe that use of a "zero detection" standard would
enhance environmental protection beyond that contained in the final VGP (see 2011 NAS study
Assessing the Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast Water at
pp 117 -118); (2) EPA believes retention of a "Laker" exemption is appropriate in light of the
design and operational characteristics of Lakers; and (3) EPA does not believe that it is feasible
to shorten the timeframe for new vessels to comply with the permit in light of practical
constraints on the availability and installation of treatment equipment. See, e.g., Fact Sheet
section 4.4.3.5.5 and sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.6 and 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
In accordance with the EPA's Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes,
dated May 4, 2011, EPA consulted with Tribes on the draft VGP, received valuable input with
respect to environmental, economic, cultural, and other impacts, and factored the input received
in developing today's final permit.
EPA notes that the commenter requested that EPA consider the environmental, economical, and
cultural impacts that new invasive species would have on the Tribe. EPA notes that these types
of impacts are taken into account in the adoption of water quality standards (e.g., designated
uses), and EPA believes today's permit ensures compliance with those standards.
Commenter Name: Barbara Salzman, Co-Chair Conservation Committee and
Phil Peterson, Co-Chair, Conservation Committee, Marin
Audubon Society
349
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marin Audubon Society
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0434-A1
1
No
Comment: We are writing to express our support for adoption of standards that assure effective
treatment of ballast water and to request that a public hearing be held in the Sail-Francisco Bay
Area.
The San Francisco Bay Estuary is the largest and most important estuary on the West Coast. It is
also one of the most heavily invaded estuaries in the world with more than 300 exotic species,
most of which have been introduced from ballast water. These exotic, organisms are considered
among the primary threats to the health of the estuary.
The San Francisco Bay Area is a logical location for a public hearing on ballast water standards
because of its extensive exotic species population and because California and the San Francisco
Bay Area have played a leading role in attempting to address this major problem. Also, some of
the nation's largest ports are on the West Coast and San Francisco Bay is central to these ports,
Regardless of whether San Francisco Bay is the hearing location, it is fair and equitable that a
hearing be scheduled for the West Coast. West Coast problems and concerns cannot be fully or
most effectively presented in Washington DC and Chicago venues.
Thank you for considering our request. A major focus on the Marin Audubon Society is the
protection of San Francisco Bay ecosystem through advocacy, habitat acquisition and
restoration.
Response: EPA held a public hearing in Washington, DC and a public meeting in Chicago, IL.
76 FR 76716 (December 8, 2011). These events were announced at the time the Draft Permit
was published for comment. Additionally, EPA held a webcast and two web question and
answer sessions to facilitate nationwide stakeholder participation. EPA believe that those two
locations and opportunities for interaction utilizing internet technologies, coupled with the
opportunity for submitting written comment during the public comment period on the draft
VGP, provided a sufficient opportunity for receiving input from interested members of the
public. For additional discussion on this issue, please see section 1 of this comment response
document.
Commenter Name: Public Hearing Oral Comments by WSC's Doug Schneider.
January 11, 2012
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0441
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
350
-------
Comment: Finally, we wish to commend EPA for explicitly including "not discharging ballast
water" as a compliance option. This is a logical clarification to the VGP since the Clean Water
Act only regulates discharges.
Response: EPA notes that the" not discharging ballast water option" is retained in the final
Comment: Our organizations represent millions of individual members that have a deep
concern for the well being of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. The undersigned also
consist of coalitions, which represent hundreds of environmental, conservation, hunting, fishing,
labor, First Nation/tribal and academic organizations. A shared priority of our 14 groups is to
prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River
region.
As we explain below, we believe that EPA's Vessel General Permit (VGP) needs to be updated
to include additional effluent limitations for discharges of invasive species in vessels' ballast
water and should require zero discharge of invasive species unless demonstrated otherwise.
These revised effluent limitations must incorporate requirements that vessels use the Best
Available Technology (BAT) to treat their ballast water before discharging it, and any additional
effluent limitations that EPA determines are necessary to ensure that the quality of Great Lakes
and coastal waters is fully protected. These effluent limitations must apply to so called "laker"
vessels that travel only within the Great Lakes, just as much as they apply to other vessels.
Finally, EPA should establish a clear and transparent process for monitoring, reporting, and
enforcement in the next VGP, in collaboration with the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard).
I. Introduction
Aquatic invasive species are one of the biggest threats facing the Great Lakes and their
tributaries today. The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration said in its report that due to an
inundation of invasive species the world's greatest freshwater lakes are "succumbing to an
irreversible 'invasional meltdown' that may be more severe than chemical pollution."1 This crisis
is indicative of the tremendous stress that freshwater ecosystems are experiencing across the
globe caused by aquatic invasive species. In North America, freshwater systems like the Great
Lakes are experiencing extinction rates five times higher than terrestrial and marine ecosystems.2
At least 123 freshwater animal species, including fish, mussels, crayfish and amphibians, have
gone extinct across North America since 1900. This disproportionate and disturbing trend is
expected to increase due to anthropogenic factors led by and the compounded impact of invasive
species due to climate change.3 Leading international scientists are saying that we are on the
verge of a major freshwater biodiversity crisis.4
VGP.
Commenter Name:
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
10
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
351
-------
The environmental and economic impacts of invasive species are well known. Research suggests
that the annual cost to the Great Lakes region from invasive species introduced by shipping may
be upwards of $200 million annually.5 Invasions limit the ability of the natural ecosystem to
support fisheries, raw water uses, and wildlife watching. As recognized by the Coast Guard in a
recent Draft Environmental Impact Statement for its proposed ballast water discharge rule:
Non-indigenous species have the potential to disrupt aquatic ecosystems at all food web
levels. NIS can adversely impact native biodiversity by causing changes in the relative
abundance of native species and individuals that are of ecological and economic importance.
Thus, they could have direct and indirect impacts to threatened and endangered marine flora
and fauna. Introduced NIS are one of the main sources of risk to threatened and endangered
species, second only to habitat loss (Wilcove and Chen 1998). NIS can change the structure
of communities, causing a breakdown in structure and rapid reorganization (Sanders et al.
2003). The FWS considers NIS to be significant contributing factors in determining the
"threatened" or "endangered" status of many native species (OTA 1993; Ruiz et al. 1997).6
These effects have been seen in the Great Lakes. The extirpation or major declines in important
native species (such as lake trout and deepwater ciscoes) due to effects from aquatic invasive
species (such as sea lamprey predation on lake trout, and competition with deepwater ciscoes by
introduced alewives and rainbow smelt) have been highlighted in reports.7 The impacts of zebra
and quagga mussels are dramatic and well documented.8
But an invasion to the Great Lakes does not stop at the lakeshore. Freshwater invasions to the
Great Lakes spread across North America. Twenty years after the initial zebra and quagga
mussel invasion to Lake St. Clair, the invasive mussels spread to all five Great Lakes, into the St.
Lawrence, Mississippi, Tennessee, Hudson, and Ohio River Basins, and have recently
established west of the continental divide in California and Nevada, despite an extensive
binational effort to prevent a westward expansion.9 The rapid spread of freshwater invaders from
the Great Lakes illustrates that protecting the Great Lakes from ballast-mediated invasions
protects freshwater ecosystems across North America.
A strong federal program that effectively eliminates the risk of new introduction and spread of
invasive species in the Great Lakes and other fresh water systems is urgently needed, especially
in light of the documented high rate of extinction plaguing these systems.10 Such a program must
combine both EPA's Clean Water Act ("CWA") authority, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251, etseq., and
expertise in protecting water quality with the Coast Guard's authority under the National
Invasive Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 4701 et seq. ("NISA"), and its expertise in vessels and vessel
technology.11 Any federal program to control ballast water discharges from ships must engage
both agencies and fully comply both with the CWA and NISA.
1 Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. 2005. "Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect
the Great Lakes." P. 17.
2
Ricciardi, A and Rasmussen, B. 1999. "Extinction Rates of North American Freshwater Fauna" Conservation
Biology. Vol 15. No 5; pp 1220-1222.
3
United Nations press release, November 11, 2009, http://www.un.org/apps/news/storv.asp?NewsID=32916&Cr=
climate+chan ge&Cr 1=.
352
-------
4
Klement Tockner, Director of the Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, public statement at
the Diversita Conference, October 2009.
Lodge, D. and Finnof, D. 2008. Fact sheet: "Annual Losses to Great Lakes Region by Ship-borne Invasive Species
at least $200 Million: Preliminary Results."
6 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement at 3-3 (April
2008).
7
Bails, et.al. 2005. "Prescription for Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection and Restoration (Avoiding the Tipping
Point of Irreversible Changes)."
g
See U.S. Geologic Survey fact sheet at http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/ files/factsheets/2000-6%20Zebra%20
Mussels.pdf.
9
Great Lakes United, "Zebra Mussels: Facts and Figures" (Mar. 18, 2008), available at http://www. glu.org/sites/
default/files/zm facts.pdf.
10 Extinction Rates of North American Freshwater Fauna, Anthony Ricciardi and Joseph B. Rasmussen,
Conservation Biology, Vol. 13, No. 5 (Oct., 1999), pp. 1220-1222.
11 NISA establishes a zero discharge standard for the introduction and spread of non-indigenous species. See 16
U.S.C. § 4711(c)(1) (the Coast Guard "shall... prevent the introduction and spread of non-indigenous species in
waters of the United States by ballast water operations and other operations of vessels equipped with ballast water
tanks"); 16 U.S.C. § 4711(c)(2) (the Coast Guard "shall... ensure to the maximum extent practicable that aquatic
nuisance species are not discharged into waters of the United States from vessels") (emphasis added). In 2009, the
Coast Guard proposed to establish a "Ballast Water Discharge Standard" under its NISA authority. See Standards for
Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters, 74 Fed. Reg. 44,632 (Aug. 28, 2009) (to be
codified at 33 C.F.R. pt. 151 and 46 C.F.R. pt. 162). On December 3, 2009, the undersigned groups submitted
comments on the Coast Guard's proposed rule, urging that the Coast Guard strengthen the rule to make it more
protective of the Great Lakes (and fully consistent with both NISA and the CWA) while finalizing it as soon as
possible. Letter from Six Great Lakes NGOs to the U.S. Coast Guard (Dec. 3, 2009), available at
http://www.glu.org/sites/default/files/comments-CG-proposed-rules-fmal.pdf. The Coast Guard has yet to finalize its
proposed rule.
Response: EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and other
documents in the administrative record that ballast water and other ship-related vectors have
been a major source for the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the
Great Lakes and other water bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and
social costs. EPA notes that the limits and other requirements contained in the VGP are
expected to substantially reduce the environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS
introductions and establishments. With respect to concerns over potential impacts to endangered
species, the commenter is referred to the documentation in the record for the final VGP with
respect to consultation with the Services under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. With
respect to comments regarding "zero discharge" of invasive species, BAT, water quality based
limits, and "lakers," those concerns are addressed in the responses to the specific comments on
those subjects elsewhere in this response to comment document. Please see sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2,
9.1.6, 9.1.9, and 10.2 of this comment response document. Lastly, EPA agrees with the
commenter on the need for a clear and transparent process for monitoring, reporting, and
enforcement in collaboration with the Coast Guard. In this regard, EPA notes that the draft and
final 2012 VGP contains specific monitoring and reporting provisions and that the development
of those terms and conditions was coordinated with the Coast Guard. EPA notes that a February
2011 memorandum of understanding between EPA and the Coast Guard already establishes a
process for coordinated enforcement of the VGP's requirements on vessels.
EPA notes that issues regarding the scope of USCG authority and comments on the USCG
ballast water rulemaking are outside the scope of today's action.
353
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
12
No
Comment: III. The VGP Must Be Revised to Establish New Technology-Based and Water
Quality- Based Effluent Limitations for Invasive Species in Ballast Water Discharges.
For invasive species in ballast water discharges, the VGP requires two TBELs and one purported
WQBEL. Even if these effluent limitations were adequate at the time that the current VGP was
issued,12 they are no longer adequate today. The CWA requires that EPA, in renewing the VGP,
make a new determination of BAT for ballast water discharges that reflects the rapid
developments in treatment technology over the last several years. The CWA further requires that
EPA set WQBELs for ballast water that fully protect state water quality standards against the
harmful effects of invasive species, by setting limits on invasive species in ballast water that
prevent the establishment of reproducing populations of invasive species and the spread of
pathogens and diseases.
12
As EPA is well aware, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Wildlife Federation, the Alliance for
the Great Lakes, and other environmental groups have litigation pending against the current VGP in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The cases have been consolidated under the name Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, Case No. 09-1089 (D.C. Cir.).
Response: In issuing the draft VGP and final 2012 VGP, EPA did make a new and updated
BAT determination as documented and explained in the draft and final Fact Sheets. Those Fact
Sheets also document how EPA determined WQBELs for the draft and final 2012 VGP. EPA
further notes that contrary to the commenter's assertion, both the draft and final 2012 VGP
contain more than "two" TBELs for ballast water and more than "one" such WQBEL. For
instance, Part 2.2.3.3 of the permit contains numerous best management practices that are
technology based limits, as are the best management practices specific to Lakers in Part 2.2.3.4
of the permit. These technology-based limits are in addition to the numeric ballast water
treatment limits found in Part 2.2.3.5. Water quality-based requirements can be found in parts
2.2.3.7 and 2.3 of the permit. Commenter's specific concerns with ballast water related TBELs
and WQBELs are further addressed in the responses to the specific comments on those subjects
elsewhere in this response to comment document. Please also see sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.6,
9.1.9, 10.1, 10.1.1, and 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 24
354
-------
Late Comment? No
Comment: VI. Conclusion
We urge EPA to revise the VGP to make it fully consistent with the CWA's requirements for
invasive species in ballast water discharges and to continue to work with the Coast Guard to
develop a coherent federal program that protects the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River and
coastal and freshwater ecosystems across North America. These revisions must include revised
TBELs and WQBELs for ballast water, application of effluent limitations to laker vessels, and a
clear and transparent process for monitoring, reporting, and enforcement.
Response: With respect to comments regarding TBELs, WQBELs, and "lakers," the
commenter's concerns on those subjects are addressed elsewhere in this response to comment
document. Please also see sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.6, 9.1.9, 10, 10.1, and 10.1.1 of this
comment response document. With respect to the comment regarding the process for
monitoring, reporting, and enforcement, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-
2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpt 10.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, New York Department
of Environmental Conservation
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0449-A1
4
No
Comment: I know that EPA recognizes the devastating economic and environmental impacts of
aquatic invasive species. To date, over 185 nonnative species have been documented in the
waters of the Great Lakes, over 113 nonnative species in the Hudson River, and 50 nonnative
species, along with 40 species with unknown origins are in Long Island Sound. Invasive species
infest, overwhelm and destroy our nation's water bodies. A recent study found that half the bio-
mass, by weight, in the Hudson River is comprised of zebra mussels alone - representing a
dramatic alteration of this entire river habitat. Invasive species have economic impacts, clogging
water intakes and damaging native sport fisheries. Indeed, a Congressional Research Service
report examining the effects of a potential Asian Carp infestation found that there was a $17
billion annual recreational boating and fishing economy on the American side of the Great
Lakes. There are human health impacts as well. Introduced Vibrios are the suspected source of a
foodborne illness outbreak from shellfish harvested from Oyster Bay, New York. Vibrio
parahaemolyticus, a bacterium in the same family as those that caused cholera (that lives in
brackish saltwater and causes gastrointestinal illness in humans) was found in ballast water of
ships entering New York Harbor.
A national approach to this ballast water issue is clearly preferable to a plethora of potentially
conflicting state standards. New York is willing to abandon its current deadline and standards in
deference to the aforementioned nation-wide approach. I respectfully request that EPA act
pursuant to its authority and mandate under the CWA and propose a VOP with the standards
identified above.
355
-------
Response: EPA recognizes, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and other documents in
the administrative record, that ballast water and other ship-related vectors have been a major
source for the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the Great Lakes
and other water bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and social costs. EPA
notes that the limits and other requirements contained in the VGP are expected to substantially
reduce the environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS introductions and
establishments. With respect to the commenter's discussion of vibrio cholera, EPA notes that
while such organisms can occur in ballast water, the establishment and outbreak of cholerae
from ballast water discharges is generally unlikely, and though outbreaks have been previously
suspected, to this point, U.S. outbreaks have not been conclusively linked to ballast water. EPA
further notes that the VGP contains numeric ballast water limits under Part 2.2.3.5 of the
permit, and any risk of ballast water discharges spreading cholerae would be further reduced
with ballast water treatment. With respect to the commenter's stated preference for a "national
approach," EPA notes that the VGP is issued under authority of the CWA which both preserves
state authority (CWA § 510) and, in the case of an EPA-issued NPDES permit such as the VGP,
affords States the opportunity to impose more stringent limitations based, among other things,
on State law requirements (CWA § 401). With respect to issuance of a VGP with the standards
identified in the commenter's letter, that issue is addressed in the responses to the specific
comments requesting those standards. Please also see sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.9, 10.1, 10.1.1,
and 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief, Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0450-A2
1
No
Comment: As emphasized during the September 22 meeting, Michigan's priority concern
relative to the draft next VGP is to ensure that ballast water discharged to Great Lakes waters by
oceangoing vessels is required to comply as soon as possible with a set of numeric
concentration-based limitations for live organisms that are protective of water quality.
Michigan is convinced the draft next VGP will not provide an adequate degree of protection for
the Great Lakes against continued aquatic invasive species (AIS) invasions if it is issued with
only a treatment technology-based set of ballast water discharge limitations for live organisms
equivalent to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) D-2 standard and a narrative water
quality-based effluent limitation.
Response: Commenter's concerns regarding the adequacy of a VGP with the IMO D-2
standards and a narrative WQBEL are addressed in the responses to the specific comments on
those subjects elsewhere in this response to comment document. Please also see sections 9.1.1,
9.1.2, 9.1.9, 10.1, 10.1.1, and 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
356
-------
Commenter Name:
Yoshiaki Gonno, Naval Architect, Technical Development
Group, Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI), Marine &
Engineering Co., Ltd.
Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0464- A2
1
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: We hereby submit your comments for bonafide ship owners regarding the ballast
water treatment system (BWTS). Our company has to and should encourage the early entry into
force of the standards for living organisms in ships' ballast water discharged. We believe
bonafide ship owners are in sympathy with today's ecological problem, and they may try higher
performance system as their social contribution than our expectation. However, they are
embarrassed now because of fluctuation of situation surrounding discharge standards. We would
like to and should take care of bonafide ship owners as social responsibility for saving the ocean.
SEE TABLE IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
Assumption on this calculation*:
1. Social benefit is defined as the reduction of social costs for treating polluted water by ballast
water.
2. Target vessel is existing vessel built before Jan 1st 2012.
3. Required treatment performance of Phase-1 save the government 37 % of the social
lost/vessel. Required treatment performance of Phase-2 save 90 %.
4. The damage by aquatic nuisance continues 10 years once aquatic nuisance settled in U.S.
water.
5. 40,000USD/vessels is social lost per year in case of no installation of BWTS.
6. We assumed Phase-2 standard will start from 2018 for new building and from 2024 for
existing vessel at 6 years interval derived from phase-1 standard. 2018 is deadline for
installation of Phase-1 BWTS on existing vessels as late as possible.
Conclusion: Effect of encouragement for early installation may be higher than the application of
phase-2 to existing vessels
* Concept of this calculation is derived from "33 CFR Part 151 and 46 CFR Part 162, Federal register/Vol.74
No. 166 VII. Regulatory Analysis".
Response: We appreciate general support for early entry into force of ballast water discharge
standards and, as explained in the Fact Sheet for the final 2012 VGP and elsewhere in this
response to Comment document, we believe that the implementation schedule in the final 2012
VGP provides for the earliest feasible implementation of those standards. We also note that by
establishing numeric limitations on living organism in discharges of ships' ballast water, the
final 2012 VGP should help alleviate the commenter's expressed concern about fluctuating
discharge standards. EPA notes that the commenter provided a graph discussing what they
perceive to be the benefits of installing ballast water treatment systems on different schedules
and meeting different limits. In the conclusion, the commenter advocated installing treatment
357
-------
systems as soon as possible at the IMO D-2 limit instead of waiting to install systems meeting a
higher performance standard (1000 times IMO). For reasons discussed in the VGP fact sheet
and elsewhere in this response to comment document, EPA is finalizing the IMO D-2 limit on
as rapid an implementation schedule as feasible in today's permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Yoshiaki Gonno, Naval Architect, Technical Development
Group, Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI), Marine &
Engineering Co., Ltd.
Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0464-A4
1
No
Comment: SEE TABLES AND GRAPHS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.
Response: The commenter is alluding to challenges of vessel operators finding laboratory
services in certain parts of the world. Please see sections 9.1.10, 9.4.3, 9.3.6 of this comment
response document, and elsewhere in this response to comments document discussing VGP
analytical monitoring.
Commenter Name: Dr. W. Ron DeHaven, CEO and Executive Vice President,
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
Commenter Affiliation: American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0470-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: This letter is in response to the Environmental Protection Agency's request for
comments on its draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel
General Permit (VGP) and draft NPDES Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP). The AVMA
recognizes the pressing need for effective actions, based on sound science and coordinated
among all relevant stakeholders, to ensure the future health of aquatic animals and the
ecosystems that support them. According to a 2003 statement by the EPA's then Assistant
Administrator for Water (G. Tracy Mehan) before the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water,"... it is estimated that more than
10,000 marine species (e.g., zebra mussel, Asian clam, green crab) are transported each day in
ballast water, allowing new invasions to occur regularly in coastal waters." Organisms
transported in ballast water may be harmful to the ecosystems into which they are released. Viral
Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS) is a devastating viral disease of fish which can cause massive
fish die-offs and for which ballast water is considered to be a potential means of disease spread.
Introduced invasive species can threaten the existence of native species and may reduce
biodiversity. As an advocate for animals and animal health, A VMA is concerned about the
possible extinction of animal species and supports effective actions for the conservation of wild
animals in their native habitats.
358
-------
The influence of transported organisms may reach beyond the immediate ecosystems into which
they arrive. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the estimated economic impact of the
invasive zebra mussels on users of U. S. and Canadian waters within the Great Lakes region was
approximately $5 billion between 2000 and 2010. Zebra mussels have also caused public health
issues by interfering with water supply. To protect animal, human, and environmental health, the
AVMA supports the use of appropriate surveillance and control measures on international
commerce and travel to prevent the entry of foreign disease vectors and invasive species into the
United States.
While the AVMA recognizes potential risks associated with ballast water and other discharges of
vessels, it also acknowledges that the development, utilization, and regulation of effective
prevention and control measures are complicated, involve many domestic and international
stakeholders, require substantial resources, and necessitate identifying and overcoming
knowledge gaps and other current limitations. We commend the EPA's continued collaboration
with the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, the National Invasive Species Council (NISC),
and other authorities and stakeholders in seeking science based solutions to potential risks posed
by ballast water and other discharges of vessels. In addition to economic, environmental, and
industry considerations, successful mitigation of these risks must include One Health, which is
the integrative effort of multiple disciplines working locally, nationally, and globally to attain
optimal health for people, animals, and the environment. We strongly urge the EPA to include
among the other disciplines consulted on these issues veterinarians with expertise in areas such
as aquatic ecosystems, ecology, or environmental toxicology.
Response: EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and other
documents in the administrative record that ballast water and other ship-related vectors have
been a major source for the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the
Great Lakes and other water bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and
social costs. EPA notes that the limits and other requirements contained in the VGP are
expected to substantially reduce the environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS
introductions and establishments. With respect to VHS, while EPA acknowledges ballast water
could be a potential source for spread of VHS, EPA notes that other vectors (e.g., live bait) are
also likely vectors. In developing the draft and final 2012 VGP, EPA involved experts in a
number of subject areas such as aquatic ecosystems, ecology, or environmental toxicology, and
will continue to involve experts in such fields in its future efforts to address aquatic nuisance
species.
Commenter Name: Sarah K. Branch, Director of Government Relations,
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Commenter Affiliation: Offshore Marine Service Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0474-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
359
-------
Comment: We thank the EPA for listening to industry's recommendations that were submitted
in December 2010.
Two significant changes made to the VGP are very positive for offshore operators; amending
of the ballast water requirements and the addition of an Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) for
vessels out of service. OMSA recommended amending the ballast water requirements for vessels
that only introduce municipal water into their designated ballast water tanks and/or operate in
one Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone. Vessels in our membership take on fresh/municipal water
that is then off loaded to an offshore rig or to a facility once back in port. More than 80% of our
vessels operate within one COTP zone (New Orleans and Morgan City combined).
Second, the addition of a section detailing the inspection process for vessels that are in a EUP
will ease compliance fears for many operators. Our vessels are operating at about a third of what
they were before the Macondo oil spilt incident and the moratorium on drilling. There are many
offshore vessels that are cold stacked and not operating and providing guidance on how to
manage these vessels under the requirements of the VGP has been a relief for our members.
Response: This comment expresses support for certain provisions that continue to appear in the
final 2012 VGP, and as such, no further response is necessary.
Commenter Name: Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Commenter Affiliation: Government of Canada
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: In addition to the opportunity to comment on the standards in the draft Vessel
General Permit, and noting the specific request of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for comments on more stringent standards, Canada appreciates the opportunity to respond
specifically to the letter of October 20, 2011 from Commissioner Martens of the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to Administrator Jackson of the EPA.
Canada shares a strong commitment with New York to protect our waters from aquatic invasive
species. In reviewing the general principles of the letter, Canada found several points of
agreement with New York, such as the importance of a uniform approach and the need for
reliable ballast water treatment systems to be installed as soon as possible.
Canada has a different view, however, on basic assumptions underlying the letter's proposed
approach: the proposed treatment standards are not achievable and systems cannot presently be
tested to the envisioned levels. Moreover, Canada's view is that the requirements of the
International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and
Sediments, 2004 will increase environmental protection compared to current regulations.
Response: With respect to the commenter's view on the more stringent treatment standards as
360
-------
recommended in the October 2011 NYDEC letter, EPA shares the concern that technologies to
achieve such standards are not available and has not included those standards in the final 2012
VGP. See also responses to other specific comments on numeric ballast water treatment
standards in sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2
12
No
Comment: 10.To date, over 185 nonnative species have been documented in the waters of the
Great Lakes...
A Congressional Research Service report examining the effects of a potential Asian Corp
infestation found that there was a $17 billion annual recreational booting and fishing economy on
the American side of the Great Lakes...
Vibrio parahaemolyticus, a bacterium in the same family as those that caused cholera (that lives
in brackish saltwater and causes gastrointestinal illness in humans) was found in ballast water of
ships entering New York Harbor.
Canada agrees with New York that many non-indigenous aquatic species have been reported on
the Great Lakes, and that some of these species have been very harmful. The challenge of
reducing the risk of future invasions is particularly daunting because of the number of vectors for
invasion. The NRC, in its advice on tackling the problem of aquatic invasive species, noted that
"ballast water is only one of many potential vectors that now transport marine, estuarine, and
freshwater species between continents and oceans; others include vessel biofouling, aquaculture,
live bait industries, aquarium and pet industries, the live seafood industry, and the availability of
thousands of species on the Internet for unregulated purchase and distribution to the public at
large."12
The importance of managing all of these vectors is highlighted by the fact that 60-65 percent of
the non-native aquatic species found in the Great Lakes are of unknown origin, or are attributed
to vectors other than ballast water. This is why Canada is implementing the Canadian Action
13
Plan to Address the Threat of Aquatic Invasive Species, which includes efforts to reduce the
risk and impacts of species invasions by a variety of introduction vectors, not just ballast water.
12
National Research Council (2011) Assessing the relationship between propagule pressure and invasion risk in
ballast water, p. 2.
13
Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers Aquatic Invasive Species Task Group (2004) A
Canadian action plan to address the threat of aquatic invasive species.
Response: With respect to the introduction and harm caused by aquatic nuisance species
(ANS), EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and other documents in
361
-------
the administrative record, that ballast water and other ship-related vectors have been a major
source for the introduction of ANS into the Great Lakes and other water bodies, resulting in
significant environmental, economic, and social costs. EPA notes that the limits and other
requirements contained in the VGP are expected to substantially reduce the environmental,
economic, and social costs from new ANS introductions and establishments. EPA agrees that
other sources, including non-ballast water discharges from ships, are potential sources of ANS.
The final 2012 VGP thus addresses not only ballast water, but other potential ship-related
discharges that can be sources of ANS. EPA notes the information provided on activities by
Canada to address invasive species.
Commenter Name: LeRoger Lind, President, Save Lake Superior Association
Commenter Affiliation: Save Lake Superior Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0483-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Please accept these comments from Save Lake Superior Association, an
organization of about 300 members based in Two Harbors, MN with membership in the three
states and province surrounding Lake Superior. Our mission is to prevent the further degradation
of the lake and its watershed while promoting its restoration. We are equally concerned about
water quality in all freshwater systems of the U.S.
Domestic and foreign freighters have discharged untreated ballast water into Great Lakes harbors
since the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1954. Over one hundred aquatic invasive
species (AIS) aka aquatic nuisance species (ANS) and non-indigenous invasive species (NIS) are
now self-propagating and are being transported as far inland as ports in Minnesota by both
freshwater "Lakers" and saltwater "salties".
Unfortunately for Minnesota, these species are now well established in our inland lakes and
waterways. Cost of containment and eradication are reaching into the millions of dollars. These
moneys should be spent on conservation and preservation of natural resources rather than
wasteful and fruitless efforts to prevent AIS from spreading.
We acknowledge that the movement considered by the US Coast Guard in 2009 from voluntary
to mandatory ballast water discharge standards was appropriate and well-founded in the Non-
indigenous Species Act (NISA) of 1996. The Federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA) also
makes mandatory the action to prevent uptake of AIS quite clear. We commented to his effect in
2009 and now find ourselves revisiting the same issues with further delays.
Response: EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and other
documents in the administrative record that ballast water and other ship-related vectors have
been a major source for the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the
Great Lakes and other water bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and
social costs. EPA notes that the limits and other requirements contained in the VGP are
expected to substantially reduce the environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS
362
-------
introductions and establishments. With respect to the reference to the "Administrative
Procedures Act" (sic), EPA notes that statute applies to federal government administrative
procedure, and does not address uptake or discharge of ANS.
Commenter Name: LeRoger Lind, President, Save Lake Superior Association
Commenter Affiliation: Save Lake Superior Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0483-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: Ships and their ballast water are obvious vectors. NIS could also be attached to the
outside hulls of ships. Therefore, both the insides and outsides of ships should be included in a
complete, holistic approach to the overall problem of preventing NIS transport and introductions
into and among the Great Lakes.
The US EPA and APHIS in the Dept of Agriculture must also be involved from the perspective
of the Clean Water Act and the mandate to detect infestations of AIS/NIS in the nation's fresh
water resources.
It is obvious from the gravity of the ongoing and potential threats to all freshwater and saltwater
resources of the U.S. that actions similar to those outlined in these comments and many others
submitted over the course of this Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 are both necessary and
achievable in the timeframes requested.
Response: EPA agrees ship hulls and ballast water can be vectors for the introduction and
spread of aquatic nuisance species. While EPA does coordinate on invasive species issues with
APHIS through participation in the National Invasive Species Council and Aquatic Nuisance
Species Task Force, EPA does not agree that the CWA mandates such coordination or that the
CWA mandates EPA/APHIS activities to detect infestations of AIS/NIS in the nation's fresh
water resources, nor does the commenter point to authority in the CWA or implementing
regulations for that proposition. Commenter's other specific comments on the VGP are
addressed elsewhere in this response to comment document. Please also see sections 9.1.1,
9.1.2, 9.1.6, 9.1.9, 10.1, 10.1.1, and 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Late Comment? No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 and 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 at pages 28 - 33 introduce a most
troublesome concept, most specifically the distinction between devices for which high quality
type approval data are available and those for which high quality type approval data is not
363
-------
available. While we recognize the current concerns with the IMO type approval process
indicated to us by the US Coast Guard, CSA's position is that type approval data is either
sufficient or not both for purposes of the IMO convention and US regulations. Furthermore,
given this distinction, it is suggested that other nations' type approval processes are faulty and
thus will not be recognized by vessels calling in US ports with BWTS having certifications made
consistent with the IMO convention. In the unfortunate situation if these provisions are allowed
to remain in the VGP, every system and every vessel calling in US ports would be subject to US
certification either through the US type approval process or an equivalency determination. There
is most certainly not enough resources in the US Coast Guard or EPA, to timely assess, review
and issue this large number of certifications. If the US believes the existing type approval
process agreed to in the IMO convention is not sufficiently robust, the US should propose
changes to that process as an IMO member state rather than impose a US specific process which
would fall under its own weight due lack of resources.
Section 2.2.3.5.1.3 at page 34 permits the use of "water from a US public water system or
Canadian drinking water system" in lieu of the requirements contained in section 2.2.3.5 (ballast
water numeric discharge limitations). While we strongly agree with this provision, CSA
recommends that the reference to US and Canada be eliminated. These provisions should apply
to water supplied from any public water system regardless of location.
Section 2.2.3.5.2 at page 35 provides the implementation schedule for BWTS on new and
existing vessels further subdivided based on ballast water capacity. While we agree with this
breakdown as it reflects the requirements in the IMO convention, we are troubled with the
January 1, 2012 compliance date for new vessels e.g. those constructed after January 1, 2012 and
potentially the January 1, 2014 implementation dates for existing ships. For new vessels, this is a
virtually impossible goal to meet as vessels currently being constructed would be subject to these
provisions even though there is no capability for owners to install systems compliant with the
proposed VGP requirements since the US has issued no type approvals at this time. Specifically,
based on the requirements in the ETV test protocol, it is a virtual certainty that no US Coast
Guard type approvals would be issued for a 24 to 36 month period after the USCG interim final
rule on ballast water treatment standards is issued, which as noted, has still not been issued as of
this date. Assuming that rule will be issued in the near future (March 2012), no vessels, new or
existing, would be in a position to install a US compliant system before 2015. This "earliest"
date is further complicated with the time lag inherent in the purchase of a US certified system, its
installation onboard the vessel followed by compliant post-installation testing although these
additional challenges could be mitigated by basing the vessel's compliance date on the first
scheduled drydocking after a date certain.
In this respect, we would urge this section be changed so that the compliance date for new
vessels would be the first drydocking after the final VGP is issued AND the USCG has type
approved at least 5 systems for each vessel class (less than 1500 cubic meters, 1500 - 5000 cubic
meters, greater than 5000 cubic meters) under the expected interim final rule on ballast water
treatment systems. In addition, a pre-implementation review should be done prior to any
implementation date including those in 2014 and 2016 to assure that sufficient supplies of BWTS
are available with acceptable type certifications issued. This is particularly important if the VGP
364
-------
and expected USCG final rule retains the high quality data versus low quality data distinction
discussed above.
Finally, we would like to stress an important point. It is not the unwillingness of vessel owners to
purchase and install compliant BWTS but rather the inability to purchase systems that are
deemed compliant under the requirements set forth in the proposed VGP and expected interim
final rule to be issued by the US Coast Guard. Lack of type certifications acceptable to the US
government places owners in the unfortunate position of spending millions of dollars on a BWTS
that while type certified by another IMO member state, is not recognized as compliant in the US.
The US should either recognize other national type certifications are delay US implementation of
the requirements until sufficient type certifications are issued and systems are available for
purchase.
Response: With respect to the comment in the first bullet (regarding VGP distinctions between
systems with high quality data and those that do not have such data): EPA does not agree with
the commenter's unsupported assertion that "if these provisions are allowed to remain in the
VGP, every system and every vessel calling in US ports would be subject to US certification
either through the US type approval process or an equivalency determination." First, the VGP
does not establish type-approval or other system approval requirements. Second, the provisions
at issue merely allow for reduced monitoring frequency for indicator organisms and biocides if
the treatment system was type-approved by the Coast Guard or by a foreign administration in a
manner consistent with the ETV protocol and for which all relevant biocide date is available.
Given the inherent technical complexities of treatment system efficacy testing and the
evaluation of biocides used in such systems, EPA believes it is reasonable that systems which
were approved overseas and for which high quality test data are unavailable should be subject
to more extensive monitoring requirements to verify their proper operation onboard the ship.
Please also see the response essay in section 9.1.1 of this comment response document
regarding data transparency. EPA thus declines to remove the VGP permit sections at issue. In
addition, EPA notes that subsequent to submission of the comment, the USCG (which is
responsible for type-approval testing) promulgated a final regulation in March 2012
incorporating the ETV protocols into its type-approval process and also, through its "alternative
management system" provisions, differentiating between foreign approved systems with
reliable data available as opposed to foreign approved systems with little or no data available.
33 C.F.R. §§ 151.1504; 151.2026; 46 C.F.R. Part 162, subpart 162.060. Those regulations, not
the VGP, govern the US type-approval process, including recognition of foreign type-approvals.
In contrast, the VGP sections cited in this comment addressing the frequency of monitoring
under the VGP, do not affect type-approval requirements, and reasonably allow for reduced
monitoring under the VGP for systems that have been type-approved through the use of high-
quality data. Lastly, the commenter's request that the US propose changes to the type-approval
process at IMO is outside the scope of the VGP and no further response is necessary.
With respect to the comment in the second bullet (regarding use of public water supplies from
any location, not just the US and Canada): EPA declines to make the requested change. At this
time, allowing use of water from public water supplies (PWS) anywhere in the world would
raise questions as to the adequacy of the standards under which such PWS operate, the care and
maintenance of such systems, and whether the water delivered onboard came from a PWS
365
-------
meeting relevant standards. By limiting the use of PWS in lieu of treatment to those PWS in the
US and Canada, EPA believes the VGP avoids those difficulties while still offering the
opportunity to vessels to avail themselves of a safe and reliable alternative to the use of onboard
treatment. EPA notes that the Agency is aware of potential discussions to explore whether, and
under what circumstances, use of public water supply from other areas might be appropriate.
EPA will track these discussions and consider them in future iterations of the VGP as
appropriate. At this time, however, EPA does not have a basis in the record to demonstrate that
the PWS of other countries to which vessels regularly sail do not pose a risk of introduction of
invasive species, and the commenter did not provide such a basis.
With respect to the comment in the third bullet (regarding implementation schedule for BWTS
on new and existing vessels): The commenter expresses concern for the draft VGP's January 1,
2012, compliance date for new vessels (e.g. those vessels constructed after January 1, 2012) and
potentially the January 1, 2014 implementation dates for existing ships as well. At the time the
draft VGP was issued, the schedule for installation of BWTS was consistent with the schedule
contained in a proposed Coast Guard ballast water rulemaking (74 FR 44632 (August 28,
2009)). Subsequent to submission of this comment, EPA notes the USCG promulgated its final
ballast water regulations, including a modified schedule for installation of ballast water
treatment systems with respect to "new" vessels. 33 C.F.R. §§ 151.1512(b) and 151.2035(b). As
explained in section 4.4.3.5.5a of the Fact Sheet for the final 2012 VGP, the final 2012 VGP
now reflects a schedule for "new" vessels that is consistent that in the USCG final rule. This
was done by revising the final 2012 VGP, to define "new build" vessels as those constructed
after December 1, 2013 (as opposed to the draft VGP's use of a January 1, 2012, date) and, like
the Coast Guard rule, require compliance with the technology-based ballast water numeric
limitations upon delivery. For the reasons set out in the Fact Sheet for the final 2012 VGP, EPA
believes that this change is appropriate to resolve concerns about the availability of BWTS for
"new" vessels. We also note the final USCG rulemaking did not make changes with respect to
the schedule for existing vessels. The draft VGP was consistent with that schedule. As
explained in section 4.4.3.5 of the Fact Sheet for the final 2012 VGP, EPA continues to believe
that schedule is appropriate to retain, and we thus decline to make changes to the schedule for
installation of BWTS by existing vessels. Please see sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 of this comment
response document for further discussion.
With respect to the last comment requesting schedule delays or recognition of foreign approved
systems: As previously explained, the type approval process and recognition of foreign
approved systems are governed by Coast Guard regulations that were promulgated in March
2012. The treatment installation schedule also contained in those regulations is already
reflective of those approval and AMS determination requirements, and as discussed
immediately above, that schedule is also reflected in the final 2012 VGP. Additionally, EPA
notes that multiple vendors have applied for Coast Guard Alternate Management System
(AMS) approval and that EPA fully expects multiple systems to have such Coast Guard
designation in the immediate future. The US Coast Guard intends to begin making AMS
determinations in March 2013.
366
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: I. Introduction
Invasive species have already caused massive harm to the Nation's waters and the uses
dependent on those waters, from Chesapeake Bay to San Francisco Bay, from the Great Lakes to
the inland waters of Florida. 1 They cost the United States billions of dollars annually.2 Shipborne
invasive species cost the Great Lakes Region alone at least $200 million dollars every year.3 The
Zebra mussel - introduced to the United States through ballast water discharges and first
discovered in Lake St. Clair, which connects Lakes Huron and Erie - now infests waters across
the United States and has significantly altered the Great Lakes ecosystem.4 Non-indigenous
species also significantly affect endangered species populations in the United States.5 The Clean
Water Act requires EPA to place limits on ballast water discharges that eliminate the unique
threat of invasive species as living and reproducing pollutants. EPA's Draft 2013 Vessel General
Permit proposes revisions to the limits included in the agency's 2008 permit, but nevertheless
does not live up to the Clean Water Act's mandate that the agency establish technology- and
water quality-based effluent limitations in this permit that will fully protect our Great Lakes and
coastal waters from further harm due to the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species in
vessels' ballast water. Neither the International Maritime Organization's D-2 standards that EPA
proposes as technology-based effluent limitations, nor the water quality-based effluent
limitations it includes, would assure that states' water quality standards are protected by
requiring vessels to take steps to fully and effectively prevent their ballast water discharges from
causing further species invasions. Research has shown that the IMO standards are not sufficient
to prevent new non-indigenous species from invading United States waters. Moreover, the risk of
invasive species is driven by many factors in addition to the concentration of organisms
discharged.
To comply with the Clean Water Act, EPA must establish technology-based effluent limitations
at least as stringent as those currently required by California and New York, as well as
enforceable water quality-based effluent limitations that will prevent the introduction and spread
of new invasive species in vessels' ballast water discharges. Further, EPA should compress the
compliance schedule for these effluent limitations and eliminate unjustified delays based on the
unsupported assumption that a more rapid implementation schedule than the IMO is requiring
(including an unjustified allowance for vessels to wait until their next drydocking after the
compliance deadline before installing a ballast water treatment system) is not achievable. In
addition, EPA must evaluate onshore treatment and any relevant pilot projects in its BAT
determination for lakers and require the most stringent effluent limitation achievable. EPA
should also require vessels entering the Great Lakes or other freshwater environments, as a
technology-based effluent limitation, to continue mid-ocean ballast water exchange in
combination with ballast water treatment, but EPA cannot characterize this as an effective water
quality-based effluent limitation that will assure compliance with water quality standards.
Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1
1
No
367
-------
Finally, EPA must comply with the Endangered Species Act to ensure that the permit does not
jeopardize threatened or endangered native species.
1 Nat'l Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, Aquatic Nuisance Species Impacts, ANS TASK FORCE.GOV (last
visited Jan. 31, 2012), http://www.anstaskforce.gov/more_impacts.php.
1 Id.
3
U.S. Dep't of Agric., Annual Losses to Great Lakes Region by Ship-borne Invasive Species at least $200 Million,
National Invasive Species Information Center (July 2008), http://www.glu.org/sites/default/files/lodge
factsheet.pdf.
4
Aquatic Nuisance Species Impacts, supra note 1.
Aquatic Nuisance Species Impacts, supra note 1 (noting that 42% of listed endangered species are significantly
impacted by non-indigenous species).
Response: EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and other
documents in the administrative record that ballast water and other ship-related vectors have
been a major source for the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the
Great Lakes and other water bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and
social costs. EPA notes that the limits and other requirements contained in the VGP are
expected to substantially reduce the environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS
introductions and establishments. With respect to compliance with CWA mandates for
establishing technology and water quality based effluent limitations, including concerns with
the adequacy of the IMO D-2 standard and use of New York and California standards, the
commenter is referred to discussion of those issues elsewhere in this response to comment
document. Please also see sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.6, 9.1.9, 10, 10.1, 10.1.1, and 10.1.2 of this
comment response document. With respect to the implementation schedule, EPA believes that
the schedule contained the final 2012 VGP is reasonable and fully compliant with CWA
requirements. See e.g., Fact Sheet section 4.4.3.5.5 and other responses throughout this
response to comment document. With respect to consideration of on-shore treatment of ballast
water, EPA is not aware of the existence of any such facilities for the treatment of living
organisms in ship's ballast water. In addition, the final 2012 VGP already provides (in section
2.2.3.5.1.2) that vessels whose design and construction safely allows for the transfer of ballast
water to shore, if compatible onshore treatment for ballast water is available, the vessel
owner/operator may use such onshore treatment to comply with VGP ballast water
requirements. Please see section 9.1.18 of this comment response document. With respect to
mid-ocean ballast water exchange in combination with ballast water treatment and EPA's
characterization of this as a water quality based limit, the commenter is referred to responses to
the specific comments received on those issues. Please also see sections 10, 10.1, 10.1.1, and
10.1.2 of this comment response document.With respect to compliance with the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), the commenter is referred to the documentation in the administrative record
with respect to consultation under the ESA and section 12.2 of the VGP Fact Sheet. EPA
initiated informal consultation with the Services in late 2012, initiated formal consultation in
July 2013, and concluded consultation before issuance of today's permit. See EPA's Biological
Evaluation and amendments, and the Services' Biological Opinion, included in the docket for
today's permit.
368
-------
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: B. Invasive Species Threaten Economic Infrastructure
AIS pose a serious risk to commercial and recreational fisheries. For example, the annual
estimated economic damages from European green crab predation to commercial and
recreational shellfisheries and eelgrass restoration efforts range from $18.6 to $22.6 million per
year in the United States.22 There are also many examples of AIS, such as the hydrilla plant and
water lettuce, which have had adverse impacts on recreation and tourism nationwide by
damaging water quality. Floating plants clog the water's surface, blocking boating and
swimming, impeding water flow, and disrupting plant and animal communities.23 Invasive
mollusks such as zebra mussels can also cause boat engines to overheat, and can cover shorelines
with sharp-edged shells and rotting mussel flesh, which can diminish interest in visiting infested
beaches.24
Industrial facilities, such as those that purify water, generate electricity, and manufacture goods,
depend on water intake structures to perform their services. These structures can often be
adversely affected by AIS. Bivalves such as the zebra mussel, the brown mussel, and the green
mussel attach to surfaces of water intake structures, navigation dams, pumping stations, and
gears, often making them inoperable, which inconveniences the public and results in significant
industry costs.25 Similarly, invasive plant species such as hydrilla and water hyacinth can disrupt
water flow in irrigation canals and in utility cooling reservoirs.26
22
See Ecological and Economic Impacts and Invasion Management Strategies for the European Green Crab, U.S.
EPA: National Center of Environmental Economics (2008) (illustrating effects of green crab introduction along the
east and west coasts, including the decimation of soft-shell clam fisheries in New England). The sea lamprey caused
a massive collapse of the trout fisheries in the Great Lakes, and current U.S. and Canadian control costs total more
than $15 million annually to allow recovery, ANS Task Force available at
http://www.anstaskforce.gov/spoc/sealamprev.php (last visited 1/23/12).
23
See, e.g., Mark Mossier, Florida Crop/Pest Management Profile: Aquatic Weeds, University of Florida (Reviewed
2009) available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pil75 (approximately $22.5 million was spent in 2005 for aquatic plant
control in Florida's public waters).
24
See, e.g., The Zebra Mussel Invasion, NOAA: U.S. Dept. of Commerce available at
http://www.noaa. gov/features/earthobs 0508/zebra.html; Zebra Mussels, National Atlas available at
http://nationalatlas. gov/articles/biologv/a zm.html. Similarly, the fishhook water flea can "achieve high population
densities, forming 'clumps' that can entangle the fishing lines of anglers. Indiana Department of Natural Resources,
Spiny and Fishhook Water Flea, available a? http://www.in.gov/dnr/files/spinv and fishhook water flea.pdf.
25
The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated potential economic impact at $5 billion from 2000 to 2010 to U.S. and
Canadian water users within the Great Lakes region alone, USGS, Dept. of the Interior (2011) available at
http://www. glsc.usgs. gov/ files/factsheets/2000-6%20Zebra%20Mussels.pdf. Maintenance of pipes clogged with
zebra mussels costs the power industry up to $60 million per year while temporary shutdowns caused by reduced
water flow can cost over $5,000 an hour. It is estimated that the cost of the zebra mussel invasion to the US will be
$3.1 billion over the next ten years. Lynn Jackson, Marine Biofouling: Ann Assessment of Risks and Management
Initiatives, Global Invasive Species Programme (2008) available at
http://www.gisp.org/publications/toolkit/BiofoulingGuidelines.pdf.
369
-------
26 David Pimental et al, Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with non-indigenous species in
the United States. 52 Ecological Economics 273 (2004) ((annual expenditures on aquatic weed control in the United
States, much of which is spent on AIS weeds specifically, are estimated at $100 million).
Response: EPA recognizes, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and other documents in
the administrative record that ballast water and other ship-related vectors have been a major
source for the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the Great Lakes
and other water bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and social costs. EPA
notes that the limits and other requirements contained in the VGP are expected to substantially
reduce the environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS introductions and
establishments.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: C. Invasive Species Threaten Human Health
While the exact nature of the link between human health impacts and AIS invasions through
ballast water is poorly understood, studies have established that pathogenic invasive species can
be transported in ballast water.27 Emphasizing the serious nature of the potential threat, the
presence of non-native strains of epidemic cholera have previously been confirmed in U.S.
waters.28 Additional pathogenic bacteria identified in ballast water known to be associated with
adverse human health impacts include E. coli, enterococci, Vibrio cholerae, Clostridium
perfingens, Salmonella spp. Cryptosporidium spp., and Giardia spp., as well as a variety of
29
viruses.
D. Need to Prevent Future AIS Introductions
The EPA estimates that approximately 58 non-indigenous species currently "pose high or
medium risk for becoming established in the Great Lakes and for causing ecological harm."30
Many studies have analyzed the potential for species invasion, and while methodologies differ,
species identifying criteria often overlap. Researchers often ask whether a transport vector exists
that could introduce a species; whether a species is likely to survive transport in the identified
vector; if the species has a probability of being introduced multiple times or in large numbers; if
the species will be able to successfully reproduce; and whether the species has been known to
invade other areas.31
The discussion above on potential threats to ecosystems, economic infrastructure, and human
health, emphasizes the need to prevent the introduction of these risk-posing species. Often such
species have successfully invaded elsewhere,32 or are regarded as particularly likely to
outcompete native species.33 The complexity of analyzing AIS introduction probabilities, and the
wide range and varied nature of AIS impacts, clearly demonstrate a need to prevent the
introduction of AIS through ballast water discharges.
370
-------
27
Lisa A. Drake et al, Potential Microbial Bio-invasions via Ships' Ballast Water, Sediment, and Biofilm, 55
Marine Pollution Bulletin 333-341(2007).
28
Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Isolation of Vibrio Cholera 01 from Oysters - Mobile Bay, 1991, 1992.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Feb. 12, 1993, Vol. 42(05); 91-93.
29
Economic and Benefits Analysis of the Final Vessel General Permit (VGP), Developed For: Office of Wastewater
Management, U.S. EPA (p. 114) (Dec. 18, 2008), available online http://www.klgates.com/FCWSite/ballast water/
Final Rule/Final Economic Analvsis.pdf. Ballast water is also a vector for the microorganisms associated with the
"red tide" or harmful algal bloom phenomenon. This phenomenon occurs when certain species of algae release
toxins into an aquatic environment, which adversely impacts aquatic life and can also impact human health if fish
contaminated with the toxin are consumed. See Hallegraeff, G. M. and C. J. Bolch, Transport of diatom and
dinoflagellate resting spores via ship's ballast water: implications for plankton biogeography and aquaculture.
Journal of Plankton Research 14:1067-1084 (1992).
30
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Predicting Future Introductions of Non-indigenous Species to the Great Lakes, at 1 (Nov. 2008).
Modeling fourteen of the 58 potential invasive species showed that the shallower portions of the Great Lakes appear
to be most vulnerable to invasion. Id. at 2.
31
See, e.g., E. Baker et al, Watchlist of Potential Great Lakes Aquatic Invasive Species, NOAA: Great Lakes
Aquatic Non-indigenous Species Information System [Hereinafter: GLANIS Report] available at
http://www. glerl.noaa. gov/res/Programs/glansis/watchlist.html.
32
A. Adebayo et al, Water hyacinth and water lettuce in the Great Lakes: playing with fire? Aquatic Invasions 6:
91-96. (2011) (South American aquatic plant identified as having extensive invasion history and described as one of
the worst aquatic weeds in the world).
33
See supra Glanis Report note 22, at 97 (Table B-l) (Northern Snakehead fish identified as having high
probability of invasion in the Great Lakes based on previous devastation to freshwater ecosystems of the U.S.
because of its predacious nature, lack of natural predators, high fertility, and adaptability to a wide range of
environmental conditions).
Response: With respect to invasive species and health concerns, EPA recognizes that ballast
water can contain pathogens. Please also see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0449-A1, excerpt 4.
With respect to the "58 non-indigenous species currently posing high or medium risk for
becoming established in the Great Lakes and causing ecological harm," EPA is aware that the
Office of Research and Development's November 2008 "Predicting Future Introductions of
Non-indigenous Species to the Great Lakes" (EPA/600/R-08/066F) (hereinafter " November
2008 ORD Assessment") identified 58 such species based on a literature review of NIS life-
history characteristics and invasion histories (November 2008 ORD Assessment at pg 1). EPA
further notes that the authors, using best professional judgment, determined that while 58 species
pose the most risk for their potential to invade the Great Lakes and reach population levels that
could cause ecological impact, 28 of these 58 species are already in the Great Lakes (November
2008 ORD Assessment at pg 16). In addition, we further note that while acknowledging "current
scientific understanding of invasion biology suggests strongly that consideration of propagule
pressure should be a major component of an assessment" the assessment could only use vessel
traffic and ballast water discharges as a surrogate for propagule pressure since no data exists that
actually measures the number of propagules (e.g., living organisms) released from ballast water
discharges (November 2008 ORD Assessment at pp 12 and 47). Thus, while we acknowledge the
significance of this report in assessing the gross potential risk of non-indigenous species becoming
established in the Great Lakes, we note that due to lack of data, that assessment necessarily does
not evaluate or consider actual concentrations or amounts of living organisms in ships' ballast
water nor does it address the effect of numeric concentration based ballast water discharge
371
-------
standards, such as those in today's permit, will have on reducing the risk of invasions in the
Great Lakes. We further note that, generally similar to the conclusions reached in the 2011 NAS
study Assessing the Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast
Water, the ORD assessment indicates that "management actions that reduce the number of
released individuals, the number of introduction events, and the health of individuals released are
likely to reduce the risk of invasion" (November 2008 ORD Assessment at pg47). As explained
further in the VGP Fact Sheet and the responses to comments regarding the appropriateness of the
VGP's ballast water discharge requirements, we believe the VGP's ballast water discharge
requirements will serve to reduce both the concentration and health of organisms in ballast water
discharges, thereby reducing the risk of future invasions.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: 2.2.3 Ballast Water
The VGP should clarify that recirculating/refrigerated seawater (RSW) tanks should not be
subject to the ballast water requirements intended for large ocean-going vessels traveling from
foreign or distant U.S. ports or waters. RSW tanks are used to keep previously caught fish cold
and fresh and maintain live caught crustaceans and shellfish healthy and alive until processing.
Anonymous Public Comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1
2
No
Response: EPA does not believe that the requested change is necessary at this time, as fish
hold effluent (including RSW) is already specifically addressed in a different section of the
VGP and sVGP than ballast water (VGP section 2.8, VGP section 2.2.27). Please also see
section 9.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Anonymous Public Comment
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: Although RSW tanks may function as ballast tanks, they undergo circulation and
continuous overflow during the voyage which lowers the risk of carrying organisms from the
original location to the final destination many miles away, i.e., Seattle, WA to Dutch Harbor,
AK. Special consideration should be given to this type of ballast method.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name: Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
372
-------
Commenter Affiliation: New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0497-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed 2013 Draft Vessel General Permit (VGP). New York
fully appreciates the difficulty of regulating the discharge of ballast water in a manner that
prevents the spread of aquatic invasive species (AIS). Although EPA's proposed VGP makes
significant strides toward this goal, we believe a stronger national standard can be implemented
that is cost effective, achievable and better controls the spread of AIS. The draft VGP
acknowledges that numerous aquatic invasive species, a pollutant as defined by the Clean Water
Act (CWA), have been introduced into waters of the United States through the discharge of
ballast water. The volume of water moved via ships' ballast tanks makes ballast discharges a
major source for the introduction and spread of AIS.
Response: EPA agrees that regulation of ballast water is a difficult and complex task and that
the final 2012 VGP represents a positive step in regulating such discharges and agrees that
ballast discharges have been a major source for the introduction and spread of AIS. With
respect to the commenter's belief that a stronger standard than that contained in the VGP can be
implemented to better control the spread of AIS, the commenter is referred to discussions
elsewhere in this Response to Comment document addressing the adequacy of the VGP's
discharge standards and the availability of technologies to meet more stringent limits. EPA also
notes that the State of New York is attaching additional requirements as part of their 401
certification process and can include different or more stringent limits as is appropriate to
protect water quality standards or to be consistent with State Law. Please also see sections
9.1.1,9.1.2, 9.1.6, 9.1.9, 10, 10.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2 of this comment response document and the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A2, excerpt 9.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0497-A1
4
No
Comment: The VGP requires compliance with effluent standards for ballast water discharges
known as the IMO 02 standards. The IMO 0-2 Discharge Standards are a removal or sanitation
rate for organisms or size classes of organisms as follows:
• Organisms greater than 50 microns in minimum dimension: <10 viable organisms per
cubic meter;
• Organisms to-50 microns in minimum dimension: <10 viable organisms per ml;
373
-------
• Escherichia coli: <250 colony forming units (cfu)/100 ml;
• Intestinal Enterococci: <100 cfu/100 ml; and
• Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (01 & 0139): <1 cfu/100 ml.
While DEC supports a strong national standard that will adequately address AIS, the IMO D-2
standard is not sufficient to address the hundreds, and maybe thousands, of potential AIS that are
transported in vessel ballast water tanks. For example, it has been found that "even with the IMO
standards, per-ship discharges in excess of 106 total zooplankton remain possible."4 This would
result in a strong likelihood that ballast water discharges subject only to the IMO D-2 standard,
would have the potential to discharge AIS under EPA's proposed VGP.
Studies indicate that the IMO D-2 standard is only a marginal improvement on the current
management practice of ballast water/salt water exchange for the largest organisms (>50 um),
and is similar to the non-treatment of ballast water for smaller organisms (50 um).5 For example,
the IMO Study Group on Ballast Water and Other Ship Vectors (IMO Study Group) found that
the median concentration of the largest organisms (>50 um, generally equivalent to zooplankton)
in unmanaged ballast water was 0.4 per liter, or 400 per cubic meter. Based on that data, the IMO
Study Group recommended a discharge standard three orders of magnitude more stringent i.e.,
0.4 per cubic meter.6 Despite this recommendation, the standard ultimately adopted by the
International Maritime Organization for organisms of this size was 10 per cubic meter, which
falls between the concentration in unmanaged ballast water and the IMO Study Group's
recommendation. Therefore, the IMO D-2 standard represents only a limited improvement for
larger organisms.
The IMO Study Group also found that the median concentration of the smaller organisms <50
um (generally equivalent to phytoplankton) in unmanaged ballast water is 13.3 per milliliter.
Therefore, the IMO Study Group recommended a discharge standard three orders of magnitude
lower, i.e., 0.0133 per milliliter. However, the standard ultimately adopted by IMO for organisms
of this size was 10 per milliliter, which is essentially the same as the concentration in unmanaged
ballast water. Given this analysis that the IMO D-2 standard is not adequately protective (as it
leaves many potential AIS unmanaged) EPA should improve the protections in the proposed
VGP to provide adequate protection against further invasive species introductions via this known
vector.
4
Minton, M.S., et. al. 2005. Reducing propagule supply and coastal invasions via ships: Effects of emerging
Strategies. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2005 3(6) 304-308.
M. Falkner, el al. "California State Lands Commission Report on Performance Standards for Ballast Water
Discharges in California Waters," California State Lands Commission, Marine Facilities Division, January 2006, at
19.
6 IMO Marine Environmental Protection Committee, Study Group on Ballast Water and Other Ship Vectors,
Harmful Aquatic Organisms in Ballast Water: Comments on Draft Regulation E-2, MEPC 49/2/21 (2003), Annex I,
Sections 8 and 15(a).
Response: With respect to concerns about the adequacy of the IMO D-2 standard contained in
the final 2012 VGP, the commenter is referred to discussions elsewhere in this response to
comment document. Please also see sections 10, 10.1, 10.1.1, and 10.1.2 of this comment
response document. With respect to commenter's concern that "ballast water discharges subject
374
-------
only to the IMO D2 standard, would have the potential to discharge AIS under EPA's proposed
VGP, " EPA notes that only 100% successful and total sterilization of ballast water could
completely avoid that potential, something which is impossible to achieve. We do not agree
with commenter's concerns that the IMO Regulation D-2 standard represents "only a marginal
improvement" over current practices of ballast water exchange. In this regard we note that the
NAS study concludes, among other things, that "[djespite uncertainty about the risk-release
relationship... the IMO standards are clearly a first step forward, serving to reduce propagule
pressure and thus the scale (number and rate) of invasions" (2011NAS study Assessing the
Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast Water at pg 122). In
addition, we note that the benefits of the IMO D-2 standard as compared to ballast water
exchange extend beyond the mere numbers in the standard itself — as a practice ships may be
unable to conduct exchange due to their ballast tank design limitations or safety concerns due to
sea-state; in comparison, once a treatment system is installed, the ability to carry out treatment
to meet the IMO D-2 standard is not affected by such factors. Lastly, with respect to the
commenter's discussion of the > 50 um organisms size group, we note that the IMO D-2
standard results in a significant reduction of organisms. Please see discussion in Part 4.4.3.5 of
the Fact Sheet, where we outline what the relative reduction in living organism abundance that
treatment to the IMO D-2 standard might be, based upon concentrations of living organisms in
untreated tanks. Assuming the average of 400 organisms greater than 50 um is an accurate
average, reducing this average number to a maximum discharge concentration of 10 results in
at least a 97.5% reduction in the average number of living organisms discharged. Furthermore,
as discussed in Part 2.2.3.5 of the Fact Sheet, many ballast water tanks have upwards of ten or a
hundred thousand organisms greater than 50 um per cubic meter in their tanks. For these ballast
water discharges, we would be seeing a 99.9 to 99.99% reduction in the concentration of living
organisms. Finally, for tanks that have fewer organisms than the average, they would be
exposed to the same treatment processes as those tanks with many organisms, hence, though
due to monitoring limitations we cannot evaluate whether the discharge is substantially below
IMO, it is reasonable to assume that some systems could maintain a high percentage of
treatment efficacy, and the actual discharge for these ships may be below 10 per cubic meter.
As monitoring approaches improve and the ballast water treatment system technology matures,
we will have better understandings of these relationships. Hence, we disagree with commenter's
assertion that the IMO D-2 standard only represents a limited improvement as the numbers of
organisms removed by treatment are nontrivial.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: Definitions: Definitions of "Fish Hold" "Ballast water" and "Ballast Tank" should
be included in these draft permits.
375
-------
The criteria for whether a vessel needs a VGP or sVGP is related to length (greater or less than
79 feet) as well as capacity of ballast water (greater or less than 8 cubic meters). While the draft
permit makes the distinction in categories between "fish hold effluent" and "ballast water", no
definitions are provided.
The USCG defines ballast water in 33 CFR 151.1504 in relation to vessel stability. The
definition refers to "water and suspended matter taken on board a vessel to control or maintain,
trim, draught, stability, or stresses of the vessel. " Additional clarity can be found in USCG
NVIC Circular 07-04 Change 1 (Oct 29, 2004) which states that ballast tanks filled with fresh
water from municipal or commercial water supplies do not count as ballast water. Nor do tanks
that are permanently ballasted (with the exception of being emptied for dry docking or hauling
out). NVIC 07-04 reiterates that ballast water is related to water taken on board for trim or
stability.
We recommend that EPA make it explicitly clear that water taken onboard a commercial fishing
vessel in a fish hold for purposes of fishing and tendering (fish and shellfish) is not defined as
ballast water. It should be made clear that a fish hold is not a ballast tank - regardless of whether
the fish hold is greater than 8 cubic meters or not.
We also recommend that EPA make it clear that vessels with ballast water capacity (greater than
8 cubic meters) that have designated ballast tanks that are either filled with potable water or
permanently filled (with the exception of drydocking), are not defined as ballast water. This is
consistent with the USCG regulations and guidance.
Additionally, the threshold of 8 cubic meters is not the handiest unit of measure for commercial
fishing vessels. That translates to 2113 gallons = 283 cu ft = or a ballast tank that measures
slightly over 6.5' X 6.5' feet X 6.5' feet. EPA should provide units of measure more commonly
used on vessels than cubic meters.
Response: EPA notes that the definitions in the sVGP and VGP for "ballast water" and "ballast
tank" are based upon the USCG regulations defining those terms and thus declines to make
changes that would create inconsistent definitions between the Coast Guard and EPA programs.
(Consistency is important and should be preserved where appropriate, to avoid confusion in the
field.) In addition, the commenter does not provide any reason why one might mistake fish hold
tanks for ballast tanks when both the sVGP and VGP contain sections specific to fish hold
effluent. EPA thus has made no changes in response to this comment. Please also see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1, excerpt 2. With respect to use of
cubic meters as a unit of measurement, we note that use of metric units is commonplace in the
international community, such as shipping, is a unit of measurement used in IMO ship-related
Conventions, and that calculators for converting this unit of measure into gallons are readily
available for free on-line; we thus decline to make the requested change. For additional
discussion of definitions, please see section 6 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: J. Johnson
Commenter Affiliation:
376
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0506
1
No
Comment: Dear EPA,
You have made this ballast water thing too hard. It is easy to solve, and I have three suggestions
below. Pick which one you like - any of them will get rid of the aquatic invasive species
problem.
1) Shut down shipping: I like American products better anyway.
2) Use stones: Hey, this was a technology in the 17th century. If they could do it then, we can
do it now.
3) Magic: I mean really, if Harry Potter can make a car fly, you can sterilize everything in a
dirty ballast water tank to make it cleaner than a hospital operating room. All you need is one
6 to 10 inch stick - preferably with dragon heart string.
Thank you for considering my comments. I look forward to seeing which one of these wise
options you choose.
Response: EPA understands that these suggestions were offered in jest, but in any event notes
that the three alternatives suggested are infeasible because (1) Shutting down shipping to
control ANS is unnecessary and is economically infeasible; (2) Although stones were used as
ballast in the age of sail, their use is not feasible for modern shipping, nor would their use avoid
the potential for introduction of ANS, and (3) Magic is not "available" within the meaning of
the CWA.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
10
No
Comment: 7. Safety Precautions: Emergency Situations and Extenuating Circumstances
Canada appreciates the EPA's consideration of how best to handle safety concerns relating to
ballast water management. Canada suggests that, rather than referencing these exemptions under
section 2.2.3.5.1.4 of the draft permit, such requirements could usefully be included in section
2.2.3 of the permit; this would establish clearly that safety concerns relating to ballast water
management are paramount.
Canada has adopted a two-part approach to this matter in the Ballast Water Control and
Management Regulations under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and suggests a similar approach
to the EPA:
377
-------
• Emergencies: Subsection 4(5) of the regulations exempts vessels from ballast water
management requirements only during emergencies to ensure vessel safety, to save life at
sea, to avoid discharging a pollutant or in case of accident of navigation.
• Exceptional Circumstances: Exceptional circumstances are those in which ballast water
management actions themselves (i.e. ballast water exchange and flushing) pose safety
concerns. In these cases, section 13 of the regulations requires a vessel intending to enter
Canadian territorial waters to consult with Transport Canada 96 hours before arrival to
determine the course of action (i.e. ballast water retention, exchange, treatment and/or
release) that will reduce, to the greatest extent feasible, the risk of Introducing non-native
species.
Under this two-part regime, vessel operators routinely comply with ballast water management
requirements. (Approximately 15 vessels per year use the provisions for exceptional
circumstances.)
Response: The current location of the safety exemptions in section 2.2.3.5.1.4 of the VGP
provides adequate identification and explanation of the safety exemptions. In addition, the
exemption stated is in the specific context of the no-discharge alternative and thus should
appear in the section that addresses that alternative, not elsewhere in the VGP. Lastly, we note
that a more general safety -related exemption is already clearly stated in VGP section 2.2.3.3.6.
EPA thus declines to make the requested change. EPA notes the information provided as to
Canadian practices with respect to emergencies.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
15
Comment: Other matters that could benefit from continued scientific co-operation between our
two countries include:
• The levels of risk, compliance and efficacy for many of the requirements for ballast water
uptake listed in section 2.2.3.3 of the draft permit.
• Techniques and procedures to assist in compliance and enforcement of ballast water
treatment requirements, including indicative testing and measures of gross
noncompliance with ballast water management requirements.
• Jointly pursuing the NAS study's recommended program of research toward a better
understanding of the relationship between propagule pressure and risk of establishment of
nonnative species.
• A review of the relative importance of ballast Water compared to other vectors for
introductions of aquatic invasive species on the Great Lakes. No new non-native species
attributable to ballast water has been reported on the Great Lakes since 2006.12
378
-------
Accordingly, it is important to ensure that other vectors for the introduction of aquatic invasive
species are receiving appropriate attention.
Canada would be pleased to partner with the Government of the U.S. toward a better
understanding of these, or any other questions of mutual concern.
12
Canada requests that the EPA correct the out-of-date information to the contrary reported in section 3.4.1 of the
fact sheet.
Response: EPA agrees that scientific cooperation between countries, such as Canada and the
U.S., in matters related to prevention of ship-related ANS introductions is beneficial, but further
notes that this is a matter outside the scope of the VGP. With respect to information in section
3.4.1 of the VGP Fact Sheet, EPA has updated the line in Table 1 to note that no new invasions
have been detected since 2006, but before 2006, invasions were estimated at once per 28 weeks.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Protective Standard
With North American trade carried by foreign ships, and shipping being a global business, strong
international standards are needed. Canada is working closely with other nations to require vessel
operators to adopt internationally accepted measures and approved systems for ballast water
treatment. Both Canada and the U.S. have been very active at the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) and Canada recently ratified the IMO's International Convention for the
Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 ("the Convention").
Supported by the Government of Canada, many of the world's scientific experts on invasive
species carry out their research in Canadian universities and government laboratories adjacent to
our navigable boundary waters. Working closely with their distinguished colleagues in the U.S.
and other nations, they conduct innovative research on many vectors for invasive species,
including ballast water. These experts advise that the fresh and cold waters of the Great Lakes
System present numerous challenges for ballast water treatment. As a result, Canada and the U.S.
share concerns that ballast water treatment systems type-approved under the Convention's G-8
and G-9 guidelines will not be as environmentally protective as desired when operating in these
waters.
The Convention allows parties to add more protective measures, consistent with international
law, to protect, reduce or eliminate transfers of invasive species. As regulators, we must bear in
mind our responsibility to balance social, economic, and environmental policy goals. Those
seeking to impose more protective measures for vessels operating in our navigable boundary
waters must support proposals with peer- reviewed scientific studies estimating the level of
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
16
No
379
-------
enhanced protection to be provided by such measures, as well as cost-benefit and feasibility
analyses. Otherwise, additional requirements may be identified as an unnecessary barrier to
shipping and trade.
Response: This is not a comment on provisions in the VGP, and as such no further response is
necessary. EPA does note that fresh and cold waters can pose challenges to effective treatment
of ballast water but does not agree, as this comment seems to suggest, that all systems approved
under the IMO G8 and G9 Guidelines are necessarily less protective when operating in such
waters. With respect to comments on the IMO Ballast Water Convention's more protective
measures provisions, we note that the US is not signatory to that Convention, nor, at the time
this response was prepared, had it entered into force internationally. We further note that that
Convention's provisions on more stringent measures (Article 2(3) and Regulation C-l) speak
for themselves and make no mention of a required use of "peer-reviewed scientific studies."
EPA further rejects any suggestion that protective measures that are base on information other
than 'peer-reviewed scientific studies estimating the level of enhanced protection to be provided
by such measures, as well as cost-benefit and feasibility analysis ' would necessarily constitutes
'an unnecessary barrier to shipping and trade.'
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Need For Certainty
Canada sees an urgent need for clear, ecosystem-wide, science-based, practicable and effective
ballast water regulations that will allow vessel operators to confidently invest in approved
treatment systems for new and existing ships. This is particularly important on the Great Lakes,
where Canada has recently addressed important barriers to fleet renewal for laker ships. The
Canadian marine industry is ready to spend more than $1 billion over the next 10 years to replace
the domestic fleet and many are ready to place orders.
This renewal is expected to promote significant environmental improvements in the near term.
Uncertainty surrounding ballast water regulation is adversely affecting this policy goal, thus
detracting from overall environmental progress.
There is concern that uncertainty in ballast water regulation may trigger a re-allocation of supply
and/or movement away from marine transportation to road or rail. This impact could be more
predominant for low value commodities and/or where alternative sources of supply can be found.
We would appreciate that the U.S. consider the risks and consequences of modal shift and
reduced economic activity, as well as associated social and environmental costs.
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
18
No
380
-------
In conclusion, Canada values the longstanding cooperation we have enjoyed with the U.S. in
managing our navigable boundary waters. Canada invited the U.S. to discuss a bi- national,
science-based ballast water management standard that is technology-aware, feasible, enforceable
and internationally compatible, and that aims to manage our navigable boundary waters as
complete ecosystems.
Response: With respect to the commenter's concern about the need for clear, ecosystem-wide,
science-based, practicable and effective ballast water regulations, EPA notes that the VGP is
national in scope and establishes numeric concentration based limits on ballast water discharges
that are consistent with the IMO regulation D-2 standard, which is a standard reflected in
Canadian law as well. We thus believe that the VGP contributes to the approach suggested by
the comment for regulation of ballast water. EPA further notes, however, that the discharges
covered by the VGP remain subject to regulation under State authorities preserved under CWA
section 510, and that, as an NPDES permit issued by EPA under authority of the CWA, the
VGP is subject to imposition of more stringent conditions by States in accordance with CWA
section 401 as well. See generally, Lake Carriers Ass'n v. EPA, 652 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
Please see section 12 of this comment response document for additional discussion.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Director, Environment &
Sustainability, Maerks Line North America Liner
Operations
Maersk Line
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0513-A1
13
No
Comment: 6. The requirement that vessels built after Jan. 1, 2012, meet US requirements is in
conflict with the requirement that ballast water treatment systems be approved only through the
EPA ETV. Since no systems have yet completed the ETV process, vessels under construction or
in design face uncertainty, technical risks and potential delays in defining the systems that meet
all requirements, and when they will be deemed acceptable. Clarity on these requirements and
reasonable timelines for design and installation are very important.
Response: EPA notes, at the time this comment was submitted, there was no conflict in the
draft VGP with a U.S requirement that ballast water systems be approved only through EPA
ETV. Establishment of U.S. type-approval requirements is the responsibility of the Coast
Guard, not EPA, and Coast Guard regulations establishing such requirements, including
incorporation by reference of the ETV testing protocols into the U.S. type-approval, did not
take place until 2012. See, 77 FR 17254 (March 23, 2102) and 46 C.F.R. 162.060-5(d). We
further note while use of the ETV protocols may now be required for U.S. Coast Guard type-
approval, their relevant regulations also allow for use of "alternative management systems"
approved by foreign Administrations and for which quality data relating to their approval is
available. See, 33 C.F.R. 151.1504 and 151.2026. As discussed in section 4.4.3.5.5(a) the Fact
Sheet for the final 2012 VGP, by changing its definition of "new build" vessels in the final
VGP, EPA has essentially modified the schedule for new vessel compliance with the VGP's
381
-------
ballast water discharge standard. That change is consistent with the Coast Guard regulations and
its equipment approval requirements. With respect to the implementation schedule, please see
the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 11. Additionally, EPA
has clarified that systems receiving either AMS approval or are US Coast Guard type approved
meet EPA's initial requirements of systems which have been tested at an independent third
party facility.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruno Pigott, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Water
Quality, Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM)
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0515-A1
1
No
Comment: IDEM recommends that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
develop national standards for ballast water discharge that adequately protect the water resources
of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River ecosystem. This can be most effectively done by
creating a robust national regulatory system between the USEPA and the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) rather than a state-by-state approach, and implementing a strong enforcement program
that will deter violators from discharges that introduce and spread aquatic invasive species (AIS).
Response: With respect to development of national ballast water standards that are adequately
protective of the Great Lakes and St Lawrence River, EPA notes that the final 2012 VGP is
responsive to this recommendation and establishes, as a technology-based numeric ballast water
discharge limit, a standard that is consistent with that adopted by the Coast Guard in their
March 23, 2012 rulemaking (77 FR 17254), and further provides, as a water quality based limit,
ballast water exchange plus treatment by oceangoing vessels entering the Great Lakes after
taking on freshwater or brackish ballast water (VGP section 2.2.3.7). With respect to the
commenter's desire for use of a national system rather than a state-by-state approach, EPA
notes that the discharges covered by the VGP remain subject to regulation under State
authorities preserved under CWA section 510, and that, as an NPDES permit issued by EPA
under authority of the CWA, the VGP is subject to imposition of more additional conditions by
States in accordance with CWA section 401 as well. See generally, Lake Carriers Ass'n v.
EPA, 652 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir., 2011). With respect to the desire for a strong enforcement program,
please see the enforcement related discussion in the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0446-A1, excerpt 10.
Commenter Name: Mark W. Barker, President, Interlake Steamship
Commenter Affiliation: The Interlake Steamship Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0516-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
382
-------
Comment: Interlake and its fellow Great Lakes operators have voluntarily taken, and Interlake
will continue to take, many steps to reduce their environmental footprints, and to protect the
Great Lakes region that is so important to our business. Neither Interlake's ships nor any other
Lakers operated by Interlake's competitors exclusively within the Great Lakes have ever
introduced a single non-indigenous species into the Great Lakes,
Response: We appreciate steps taken by Great Lakes operators to reduce their environmental
footprint. We further note that although vessels that operate exclusively on the Great Lakes may
not have a role in the original introduction of invasive species into the Lakes, they can play a
role in the subsequent spread of such species within the Lakes. For instance, please see Briski,
E., Wiley, C. J., & Bailey, S. A. 2012. Role of domestic shipping in the introduction or
secondary spread of non-indigenous species: biological invasions within the Laurentian Great
Lakes. Journal of Applied Ecology, which clearly shows that domestic vessels pose risks for
dispersing introduced species. In light of that potential, the VGP appropriately establishes in
VGP Part 2.2.3.4 requirements for "Lakers" to help control the spread of invasive species in the
Lakes.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
3
No
Comment: We cannot over emphasize the fact that shipping is a global industry, carrying 90%
of the world's trade, and that clear, international regulations are essential for its operations. As
recently stated by BIMCO - one of the world' preeminent associations representing the global
shipping industry - "it is important for the shipping industry and those regulating its activities to
engage in constructive dialogue to find workable solutions that will be supported internationally
(Reflections 20122). We echo these comments and remain available to work with EPA towards
such a result.
2
https://www.bimco.org/upload/emag/Reflectionsv2-2012/l1ash.hlml#/l/.
Response: EPA agrees that shipping is a global industry and has taken that into account in
developing VGP terms and conditions.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A4
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
383
-------
Comment: See original comment for NEW DATA and Tables.
Response: This comment contains a USCG document of a ballast tank study conducted. Please
see the response to other excerpts from EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527 for general discussion
of issues around Lakers. EPA has reviewed and considered the results from this Coast Guard
study.
Comment: Whereas, ballast water discharge from vessels as a vector for the introduction and
movement of aquatic invasive species (AIS) in the freshwaters of the Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence River remains an important concern for the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes and
the St. Lawrence River; and
Whereas, the Great Lakes Commission recognizes and wishes to build upon the measures
implemented by both the private sectors and government on both sides of the border with the
result that no new ballast-borne species have been discovered in the Great Lakes since 2006; and
Whereas, the Canadian federal government has signed on to the regulatory regime and timetable
advanced by the International Maritime Organization; and
Whereas, AIS in the Great Lakes impact such critical sectors of the regional economy as electric
power generation, commercial and sport fishing, recreational boating and tourism, and public
water supply; and
Whereas, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) exclusion for vessel discharges was legally challenged by several
environmental organizations and Great Lakes States and struck down by the 9th Circuit Court,
rendering all discharges incidental to normal vessel operations, including ballast water, unlawful,
effective 2008, unless authorized by an NPDES permit, which is subject to certification by the
states under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act that permitted discharges meet state water
quality standards; and
Whereas, the Vessel General Permit (VGP) issued in December 2008 by the EPA includes 26
types of vessel discharges including ballast water and incorporated Section 401 Water Quality
Certifications from individual states; and
Whereas, enactment of the U.S. Coast Guard rule on the federal ballast water discharge standard
under the National Invasive Species Act, first promised in 2004 and eventually proposed in
August of 2009, has been delayed by a prolonged review period; and
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tim Eder, Executive Director, Great Lakes Commission
Great Lakes Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0528-A1
1
No
384
-------
Whereas, installation of ballast water treatment technology will be a significant expense to the
shipping industry, but treatment technology is under development, being tested and installed on
some ships; and
Whereas, in the absence of adequate federal regulation of ballast water discharges and a
protective federal standard for ballast water treatment, several Great Lakes states have adopted
their own ballast water control and treatment requirements and imposed conditions on their
Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certifications; and
Whereas, individual states' requirements vary in implementation schedules and ballast water
treatment performance standards, ranging from International Maritime Organization (IMO)
equivalent standards to one thousand times IMO standards; and
Whereas, the Great Lakes Commission, the Council of Great Lakes Governors, the Great Lakes-
St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, among other
regional institutions, have consistently expressed a strong preference for protective federal
ballast water treatment standards that may be applied uniformly throughout the region, as
opposed to the current jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction regulatory approach; and
Whereas, the Canadian and U.S. St. Lawrence Seaway Corporation's ballast water control and
management regulations require all vessels entering waters under Canadian or U.S. St. Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation jurisdiction to manage ballast water for the prevention of AIS;
and
Whereas, in 2010, 100 percent of vessels bound for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway from
outside the Exclusive Economic Zone received a ballast tank exam (on each of the 415 transits)
by joint inspection teams representing Transport Canada, U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. and
Canadian Seaway corporations to comply with the 30 part per thousand salinity requirement.
Therefore, be it resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission renews its call that the U.S. federal
government enact national policies that encourage rapid development of ballast water treatment
technologies and to enforce effective and achievable ballast water treatment standards that are
protective of this region's freshwater resources; and
Be it further resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission urges Congress and U.S. federal
agencies to work closely with the Great Lakes states and offers its assistance to develop ballast
water policies and standards that protect the Great Lakes basin from further invasion while
maintaining a level national economic playing field; and
Be it further resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission urges U.S. EPA to consult with Great
Lakes states during the development of its vessel general permit to facilitate a smooth and
efficient certification procedure under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act; and
Be it further resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission urges U.S. EPA and the Coast Guard to
consult with the shipping industry and interest groups that will be affected by the discharge
regulations; and
385
-------
Be it finally resolved, that the Great Lake Commission urges the Governments of Canada and the
United States to pursue continued bi-national harmonization of federal ballast water treatment
standards and enforcement mechanisms.
Response: EPA appreciates receiving a copy of the resolution and notes that the VGP includes
provisions that address concerns related in the "be it resolved" paragraphs of this resolution
such as:
• Technology-based numeric discharge limits on living organisms in ballast water
discharges, a schedule for their implementation, as well as water quality based effluent
limitations;
• Coordination with the Coast Guard and states in developing the VGP;
• Coordination (including via USEPA regional offices) with Great Lakes states on 401
certification matters;
• Consideration of shipping industry and interest group views via public
meetings/hearings and solicitation of public comment on the draft VGP.
Commenter Name: Tim Eder, Executive Director, Great Lakes Commission
Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Commission
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0528-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: In closing, the Great Lakes Commission restates the importance of the EPA's VGP
program as a tool to prevent the introduction and spread of AIS in the waters of the Great Lakes
- St. Lawrence River. It is also critical that the EPA consult with the Great Lakes states during
the finalization of the VGP, to take advantage of states' expertise and to maximize efficiency for
the states' 401 certification processes. The Commission encourages EPA to retain the ballast
water exchange and /salt water flushing requirement in its final rule and to make it required
nation-wide. Finally, EPA should continue coordinating its work with the U.S. Coast Guard to
ensure the development of a consistent, national ballast water treatment standard that reconciles
and harmonizes federal requirements and enforcement.
Response: EPA appreciates the comment and has continued to coordinate with Great Lakes
States and the Coast Guard in developing the final VGP. We further note that the final 2012
VGP does retain (in section 2.2.3.7) the exchange plus treatment requirement for certain
oceangoing vessels entering the Great lakes, but does not extend this into a nationwide
requirement. Please see section 10.1.2 of this comment response document for further
discussion of that issue.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A1
386
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: As the attached comments indicate, we have conducted a detailed analysis of the
permit and offer information or suggested changes therein. While proposing many changes from
the current EPA permit, this draft permit most significantly seeks to establish numeric effluent
limits and management practices for ballast water. In that regard a significant portion of our
comments are focused on that section of the permit. We have two general thoughts which we
will address in this cover letter, while providing more specific analysis to the provisions of the
permit in the attached comments.
Response: The specific comments received are addressed elsewhere in this response to
comment document.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 34
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 86 Definition of Ballast Water - This definition must make clear that water other
than sea water that is stored in ballast tanks (e.g. gray water or permeate) is not ballast water
regardless of whether it serves the purpose of maintaining the stability, trim, heel or stress
distribution of the vessel.
Response: The definition of ballast water in the VGP is based upon the definition contained in
Coast Guard regulations and we decline to create unnecessary inconsistencies between the EPA
and Coast Guard definitions by altering the EPA definition in the manner suggested by this
comment. We note that what constitutes ballast water will depend on vessel-specific
circumstances; the commenter's general description of the issue does not provide enough
information for EPA to determine what the outcome would be in their circumstances. We
further note that as provided in that definition (ballast water is water "taken on board a vessel to
control or maintain, trim, draught, stability, or stresses of the vessel"), we would take into
account whether water taken on board serves such functions when applying that definition,
including any relevant fact-specific situations affecting such interpretation.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
2
No
387
-------
Comment: Ballast water that large oceangoing commercial ships carry to steady themselves is
the primary source of new species invasions to the Great Lakes. Wisconsin DNR has ongoing
concerns about the health and integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem and in preventing the
introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species (A1S) from ballast water within the
ecosystem. This is a serious environmental and economic threat. The estimated annual cost of
controlling one A1S, the zebra mussel, in the Great Lakes now ranges from 100 to 400 million
dollars. AIS threaten to dramatically change the Great Lakes ecosystem. A1S have competed
with, preyed upon, infected and substantially altered the environment of our native species of
plants, fish and wildlife. Furthermore, they have harmed recreational and commercial fishing as
well as tainted water supplies. EPA must strive to diminish and ultimately eliminate the impact
of ballast water discharges on both the economy and ecology of the Great Lakes.
Wisconsin DNR appreciates EPA's inclusion in the draft VGP2 items of highest concern to
Wisconsin DNR, including Ballast Water Exchange (BWE) or saltwater flushing, best
management practices (BMPs) for confined Great Lakes vessels (Lakers), and the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) technology based effluent limit (TBEL) numeric standard.
Response: EPA recognizes, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and other documents in
the administrative record that ballast water has been a major source for the introduction and
spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the Great Lakes and other water bodies, resulting
in significant environmental, economic, and social costs. We agree that EPA needs to continue
to strive to diminish impacts of ballast water discharges and believe that the limits and other
requirements contained in the VGP are expected to substantially reduce the environmental,
economic, and social costs from new ANS introductions and establishments. We acknowledge
Wisconsin DNR's support for inclusion of the various ballast water related provisions that are
referred to in this comment and note that such provisions generally continue to be included in
the final 2012 VGP. EPA does note the definition of an existing "Laker" has changed in the
final VGP, see comments elsewhere in the response to comments documents, especially the
response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document. Finally, EPA appreciates
Wisconsin's involvement with ballast water issues, including conducting a 2010 study, in
partnership with the Great Lakes Collaborative, to examine the efficacy of existing ballast water
treatment systems. Those results helped inform EPA's determinations for today's permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
5
No
Comment: Nationwide Permit
The Department strongly supports the development of national performance and permitting
standards for ballast water discharges. Nationwide standards are needed that are implemented
consistently on the Great Lakes and in all national waters. Furthermore, because the transfer of
non-indigenous species via ballast water is an international issue, regulations for the
388
-------
management of ballast water to prevent introductions will be most effective if applied
internationally. Recognizing the need for EPA to act now, Wisconsin DNR supports the
national application of ballast water discharge standards and their regulations through the
NPDES permit process. Furthermore, it is essential that EPA publish effluent limitations
guidelines for ballast water discharges.
Response: We note the support for the development of national standards which also need to
be applied to international shipping and the use of the NPDES process to accomplish this. We
further note that while the VGP is national in scope and establishes numeric limits for ballast
water discharges, discharges covered by the VGP remain subject to regulation under State
authorities preserved under CWA section 510, and that, as an NPDES permit issued by EPA
under authority of the CWA, the VGP is subject to imposition of more stringent conditions by
States in accordance with CWA section 401 as well. See generally, Lake Carriers Ass'n v. EPA,
652 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir., 2011). With respect to the request that EPA publish effluent limitations
guidelines for ballast water discharges, we note that this issue involves EPA authority under
CWA section 304 rather than section 402, and is outside the scope of the VGP.
Commenter Name: Douglas B. Schneider, World Shipping Council (WSC)
Commenter Affiliation: World Shipping Council (WSC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: C. The Technology Installation Schedule for Existing Vessels Appears Reasonable.
The draft VGP would adopt a technology installation schedule for existing ships -- specifically
ships constructed prior to January 1, 2012 -- that aligns with the schedule contained in the IMO
Ballast Water Management Convention. This is a reasonable approach because existing
oceangoing commercial vessels will need to be taken out of service and typically placed in dry-
dock to facilitate the installation of the treatment technology. Taking advantage of the existing
process for scheduling dry-dockings will provide a structure that allows technology vendors,
marine engineers, and installation technicians to manage the demand for systems installations in
an orderly fashion. Assuming that the treatment technology testing and approval processes
discussed in more detail in the next section of these comments are completed promptly, it should
be possible to meet the proposed schedule for existing vessels. If there is further delay in the
Coast Guard process, then that schedule may become infeasible.
Response: As discussed in the final 2012 VGP's Fact Sheet (see section 4.4.3.5.5), the
schedule contained in the final VGP is generally consistent with the schedule in the IMO
Convention. With respect to feasibility of that schedule, we note the final VGP, which is also
consistent with final Coast Guard regulations on this matter, does adjust that schedule with
respect to "new" vessels. With respect to the implementation schedule, please see the response
to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 11.
389
-------
Commenter Name:
Nick Schroeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes
Environmental Law Center
Great Lakes Environmental Law Center
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0535-A2
2
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Aquatic invasive species (AIS) are non-native fish, aquatic animals, smaller
organisms, viruses and plants that threaten the ecological integrity and economic future of the
Great Lakes region. Once AIS are introduced and established, there can be drastic impacts to the
ecosystem and economy. Aquatic invasive species compete with native species for food and
habitat. Because there are no natural predators to keep them in check, they have a distinct
advantage over native species.1 In many cases, their population explodes after just a few short
years and they can dramatically alter the ecosystem. Once in the system, it is almost impossible
to eliminate these invaders. The best strategy is to prevent them from entering the ecosystem in
the first place.2 Several examples of aquatic invasive species include the zebra mussel, quagga
mussel, white perch, ruffe, sea lamprey, and Eurasian milfoil.
Ballast water is a major vector for the introduction and spread of non-native species into aquatic
ecosystems. An estimated 10,000 marine species are transported around the world in ballast
water every day.3 Furthermore, nearly 30% of new species are unintentionally brought to the
Great Lakes in the ballast tanks of ocean going vessels. This growing epidemic clearly
establishes that current discharge requirements under CWA section 402 National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are simply not stringent enough.
1 Great Lakes Commission des Grand Lacs, Great Lakes Aquatic Invasions, Booklet (2007).
2 Id.
3
NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2007, http://www.csc.noaa.gov/.
Response: EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and other
documents in the administrative record that ballast water has been a major source for the
introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the Great Lakes and other water
bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and social costs. EPA notes that the
limits and other requirements contained in the VGP are expected to substantially reduce the
environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS introductions and establishments.
Commenter Name: Nick Schroeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes
Comment: For all of the above reasons, we respectfully request that EPA fulfill its duty to
protect the health of our nations' waters by requiring strict permit conditions. The VGP must
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Environmental Law Center
Great Lakes Environmental Law Center
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0535-A2
13
No
390
-------
require standards more stringent than the IMO, and numeric ballast water treatment limits should
be applicable to Lakers. Moreover, the EPA should compress the compliance timeline for
vessels. Ships entering the Great Lakes should continue to perform the interim measures of
saltwater flushing and ballast water exchange. Finally, the sVGP should require an NOI and a
PARI, as both are administratively simple procedures, with great benefits.
Response: As explained in the Fact Sheet for the final 2012 VGP, EPA believes that the final
VGP is fully consistent with the mandates of the CWA. With respect to commenter's concerns
as to adequacy of IMO standards, applicability of numeric limits to "Lakers," and compression
of the compliance timeline, the commenter is referred to the responses to comments elsewhere,
please see sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.6, 9.1.9, 10, 10.1, and 10.1.1 of this comment response
document. With respect to the request that ships entering the Great Lakes should continue to
perform flushing and exchange, we note that the final 2012 VGP retains such a provision in
section 2.2.3.7.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A2
1
No
Comment: The Great Lakes define the State of Michigan and protection of this precious water
resource from new introductions of aquatic invasive species (AIS) is an economic and ecological
imperative. Four of the Great Lakes (Superior, Huron, Michigan, and Erie) largely define the
borders of Michigan's upper and lower peninsulas. Michigan enjoys 3,300 miles of Great Lakes
shoreline. The Great Lakes provide premier boating and fishing opportunities that are critical to
Michigan's $15 billion annual tourism industry. Strong federal ballast water management
regulations are required to prevent the irreparable harm to Michigan's water resources, to our
highly regarded fishing industry, and ultimately to tourism in our state.
Ballast water from oceangoing vessels is the predominant pathway of new AIS invasions to the
Great Lakes. The total economic impact (damages/economic losses and management/control
costs) of AIS in the Great Lakes region is estimated to be as high as $5.7 billion per year. In
particular, annual losses to the Great Lakes region by ship-borne invasive species is estimated to
be at least $200 million due to impacts to sport fishing, commercial fishing, wildlife watching,
and raw water usage. The unpredictable, unanticipated and long-lasting nature of impacts from
AIS once they are established highlights the importance of having prevention as a top priority.
Michigan's primary concern relative to vessel operation continues to focus on the establishment
and implementation of regulations to protect the Great Lakes from the devastating effects of
continued introductions of AIS through ballast water discharges from oceangoing vessels.
Response: EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and other
documents in the administrative record that ballast water has been a major source for the
introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the Great Lakes and other water
391
-------
bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and social costs. EPA notes that the
limits and other requirements contained in the VGP are expected to substantially reduce the
environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS introductions and establishments. We
agree that strong federal ballast water regulations will help protect resources of concern to
Michigan, and as explained in the Fact Sheet for the final 2012 VGP, EPA believes that the
final VGP is fully consistent with the mandates of the CWA. We further note that discharges
covered by the VGP remain subject to regulation under Michigan State authorities preserved
under CWA section 510, and that, as an NPDES permit issued by EPA under authority of the
CWA, the VGP is subject to imposition of more stringent conditions by Michigan in accordance
with CWA section 401 as well. See generally, Lake Carriers Ass'n v. EPA, 652 F.3d 1 (D.C.
Cir., 2011).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Raymond W. Johnston, President, Chamber of Marine
Commerce (CMC)
Chamber of Marine Commerce (CMC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0541-A2
3
No
Comment: Although the EPA's draft 2013 VGP covers many different pollutants which may be
introduced via many different vectors, CMC's submission focuses solely on those sections of the
draft VGP that pertain to ballast water discharge, the most significant regulatory issue to our
broad membership.
CMC readily acknowledges that shipboard ballast water is an important variable in the control
and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS). However, whereas the science to conclusively
demonstrate scope and magnitude of ANS transfer and spread via ships is less than clear and
conclusive, the statistics on the scope and magnitude of benefits to society of commercial
shipping is significantly more certain and obvious.
Response: As described in the Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, documents in the administrative
record for the final VGP, and as evidenced in published peer reviewed literature in scientific
journals, the role of discharges from ships' ballast water and hull fouling as a major source for
the introduction or spread of aquatic nuisance species is well known and thoroughly
documented. In addition, EPA notes that the 2011 NAS study Assessing the Relationship
Between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast Water addresses the contribution of
ballast water discharges to the introduction and spread of ANS, with numerous literature
references, and concludes, on page 26, that despite the role of other vectors "ballast water (and
other vector) control, restraint, and supervision are critical and will prove of inestimable value
in protecting and preserving the beneficial uses and the indigenous populations of fish,
shellfish, and other wildlife in the nation's waters." EPA thus does not agree with the
commenter's unsupported and unfounded assertion that evidence as to the scope and magnitude
of ANS introduction or transfer via ships is less than clear and conclusive, nor that such
evidence is somehow less "certain and obvious" than evidence as to the benefits of commercial
shipping. The economic, ecological, and social costs of ANS to the U.S. economy and our
392
-------
ecosystems are significant and clear.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Raymond W. Johnston, President, Chamber of Marine
Commerce (CMC)
Chamber of Marine Commerce (CMC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0541-A2
10
No
Comment: By its very nature, shipping is an international business, necessitating frequent
transits across multiple jurisdictional boundaries. And yet, for many years now, the marine
transportation industry has been burdened with inconsistent and often multiple, overlapping
authorities crafting regulatory instruments over ballast water discharges. Throughout this
timeframe, industry has been - and continues to be - steadfast in its goodwill to work with
governments to arrive at sensible, practical, protective and economically sound regulations. But
it must be noted and underscored that, to the extent evidenced in this draft VGP, while ballast
water regulations appear to be moving in the right direction in terms of international
harmonization, the continuing cumulative cost of the regulatory bureaucracy inherent in the lack
of harmonization and coordination of regulatory processes to industry and society as a whole has
been excessive.
With this point in mind, CMC looks forward to seeing greater collaboration by the EPA with
agencies like the U.S. Coast Guard and the International Maritime Organization, as well as with
other governments, particularly individual state governments as well as the Government of
Canada and Transport Canada, so as to achieve regulatory objectives in as harmonized and
inclusive a manner possible. Indeed, for the most part, industry generally enjoys collegial,
professional and productive working relationships with governments and agencies as well as the
science community and academia, all working towards advancements all the while mindful of
economic imperatives.
The Chamber of Marine Commerce appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA's draft 2013
VGP and looks forward to continue working with stakeholders like the EPA towards
harmonized, practical and protective ballast water standards.
Response: EPA agrees with commenter that shipping is an international business. With respect
to concerns over multiple, overlapping authorities for ballast water discharges, EPA notes that
its regulation of incidental discharges, including ballast water from ships, under the NPDES
program is the result of a court order vacating an EPA regulation that had formerly excluded
such discharges from the NPDES program, and that without authorization to discharge under an
NPDES permit such as the VGP, ships would be at risk of violating the no-discharge-without-a-
permit prohibition in CWA § 301(a). See generally, Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. EPA, 537
F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2008); see also, discussion of CWA background in sections 2.1 and 2.2 of
the VGP Fact Sheet. With respect to commenter's concern regarding "lack of harmonization
and coordination of regulatory processes" we note that, as described in the paragraph below,
EPA extensively coordinates its vessel related regulatory activities with the Coast Guard, IMP,
393
-------
and Canada. To the extent this comment may be referring to regulatory activities by individual
U.S. states, we note that discharges covered by the VGP remain subject to regulation under
State authorities preserved under CWA section 510, and that, as an NPDES permit issued by
EPA under authority of the CWA, the VGP is subject to imposition of more stringent conditions
by states in accordance with CWA section 401 as well. See generally, Lake Carriers Ass'n v.
EPA, 652 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir., 2011). However, EPA notes that numerous States have coordinated
their requirements across their jurisdictions, generally resulting in consistent discharge limits
across almost all State boundaries for this VGP.
While commenter's request for greater EPA collaboration with the Coast Guard, IMO, and
Canada is outside the scope of the VGP, EPA notes that commenter does not identify what such
"greater cooperation" would entail. We further note that EPA already extensively coordinates
with these bodies including, among other things:
• Coordination with the Coast Guard in development of the ETV ballast water treatment
system testing protocols, development of ballast treatment standards, participating as a
cooperating agency for the Coast Guard's DEIS for ballast water standard standards, and
coordinating support with the Coast Guard for 2011 NAS and EPA SAB studies related
to ballast water discharges;
• Participation in the delegation representing the U.S at the IMO's Marine Environment
Protection Committee including development of text for the IMO ballast water
Convention and related implementing guidelines;
• Coordination with Canada under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement on ballast
water and other issues; and
• Coordination with Canada, the States, and the Coast Guard under the auspices of the
Ballast Water Collaborative.
EPA's coordination of State communication via a National States meeting, EPA led regional
conference call, and an electronic tool for States to share information with each other in
development of their 401 certifications.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James Zehringer, Director, Environmental Services
Section, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR)
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR),
Environmental Services Section
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0542-A2
1
No
Comment: As Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources I am writing today to
notify you of the serious concerns that both I, and the career invasive species and watercraft
professionals in my Department, have with the proposed conditions being proposed by your
agency relevant to the Vessel General Permit.
It is our assessment that these proposed conditions are too timid in dealing with the treatment of
ballast by large commercial vessels, which we believe are the primary source of damaging
394
-------
invasive species in the Great Lakes, while at the same time, impose unnecessary and
ineffective, yet economically-crippling, new regulations on Ohio's travel and tourism industry.
Specifically we recommend strengthening limitations on ballast water discharge and to
accelerate the implementation of more stringent ballast water treatment systems on existing
freight vessels.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0544-A2, excerpt 1.
Comment: As Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources I am writing today to
notify you of the serious concerns that both I, and the career invasive species and watercraft
professional in my Department, have with the proposed conditions being proposed by your
agency relevant to the Vessel General Permit.
It is our assessment that these proposed conditions are too timid in dealing with the treatment of
ballast by large commercial vessels, which we believe are the primary source of damaging
invasive species in the Great Lakes, while at the same time, impose unnecessary and ineffective,
yet economically-crippling, new regulations on Ohio's travel and tourism industry.
Specifically we recommend strengthening limitations on ballast water discharge and to
accelerate the implementation of more stringent ballast water treatment systems on existing
freight vessels.
As to conditions proposed for commercial vessels less than 79 feet: these proposed reporting and
inspection requirements will negatively impact - with nor clear rational or basis for imposing
these conditions - vessels used for law enforcement, emergency response, wildlife enforcement,
rescue, marine research, education, tourism and recreational fishing. Further, we question the
enforceability of the sVGP and the potential impacts such enforcement could have on both State
and local government, as well as on small vessel operators.
We submit that requiring costly new regulations on Ohio's $2 billion sport fishery will devastate
Ohio's recreational character boat captains who are already dealing with our continuing
economic downturn.
Ms. Jackson, we respectfully request that you re-examine these proposed conditions and put
the necessary restrictions where they are most needed, while not imposing undue economic
Commenter Name:
James Zehringer, Director, Ohio Department of Natural
Resources (ODNR), Environmental Services Section
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR),
Environmental Services Section
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0544-A2
1
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
395
-------
damage on the recreational industry with conditions that we can find no good reason or scientific
basis for implementing.
Response: With respect to commenter's concern that VGP "conditions are too timid in dealing
with the treatment of ballast by large commercial vessels," the commenter does not offer any
specific concerns or suggest improvements to address their general concern, other than
recommending an unspecified "strengthening" of ballast water limitations and acceleration of
the treatment system installation schedule for existing ships. With respect to the commenter's
general concern and the need for strengthening limitations on ballast water discharges, EPA
notes that as explained in the Fact Sheet for the Final VGP (e.g., Fact Sheet section 4.4.3 and
following subsections thereto) and elsewhere in this response to comment document (e.g., see
sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.6, 9.1.9, 10, 10.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2 of this comment response document),
EPA has concluded that the VGP limitations on ballast water are appropriate and fully comply
with the mandates of the CWA. With respect to commenter's desire for an accelerated
implementation schedule for existing ships, EPA does not believe such acceleration is feasible
as explained in section 4.4.3.5.5 of the VGP Fact Sheet. With respect to comments on the
sVGP, EPA is not taking action on that permit today.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Ballast Water
The proposed VGP covers more than two—dozen different vessel discharges. Nevertheless, our
comments will focus on the discharge of ballast water. Ballast water discharges have been
identified as one of the primary vectors by which non-native species have been introduced into
the Great Lakes. Absent natural predators, these organisms can reproduce quickly, displacing
native fish and plant life. The shipping industry acknowledges the role it plays in moving
organisms around the globe and is committed to taking steps to minimize and eventually
eliminate the problem.
We supported enactment of the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990, and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. Together these laws require ocean—going
vessel operators to exchange their ballast water at sea prior to entering U.S. ports. We also
supported efforts by the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, the St. Lawrence
Seaway Management Corporation, the U.S. Coast Guard and Transport Canada to require all
ocean-going vessels entering the St. Lawrence Seaway to conduct saltwater flushing of ballast
tanks regardless of whether they contain ballast water. Ballast exchange and saltwater flushing
are management practices that have been shown to reduce the number of viable organisms in
ships' ballast tanks. Implemented in 2006, these requirements represent the most stringent ballast
water management regime in the world. Today, every ship entering the Seaway from overseas is
stopped, boarded and inspected to ensure compliance.
Steven A. Fisher, Executive Director, American Great
Lakes Ports Association
American Great Lakes Ports Association
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0545-A2
2
No
396
-------
While these management practices are important interim measures for the Great Lakes Seaway
system, we believe the best long-term solution is installation of ballast water treatment systems
onboard ocean-going ships. In 2004, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), developed
a global agreement requiring all ship owners to install environmental technology to clean or treat
ballast water to a specific water quality standard to prevent the movement of species. The IMO is
the maritime arm of the United Nations and coordinates international shipping policy. Our
organization supports these international requirements.
Response: We note the commenter's expressed support for regulation of ships' ballast water in
order to control ANS and agree the best solution is to transition from current practices to
installation of ballast water treatment systems. With respect to commenter's support for the
IMO's ballast water discharge standard, we note that the numeric ballast water discharge
standards contained in the final 2012 VGP are consistent with those IMO standards.
Commenter Name: Michael Lund, Chief Maritime Politics and Economics,
The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Commenter Affiliation: The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0548-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: BIMCO appreciates the opportunity to provide comments relevant to the above
referenced notice seeking stakeholder input on the proposed vessel general permit (VGP).
BIMCO will in its contribution focus on the ballast water treatment part of the new VGP due to
the massive impact this will have on shipping and the more detailed elements of the VGP is well
covered by others like the Chamber of Shipping of America.
Response: EPA notes that the specific comments submitted are addressed elsewhere in this
comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
League's Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
1
No
Comment: We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Vessel General Permit. The Izaak
Walton League supports strong federal protections against the introduction of invasive aquatic
species into our Great Lakes from ballast water dischargers. The continuing onslaught of these
invasive species is biological pollution and one of the greatest threats to the health of the Great
Lakes ecosystem, the most magnificent freshwater resource in the world.
397
-------
Response: EPA notes that the specific comments submitted are addressed elsewhere in this
response to comment document. With respect to commenter's concerns about the effects of
invasive species on the Great Lakes, EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the
VGP and other documents in the administrative record that ballast water has been a major
source for the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the Great Lakes
and other water bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and social costs. EPA
notes that the limits and other requirements contained in the VGP are expected to substantially
reduce the environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS introductions and
establishments.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
League's Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
2
No
Comment: The Great Lakes Committee of the Izaak Walton League of America represents
voices across the Great Lakes Basin from Minnesota to New York. We support protection and
restoration of healthy ecosystems and to that end work for effective stormwater management to
protect wetlands, rivers, streams and tributaries, inland lakes and the Great Lakes Basin
including the St Lawrence Seaway.
The Great Lakes Committee officially formed in 2005 and produced a position paper (attached)
in January 2006 to identify the important actions needed to address the lack of ballast water
treatment standards; these actions are still unaddressed.
We have several overarching comments on the Vessel General Permit for Discharge Standards
followed by comments on specific sections of the permit.
Response: As noted above, the specific comments submitted by the Izaak Walton League are
addressed elsewhere in this response to comment document. With respect to concerns about the
lack of actions to establish a ballast water discharge standard, EPA notes that both the final
Coast Guard rulemaking on ballast water (77 FR 17254 (March 23, 2009)) and EPA's final
2012 VGP establish such standards.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
League's Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
3
398
-------
Late Comment? No
Comment: First, we urge a much earlier deadline for vessel compliance with treatment
standards. On December 4, 2009 we submitted comments (attached) to the Coast Guard on the
Proposed Rulemaking and Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Standards for Living
Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters: Docket Number USCG-2001-
10486 asking for standards to be in place for enforcement by 2012. It is now 2012 and these
standards are not yet in place. EPA has an opportunity with the Vessel General Permit to address
this by establishing strict and immediate compliance deadlines. However, the draft permit instead
establishes goals that may delay implementation for 7 to 9 years. The cost in taxpayer dollars and
in ecological damage to the Great Lakes and state inland waters and the Great Lakes basin that
will result from these delays is unacceptable. For example, $25 million is spent annually on Sea
Lamprey containment alone.
Response: As explained in section 4.4.3.5.5 of the Fact Sheet, EPA does not believe it is
feasible to accelerate the final VGP's implementation schedule. While EPA acknowledges that
sea lamprey containment has resulted in significant economic costs, we further note that sea
lamprey were first discovered in Lake Ontario in 1835 and likely subsequently spread to other
Great Lakes via the Welland Canal, rather than being introduced via ships' ballast water (see,
National Invasive Species Information center Sea Lamprey profile, available online at
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/aauatic s/lamprev.shtml#.UJCvameONOA).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Brian P. Smith, Program and Communications Director,
Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE)
Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0553-A1
1
No
Comment: On behalf of Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE), we thank you for the
opportunity to submit comments on the 2013 Draft Vessel General Permit, as it specifically
applies to aquatic invasive species and commercial vessels. CCE is an 80,000 member,
non-profit, non-partisan organization that works to protect public health and our environment in
New York State and Connecticut. While the VGP makes considerable changes to the
requirements for commercial vessel ballast discharges, CCE strongly urges the EPA to make
significant improvements to the 2013 Final VGP. The 2013 Draft VGP fails to provide the
protections needed to prevent aquatic invasive species from causing further substantial damage
to recreational and commercial fisheries, infrastructure, and water based recreation and tourism
within the Great Lakes.
Response: With respect to the commenter's general concern that the VGP fails to provide the
protections needed to prevent aquatic invasive species from causing further substantial damage,
EPA notes that as explained in the Fact Sheet for the Final VGP (e.g., Fact Sheet section 4.4.3
and following subsections thereto) and elsewhere in this response to comment document (e.g.,
sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.6, 9.1.9, 10, 10.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2 of this comment response document),
399
-------
the VGP limitations on ballast water are appropriate and fully comply with the mandates of the
CWA. EPA further notes that besides the above described general concern, the comment letter
contains further specific comments and recommendations which are responded to elsewhere in
this response to comments document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marc Gagnon, Director, Government Affairs & Regulatory
Compliance, Fednav Limited
Fednav Limited
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0559-A2
4
No
Comment: Dates
We respectfully suggest that EPA modify article 2.2.3.5.2, regarding the schedule for when
ballast water treatment becomes required. It is not realistic to expect that vessels constructed
after January 1, 2012 (almost two years before the application date of the second VGP) be
equipped with a ballast water treatment system, when the United States Coast Guard (USCG) has
not yet published its final rule on Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water
Discharged in U.S. Waters. Furthermore, ships calling the Great Lakes face conditions to which
there have been no proven and tested solutions (fresh and cold waters).
Like many other stakeholders from the marine industry, we ask the EPA to review this timetable
and afford vessels constructed after the application date of the VGP enough time to install
properly approved BWTS.
Response: As explained in section 4.4.3.5.5a of the Fact Sheet, the implementation schedule in
the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 11, and in other comment
responses in this document, EPA has modified the implementation schedule by revising its
definition of "new build" vessels. That modification addresses the concerns raised by the
commenter. With respect to the commenter's assertion that "ships calling the Great Lakes face
conditions to which there have been no proven and tested solutions (fresh and cold waters),"
while EPA acknowledges that fresh and cold water conditions can affect treatment efficacy,
EPA does not believe that systems meeting the limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP are available
for these conditions. Please also see sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.6, 9.1.9, 10, 10.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2 of
this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent, V. Ships
Leisure
V. Ships Leisure
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2
7
No
Comment: Item No: 8
400
-------
VGP 2013 or Fact Sheet Reference: Appendix A
VGP 2013 or Fact Sheet Text: Definitions for "Ballast Water" and "Ballast Tanks"
Comments: The above may also require enhancing the current VGP definition for "Ballast
Water" and "Ballast Tanks" in Appendix A accordingly though it is recognized it has been taken
from the 33CFR and/or the IMO Ballast Water Convention.
Suggestion or Proposed text: "Ballast Water" means any water and suspended matter taken on
board a vessel from a sea, estuary, lake or river source through a dedicated intake system (i.e.,
utilizing sea chests, and pumps) to control or maintain, trim, draught, stability, or stresses of the
vessel, regardless of how it is carried or any other water that is contaminated with ballast water
and its suspended matter.
Response: The definition of ballast water in the VGP is based upon the definition contained in
Coast Guard regulations and we decline to create unnecessary inconsistencies between the EPA
and Coast Guard definitions by altering the EPA definition in the manner suggested by this
comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tim Eder, Executive Director and Katherine Glassner-
Shwayder, Senior Project Manager, Great Lakes
Commission (GLC)
Great Lakes Commission (GLC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0562-A2
6
No
Comment: In closing, the Great Lakes Commission restates the importance of the EPA's VGP
program as a tool to prevent the introduction and spread of AIS in the waters of the Great Lakes
- St. Lawrence River. It is also critical that the EPA consult with the Great Lakes states during
the finalization of the VGP, to take advantage of states' expertise and to maximize efficiency for
the states' 401 certification processes. The Commission encourages EPA to retain the ballast
water exchange and /salt water flushing requirement in its final rule and to make it required
nation-wide. Finally, EPA should continue coordinating its work with the U.S. Coast Guard to
ensure the development of a consistent, national ballast water treatment standard that reconciles
and harmonizes federal requirements and enforcement.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0528-A2, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0564-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
401
-------
Comment: The Clean Water Act requires EPA to place limits on ballast water discharges that
eliminate the threat of invasive species. The Draft 2013 Vessel General Permit makes
considerable changes to the requirements for commercial vessel ballast discharges, but the
undersigned organizations strongly urge that it be strengthened.
In particular the undersigned organizations support the development of strong federal ballast
program that would prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species from
commercial vessels. We stress that we fundamentally support the following approaches taken
within the 2013 Draft Vessel General Permit: The significant transition from physical ballast
tank management requirements to technology requirements.
Response: With respect to the request that VGP's ballast water discharge standards be
strengthened, EPA notes that as explained in the Fact Sheet for the Final VGP (e.g., Fact Sheet
section 4.4.3 and following subsections thereto) and sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.6, 9.1.9, 10, 10.1,
10.1.1, 10.1.2 of this comment response document, EPA believes that the VGP limitations on
ballast water are appropriate and fully comply with the mandates of the CWA. We further note
that the comment letter contains other specific comments and recommendations which are
addressed elsewhere in this response to comment document. We further note the commenter's
support for development of a strong federal ballast program and support for transition from
physical tank management to technology requirements, which we interpret as support for
transitioning away from ballast water exchange to compliance with numeric discharge
standards.
Commenter Name: Scott Strand, Executive Director, MN Center for
Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important permit and applaud the
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") for moving forward to regulate ballast water
discharges, especially in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway. Aquatic invasive species
("AIS") are biological pollution posing one of the greatest ecological threats to the health of the
ecosystems of the Great Lakes and all waters in states and provinces in the region. They also
pose a grave economic threat to the Great Lakes region.
While the proposed VGP Permit represents a long overdue step toward needed protection of the
ecological and economic health of the region, we believe the proposed discharge standards are
too low, the implementation timeline is too slow, and the exemption for existing intra Great
Lakes carrier vessels (Lakers) perpetuates unacceptably high risks. Given that ballast water has
introduced and spread AIS for more than 30 years, resulting in significant, destructive, and
generally irreversible changes to the ecology and human uses of Minnesota's waters, we urge
EPA to strengthen the VGP Permit now in order to adequately protect Minnesota waters,
economy and quality of life from future invaders. With a new invasive species expected in the
402
-------
Great Lakes every 28 weeks (see Table 1 of the VGP Permit fact sheet) there is no longer time to
further delay the implementation of adequate discharge standards that cover all pathways to the
waters of Minnesota.
I. Minnesota's Economy and Way of Life is at Risk.
Minnesota has a disproportionately large stake in the outcome of the EPA's deliberations
concerning the scope and content of the final VGP Permit. While AIS cost the United States
billions of dollars annually, and ship-borne AIS cost the Great Lakes Region at least $200
million dollars every year, their steady spread to waters throughout Minnesota threatens not just
our economy, but our very culture. Perhaps more than any other state in Great Lakes region,
Minnesota's economy and culture are tied to the health of its lakes, rivers and streams.
Minnesota leads the nation in both the number of licensed anglers and boat owners per capita.
Fishing and boating pervade our culture and water based tourism drives the economy of the
northern half of the state. Fishing related activity alone is estimated to support 43,000 Minnesota
jobs, generate $2.8 billion annually in direct retail expenditures and have an economic impact
exceeding $4.7 billion per year when adjusted for expenditures on gas, lodging and the services
purchased by fishing-related businesses.1
Minnesota waters are particularly vulnerable to ship-mediated introductions (including from the
lower Great Lakes via Lakers) given the high volume of ballast water discharges received in its
four ports. The Duluth-Superior harbor (located in the St. Louis River estuary) and other
Minnesota harbors together more than 7 billion gallons of ballast water discharges annually, and
more than half of all ballast water discharges in the entire Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River
system.2
More ballast water is discharged into Minnesota Lake Superior harbors than any other Great
Lakes ports.3 The Duluth-Superior harbor in 2005, for example, received approximately 5.4
billion gallons of ballast water and the Two Harbors, MN port received approximately 1.9 billion
gallons.4 Minnesota's Lake Superior harbors receive ballast water discharges from both
oceangoing vessels ('Salties") and Lakers. The Duluth Seaway Port Authority estimates that
approximately 5 percent of the ballast water discharged to Lake Superior is from Salties and 95
percent is from Lakers.5
Our concerns are not theoretical, but based upon the invasion of numerous aquatic invaders such
as zebra mussels, whose ongoing spread across our inland waters imperils our way of life and
imposes huge financial burdens on Minnesota citizens. Zebra mussels were introduced to the
United States through ballast water discharges, first discovered in Lake St. Clair in 1988, and
then found in the Duluth-Superior harbor in 1989. They have since infested waters across the
United States, significantly altered the ecosystems of the Great Lakes, and are now spreading
into Minnesota's prime inland fishing and recreation lakes. While the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service estimated the adverse economic impact of zebra mussels to U.S. and Canadian water
users within the Great Lakes region to be $5 billion from 2000 to 2010, this figure does not
include the burgeoning costs of efforts to contain the spread from a growing number of inland
waters of Minnesota. The Minnesota DNR recently estimated the annual cost of attempting to
control the spread of zebra mussels alone to be between $22 million and $600 million dollars
annually. The cost to inspect all boats leaving those 50 or so lakes currently infested with zebra
403
-------
mussels is estimated to cost $65 to $71 million annually'6 These costs are the direct result of
ballast water introductions of zebra mussels into the waters of the Great Lakes. Given the rate of
introduction there is no reason to expect that these costs will not continue to rise as more AIS are
introduced and spread throughout the region. For example, the administrative and regulatory
costs of viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) prevention and monitoring is now on the rise for
recreational anglers and our multimillion dollar bait industry since VHS has been spread to Lake
Superior.
In addition to the economic impacts associated with fishing and water recreation, AIS put
Minnesota's property tax base at risk. There is growing evidence and acceptance that AIS can
significantly reduce property values on properties located on infested lakes and rivers.7 At the
same time there is also evidence that rural counties in Minnesota depend greatly on the values of
properties associated with water. For example, in Hubbard County in 2011, water influenced
properties accounted for 59.40% of the taxable market value of all properties despite the fact that
they represent a much smaller percentage of the land use.8 There is little doubt that the
establishment of AIS in lakes and rivers throughout Minnesota will permanently reduce long
term property values and undermine the tax base.
In short, the legacy costs of AIS will be staggering and must be factored into the economic
analysis used to refine the VGP Permit. The near certainty of future invasions must also be
considered. The EPA estimates that approximately 58 other non-indigenous species currently
"pose high or medium risk for becoming established in the Great Lakes and for causing
ecological harm."9 This is a dire problem that requires strong action now. Given the real threat of
permanent ecological damage and harm to our economy and way of life, our organizations and
members take a very strong interest in ballast water discharges and we find it critical that the
VGP Permit be strengthened as proposed below in order to prevent both new introductions and
any further spread of ship-mediated aquatic invasive species from the lower Great Lakes to Lake
Superior.
II. SPECIFIC COMMENTS BY PERMIT SECTION
Overview of Key Concerns
We urge stricter ballast water discharge standards, their application to intra Great Lakes vessels
(eliminate unjustifiable exemption for Lakers), and faster adoption by all permittees. We fully
support retaining the ballast water exchange requirements for an additional level of protection
and urge that the authority of Sate of Minnesota to require more protective measures not be
impinged upon. We also request that bi-annual reviews of technologies be conducted and the
permit provide for modifications based upon report recommendations.
1 Southwick Associates. (2007) "Sport Fishing in America: An Economic Engine and Conservation Powerhouse."
Produced for the American Sport fishing Association with funding from the Multistate Conservation Grant Program.
2
Rup et al., Domestic Ballast Operations on the Great Lakes: Potential Importance of Lakers as a Vector for
Introduction and Spread of Non-indigenous Species, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 67(2): 256-268 (2010).
3 MPCA, Fact Sheet for State Disposal System (SDS) Permit MNG300000 Ballast Water Discharge General Permit,
2008, page 3.
4 Id.
5 ,,
404
-------
6 Minnesota DNR Report "Long-Term Funding Needs for Aquatic Invasive Species Programs" submitted to
Environment and Natural Resources Committees of the Minnesota House and Senate January 15, 2012.
(http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/legislative/ais long term funding leg report ianuarv 2012.pdf).
7
E.g. Horsch, Eric J. Lewis, David J., The Effects of Aquatic Invasive Species on Property Values: Evidence from a
Quasi-Random Experiment. University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics,
Staff Paper No. 530, November 2008; Bell, Frederick W. and Mark A. Bonn, Economic Sectors at Risk from
Invasive Aquatic Weeds at Lake Istokpoga, Florida, The Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, Florida Department
of Environment of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida, December, 2004; ANS Task Force website
(http://www.anstaskforce.gov/ans.php).
g
Report of the County Auditor, Hubbard County, Minnesota.
9
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Predicting Future Introductions of Non-indigenous Species to the Great Lakes, Nov. 2008.
Response: With respect to this comment's concerns that the discharge standards are too low,
the implementation time line too slow, and the "Laker" exemption poses unacceptably high
risks, as further explained elsewhere in this response to comment document, EPA believes that:
(1) the discharge standards are appropriate and fully comply with the mandates of the CWA;
(2) it is not feasible to shorten the timeframe for vessels to comply with the permit in light of
practical constraints on the availability and installation of treatment equipment; and (3)
retention of a "Laker" exemption from TBELs is appropriate in light of the design and
operational characteristics of Lakers; and see e.g., Fact Sheet section 4.4.3.5.5 and sections
9.1.1,9.1.2, 9.1.6, 9.1.9, 10, 10.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2 of this comment response document. With
respect to concerns about the impacts of invasive species on the Minnesota environment,
economy, and culture, EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and
other documents in the administrative record, that ballast water has been a major source for the
introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the Great Lakes and other water
bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and social costs. EPA notes that the
limits and other requirements contained in the VGP are expected to substantially reduce the
environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS introductions and establishments.
The Commenter states that a new invasive species is expected in the Great Lakes every 28
weeks, referring to Table 1 of the draft VGP Permit fact sheet for support. Commenter also
asserts there is a "near certainty" of future invasions and points to an EPA Office of Research
and Development report estimating 58 species pose a high risk to medium risk of invasion. EPA
notes that the table referred to in the draft VGP Fact Sheet is based on historical data, is not a
projection of future invasions, includes invasions discovered before mandatory saltwater
exchange and saltwater flushing for oceangoing vessels entering the Great Lakes were put in
place, and 100% inspection of ballast tanks by the Coast Guard and Canada for compliance was
put in place. EPA is not aware of scientifically documented instances of new introductions since
2006 into the Great Lakes. See, 2011 NAS study Assessing the Relationship Between Propagule
Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast Water at pg 123 and Great Lakes Aquatic Non-
indigenous Species Information System. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory. Ann Arbor, MI. (http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/
res/Programs/glansis/gl a n si s. html^. 2012. EPA is aware that Minnesota ports receive significant
volumes of ballast water discharges, but does not agree future invasions are a "near certainty,"
and notes that the draft and 2012 final VGP will help further reduce the risk of ANS
introductions into the Great Lakes for vessels by, among other things, requiring compliance
with a numeric concentration-based ballast water discharge standard and by requiring that ocean
405
-------
going vessels that uptake ballast water in freshwater or brackish water must conduct ballast water
exchange in addition to treatment before entering the Great Lakes. With respect to the ORD
report, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1, excerpt 4. With
respect to VHS, while EPA acknowledges ballast water could be a potential source for spread of
VHS, EPA notes that other vectors (e.g., live bait) are also likely vectors.
Commenter Name: Scott Strand, Executive Director, MN Center for
Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Late Comment? No
Comment: Higher standards than the outdated IMO standards will also serve to create a
regulatory environment that is "technology-forcing". There are long historical and legal
precedents for EPA establishing Clean Water Act (CWA) standards that encourage the
development of technologies to better protect aquatic ecosystems. Establishing federal
technology forcing standards for ballast water discharges is long overdue. This approach to
standards was taken by New York and California and is already bearing fruit. We see no sound
reason for the VGP Permit to take a step backwards.
The draft VGP Permit appears to be based on a flawed review of available technologies, with a
limited scope that does not reflect today's technological realities and abandons the proven
approach of incentivizing technology development. We recommend that the VGP Permit
establish concentration-based discharge standards that are at least lOOx greater than IMO
standards. Setting these higher standards will reduce propagule pressure by two orders of
magnitude compared to the IMO standards. It appears to be practical given today's available
technologies, is consistent with the New York standards, and will help drive the development,
testing and installation of ballast water treatments that better protect our waters and economy
health.
This section of the permit states, "EPA will continue to explore new technologies with industry
and states and, when warranted, will make this numeric limit more stringent in the future." We
renew our request that EPA formally establish a bi-annual review of technologies and create a
clear expectation on the part of permittees that ballast water permit standards will keep pace with
developing technologies. It is imperative that the VGP Permit account for these bi-annual
reviews and enable the results and recommendations therefrom to inform the discharge standards
beginning in 2014.
2.2.3.5.1.1 Ballast Water Management using a Ballast Water Treatment System
We believe it is important to have a backup system in place in the event installed technology
fails. EPA should take the lead in developing a system to reduce risks when shipboard treatment
fails, perhaps in partnership with the National Park Service's ongoing development of
emergency treatment systems intended to ensure treatment is available prior to ballast water
release. Such systems are being developed with some support from EPA's Great Lakes
406
-------
Restoration Initiative funds, but additional support is needed. It also appears there is no
allowance for skid mounted or hybridized systems on a permanent or intermittent basis similar to
the NPS emergency treatment process. We urge EPA to implement and support emergency
treatment systems, including skid mounted and hybridized systems.
Response: As explained further below, the IMO Regulation D-2 standards in the final 2012
VGP reflect the best treatment levels that available technologies can be expected to achieve,
and EPA thus does not agree with the commenter's assertion that the IMO standards are
somehow "outdated " With respect to the commenter's unexplained and unsupported
characterization of the IMO standards as a "step backwards," EPA further notes that in the
introduction to its comment letter, the commenter applauded EPA for moving "forward" to
regulate ballast water discharges and referred to the draft VGP "as a long overdue step toward
needed protection of the ecological and economic health of the region." EPA further notes that
with respect to commenter's reference to California and New York as an example of
technology-forcing standards, those standards are based on State law, not the CWA. In addition,
with respect to commenter's unexplained and undocumented assertion that the approaches
adopted by those states are "already bearing fruit," the commenter's support for the "proven
approach of incentivizing technology development," and assertion that achieving those States'
standards "appears to be practical given today's available technologies," EPA notes that it is not
aware of any ballast water treatment systems that can meet those States' standards, including
the lOOx IMO standard referred to by commenter. Additionally, EPA does not agree that in the
absence of potentially compliant technology, lOOx times IMO standards somehow create a two
order magnitude reduction in propagule pressure. As discussed by NRC (2011), propagule
pressure results from a number of factors that may result in a nonlinear relationship between
concentration of organisms and the strength of that pressure.
Although commenter asserts the VGP "appears to be based on a flawed review of available
technologies, with a limited scope that does not reflect today's technological realities," EPA
notes that commenter offers no data or evidence to support that assertion. In contrast, in
undertaking its technology review for the VGP, EPA not only independently considered a full
range of treatment technologies and specific systems and evaluated other numerous reports and
evaluations, but also sought advice from its independent Scientific Advisory Board (SAB),
which resulted in a July 2101 report by the SAB. Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems:
a Report by the EPA Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB-11-009) (hereinafter "the SAB
Report"). Among other things, that report assessed the ability of treatment systems with reliable
data to meet the IMO Regulation D-2 standards, lOx IMO, lOOx IMO, and lOOOx IMO (SAB
Report at pg 31). It concluded, among other things, that five types of ballast water treatment
systems have been demonstrated to meet the IMO Regulation D-2 standard, and that while these
five systems have the potential to meet a lOx IMO standard in the near future, improvements to
test methods/approaches will be required to demonstrate conclusively that improved systems
meet standards beyond the D-2 standards. SAB report at pg. 38. With respect to the ability of
systems to achieve lOOx IMO (as suggested by commenter) or lOOOx IMO, the SAB concluded
that given the available data, it is "highly unlikely" that any of the systems considered could
provide organism removal to those levels. SAB report at pg. 38. In addition, the SAB concluded
that reaching the lOOOx IMO, or even lOOx IMO, will "likely require wholly new treatment
systems" that will have "many attributes different from existing systems." SAB report pg 56.
407
-------
In short, EPA independently examined a wide variety of treatment technologies and systems
and additionally sought the expert advice of the SAB on such technologies. As further
explained in the VGP Fact Sheet and elsewhere in this response to comment document, EPA
believes the ballast water discharge requirements in the VGP are appropriate and fully
compliant with the mandates of the CWA. Please see Fact Sheet section 4.4.3 (and following
subsections thereto) and sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.6, 9.1.9, 10, 10.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2 of this
comment response document.
With respect to commenter's request that EPA create a clear expectation that ballast water
permit standards will keep pace with developing technologies, EPA has already done so.
Commenter is referred to section 4.4.3.5.1 of the VGP Fact Sheet which states that: "as
technologies improve and better data on the efficacy of systems become available, the Agency
fully expects to make the BAT limit more stringent in the future, in line with the capabilities of
treatment systems and the capability of testing protocols..." With respect to commenter's
request that EPA formally establish a bi-annual review of technologies, EPA notes that
establishment of such a formal review system is outside the scope of today's action. EPA
further notes, however, that not only does it intend to continue to assess the state of the
technology development, it also will coordinate with the Coast Guard in assessments of
technologies periodically conducted at IMO in accordance with Regulation D-5 of the IMO
ballast water Convention and also coordinate with the Coast Guard in its practicability review
of treatment technologies under 33 C.F.R. 151.2030(c). Because of such activities to assess
treatment technologies, EPA believes creation of an additional formal bi-annual review process
is unnecessary.
Lastly, with respect to commenter's view that is important to have a backup system in place in
the event installed technology fails and that EPA should take the lead in developing such a
system, EPA notes that this comment is outside the scope of the VGP. The VGP is issued under
authority of CWA section 402, and in accordance with that authority, specifies effluent limits
for incidental discharges from covered vessels which the vessel owner/operator is legally
obligated to meet. The selection of appropriate technologies to achieve those effluent limits,
including whether to use back-up technologies which a vessel owner may install, is the
owner/operator's responsibility. EPA further notes that because the VGP does not direct
selection or installation of particular technologies, nothing in the VGP would preclude use of
the "skid mounted or hybridized systems on a permanent or intermittent basis," which the
commenter refers to in order to meet the applicable VGP effluent limits.
Commenter Name: Scott Strand, Executive Director, MN Center for
Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Late Comment? No
Comment: Conclusion
408
-------
We are united in our firm conviction that swift, strong, comprehensive federal action is needed
now to ensure that new aquatic invasive species are not introduced into the Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence River, and existing invaders in the lower Great Lakes not spread to Lake Superior.
Response: EPA acknowledges this summary comment, and as explained in the final VGP Fact
Sheet and elsewhere in this response to comment document, believes that the VGP limitations
on ballast water are appropriate and fully comply with the mandates of the CWA. EPA further
notes it has responded to the commenter's specific comments elsewhere in this response to
comments document.
Commenter Name: Holley Horrell, Mills Legal Clinic on behalf of Northwest
Environmental Advocates
Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: To Whom It May Concern:
On behalf of Northwest Environmental Advocates, we submit these comments on the above-
referenced Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Vessel General Permit ("Draft
VGP"), published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2011. We appreciate the efforts to date
by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA" or "Agency") to develop standards to regulate
the discharge of living organisms, including aquatic invasive species, in ballast water, but we
remain concerned that the proposed permit does not comport with the letter or intent of the Clean
Water Act. In particular, we draw the Agency's attention to the comment letter we submitted
jointly with the Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc., National Wildlife Federation, and others
(collectively "NRDC/NWF Comments"). We provide these additional comments to underscore
what we believe are key deficiencies and some additional concerns with the Draft VGP.
Response: EPA acknowledges this comment and notes that it has responded to the comments
contained in the joint letter the commenter refers to elsewhere in this response to comment
document.
Commenter Name: Holley Horrell, Mills Legal Clinic on behalf of Northwest
Environmental Advocates
Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: I. Overarching Issues
As an initial matter, we note that aquatic invasive species have already seriously damaged the
quality of U.S. waters, due in significant part to unregulated ballast water discharge practices of
the pasta Much of this harm, which is both ecological and economic, is now irreversible.2 It is,
409
-------
therefore, all the more urgent that, with the second VGP, EPA finally put in place more stringent
measures to minimize invasion risks and to protect the nation's water quality and aquatic
ecosystems from further degradation by nonnative species.
Although EPA has determined that it "makes administrative sense" to regulate vessel discharges
using a nationwide general permits the resulting approval must nevertheless contain sufficient
conditions to satisfy the Clean Water Act.4ln particular, EPA must establish meaningful effluent
limitations, impose effective monitoring and reporting requirements, and mandate timely
compliance. Below we discuss several ways in which the Draft VGP fails to satisfy these
requirements, elaborating upon the NRDC/NWF Comments incorporated herein.
Our overarching policy concerns are grounded in two fundamental legal principles embedded in
the Clean Water Act that inform and dictate NPDES permit requirements, but are notably absent
from the Draft VGP. First, the Clean Water Act is a technology forcing statute intended to drive
pollution control innovation by setting "best available technology" limitations and mandating
regular permit renewals. Because vessels have for so long been unlawfully exempted from
technology controls, the market for ballast water treatment systems has failed to develop at the
same rate as pollution control technology for other industrial discharges. Rapid evolution of the
ballast water treatment system market is both necessary to meet the urgency of the problem and
likely to occur if EPA establishes adequately protective effluent limitations. Implementation of
the insufficiently protective International Maritime Organization (IMO) standards and delayed
compliance with even these weak standards beyond the next permit period, as proposed in the
Draft VGP, will potentially lock inadequate treatment technologies into place for decades to
come. For this reason, we support EPA's choice of a four-year permit, in lieu of the maximum
five years.
Additionally, in setting effluent limitations where no effluent limitations guidelines yet exist, as
is the case here, EPA has an independent duty to consider all relevant data and to exercise its
expert "best professional judgment" as to what constitutes "best available technology" and what
additional protections are necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. The Agency
cannot avoid these obligations by deferring to advisory reports that do not fully evaluate the
issues, such as the reports prepared by the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and National
Academy of Science (NAS) panels, or by relying without serious evaluation on the industry-
driven conclusions of the IMO. As currently proposed, the Draft VGP does not evidence the
level of independent evaluation or the exercise of independent judgment required by the Clean
Water Act.
1 Office of Wastewater Mgmt., EPA, Economic and Benefits Analysis of the Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit
(VGP) 129-35 (2011); Nat'l Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, Aquatic Nuisance Species Impacts,
http://www.anstaskforce. gov/more impacts.php (last visited Jan. 31, 2012).
2
See "Impediment to Ecosystem Restoration," Aquatic Nuisance Species Impacts, supra note 1.
3
EPA, 2011 Proposed Issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel General
Permit (VGP) For Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Draft Fact Sheet 8 (2011) [hereinafter
"Fact Sheet"].
4 40 C.F.R. § 122.28 (2011); 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.41-49 (2011). In trailing protective permit conditions, Agency must
keep in mind the fundamental premise of the statute: Subject to certain exceptions, "the discharge of any pollutant
by any person shall be unlawful." 33 U.S.C § 1311(a).
410
-------
Response: EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and other
documents in the administrative record that ballast water has been a major source for the
introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the Great Lakes and other water
bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and social costs. EPA notes that the
limits and other requirements contained in the VGP are expected to substantially reduce the
environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS introductions and establishments.
With respect to commenter's statement that the VGP must contain sufficient conditions to
satisfy the CWA and that EPA must establish meaningful effluent limitations, impose effective
monitoring and, reporting requirements, and mandate timely compliance, EPA notes that: (1)
As explained in the Fact Sheet for the final VGP and elsewhere in this response to comment
document, the VGP effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and reporting requirements
are appropriate and fully comply with the mandates of the CWA; (2) the commenter has
submitted specific and more detailed comments addressing these matters, and those comments
are addressed elsewhere in this response to comment document. With respect to the
commenter's statement of support for the proposed four year term for this permit, EPA has been
compelled by other comments received to issue the permit with a five year term. Please see the
response to comments elsewhere in this response to comments documents. With respect to the
commenter's statement that EPA has an independent duty to consider all relevant data and to
exercise its expert best professional judgment as to what constitutes best available technology
and what additional protections are necessary to meet applicable water quality standards and
that EPA cannot avoids those obligations by relying on advisory reports that they maintain do
not fully evaluate the issues, such as the reports prepared by the SAB and NAS, EPA notes that
the VGP Fact Sheet and administrative record fully document and explain the data and other
information evaluated and EPA's judgment. In other words, EPA has conducted its own
independent evaluations which were informed by these other reports, including the SAB and
NAS reports. (Such "independent evaluation" includes EPA's additional analysis in response to
comments from the public.) EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the NAS and
SAB reports, which were prepared by eminent independent experts and which speak for
themselves as to the extensive information and literature relied on, did not fully evaluate the
issues. We direct the commenter to the Charges of each of those reports, which were drafted
specifically to help inform EPA's determinations for technology based limits (SAB) and Water
Quality Based Limits (NAS) respectively. EPA, assuming it's even relevant to the issues at
hand, further disagrees with commenter's dismissal of IMO conclusions as "industry driven,"
noting that decision making and voting at IMO and its subsidiary bodies is undertaken by its
member States, and that industry associations are limited to observer status without voting
rights. See, Convention on the International Maritime Organization, Parts III, VII, VIII, IX, X,
and XII.
Commenter Name: Holley Horrell, Mills Legal Clinic on behalf of Northwest
Environmental Advocates
Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
411
-------
Comment: EPA has thus failed to consider relevant data in two crucial stages of developing a
general permit - setting TBELs and WQBELs - and it cannot hide behind the SAB and NAS
reports. It is the Agency's duty to analyze all relevant data and important aspects of the problem,
and to articulate rational logical links between the facts it considered and the conclusions it drew.
Response: Please see the response to comments throughout this document and sections 9.1.1
and 9.1.2 of this comment response document. EPA notes that EPA does not "hide behind" the
SAB and NAS reports - rather, as a science-based agency, EPA used information generated by
these preeminent scientific institutions as part of the basis for EPA's independent decision
making. These two bodies, in sum, had over 30 scientists, and with the exception of one
scientist on one of those panels, reached consensus based reports. It would be inappropriate for
EPA, as a science based agency, to ignore these reports unless the Agency had strong science
that contradicted the information contained within these reports. One thing to come out of the
NAS report, in particular, is that there remains a lot of work to be done to inform ballast water
related scientific questions. The Agency continues to explore these issues and hopes our
understanding of ballast water science will improve in the future so we have clearer scientific
information for our decision making for future permit terms. Nonetheless, the Agency had the
state of the art scientific analyses in front of it when making its decisions for this permit,
including the NAS and SAB reports and hundreds of other peer reviewed publications and
believes that the Agency has analyzed and considered numerous aspects and examined a
tremendous volume of data and information to reach what it believes are appropriate science
based limits.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: III. Conclusion
Aquatic invasive species have already caused significant damage to U.S. waters, aquatic
ecosystems and critical infrastructure, with serious effects on States' economies and public
health. With this new Draft VGP, EPA has the opportunity to set standards for regulating ballast
water discharges that will greatly reduce the spread of aquatic invasive species. The discharge
standards it sets today, moreover, could drive technological advances in ballast water treatment
and thus play a crucial role in the long-term solution for the aquatic invasive species problem.
Unfortunately, the proposed VGP falls far short. We, therefore, urge EPA to significantly revise
the proposed permit conditions before issuing a final VGP. Thank you for your consideration of
the issues and concerns expressed in these comments.
Holley Horrell, Mills Legal Clinic on behalf of Northwest
Environmental Advocates
Northwest Environmental Advocates
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2
15
No
Response: EPA acknowledges this summary comment and, as explained in the final VGP Fact
Sheet and elsewhere in this response to comment document, believes that it has considered all
relevant data and that the VGP terms and effluent limitations are appropriate and fully comply
412
-------
with the mandates of the CWA. EPA further notes it has responded to commenter's specific
comments elsewhere in this response to comments document.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and CEO, Alliance for the Great
Lakes et al. (Part 1 of 2)
Commenter Affiliation: Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0577
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: EPA's Draft VGP does not live up to the Clean Water Act's mandate. Neither the
International Maritime Organization's D-2 standards that EPA proposes as technology-based
effluent limitations, nor the feckless water quality-based effluent limitations it includes, would
assure that states' water quality standards are protected by requiring vessels to take steps to fully
and effectively prevent their ballast water discharges from causing further species invasions. The
IMO standards are not sufficient to prevent new non-indigenous species from invading U.S.
waters. Moreover, the risk of invasive species is driven by many factors in addition to the
concentration of organisms discharged.
EPA must establish technology-based effluent limitations at least as stringent as those currently
required by California and New York, as well as enforceable water quality-based effluent
limitations that will prevent the introduction and spread of new invasive species in vessels'
ballast water discharges. EPA should compress the compliance schedule for these effluent
limitations and eliminate unjustified delays based on the unsupported assumption that a more
rapid implementation schedule than the IMO is requiring (including an unjustified allowance for
vessels to wait until their next drydocking after the compliance deadline before installing a
ballast water treatment system) is not achievable. EPA must evaluate onshore treatment and any
relevant pilot projects in its BAT determination for lakers and require the most stringent effluent
limitation achievable. EPA should also require vessels entering the Great Lakes or other
freshwater environments, as a technology-based effluent limitation, to continue mid-ocean
ballast water exchange. Finally, EPA must comply with the Endangered Species Act to ensure
that the permit does not jeopardize threatened or endangered native species.
The attached file expands on this summary of our comments.
Response: EPA acknowledges this summary comment and, as explained in the final VGP Fact
Sheet and elsewhere in this response to comment document, believes that it has considered all
relevant data and that the VGP terms and effluent limitations are appropriate and fully comply
with the mandates of the CWA. EPA further notes it has responded to these specific comments
in the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1 excerpts 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Commenter Name: M. Covello
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0581-A1
413
-------
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
5
No
Comment: Please take into consideration the harm that new invasive species is doing to the
Great Lakes. Stopping invasive species before they enter is critical to the health of the Great
Lakes. This is basic common sense protections and should have been enforced by now.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
O. Booth
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0582-A1
1
No
Comment: We need to protect all our water sources. Please make sure we still have clean water
for the rest of our earth's life!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
M. Mackai
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0584-A1
1
No
Comment: Our own little lake, Lake Camelot, is infested with them. Where I played as a child
more than 50 years ago, Green Bay, is infested with them. Walking a shoreline is no longer easy
on bare feet.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
N. Russell
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0585-A1
1
No
Comment: Poor Michigan (my home state) is slowly recovering from the devastations to its
manufacturing base. Tourism in this lovely state is a vital industry and depends in no small part
414
-------
on the vitality of its Lakes. The damage to the fauna of the Lakes from invasions of Asian Carp
and from the "free ride" species of mussels must stop.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
L. Kain
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0587-A1
1
No
Comment: I am a long-time visitor to Lake Erie and have recently purchased a second home at
the Lake. I have seen first-hand the destruction caused by invasive species like the zebra mussels
and gobies.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
D. Balin
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0588-A1
1
No
Comment: I remember when I could swim at Lake Geneva barefoot. No longer. Now due to
zebra mussels, one must always wear foot protection. We don't need any more of these problems.
Please protect the Great Lakes from new invasive species.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
J. Wilson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0590-A1
1
No
Comment: I live in Milwaukee, less than a mile from Lake Michigan, and I witness the mounds
of shells from the invasive species of mussels. I swim in local lakes that have been invaded and
you can barely stand without hurting your feet on the tremendous number of shells that cover the
lake bed.
415
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
M. Helming
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0591-A1
1
No
Comment: This really seems like a no-brainer -- the ecological and economic damage caused
by zebra mussels alone has been horrendous.
Finally, we need to prevent Asian Carp from entering the Great Lakes!!!
If this serious threat is within your jurisdiction, please take much stronger action to keep carp out
of the Great Lakes, also!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
M. Lees
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0592-A1
1
No
Comment: I know a couple of years ago I cut my foot open on one of those zebra mussels. It
was like being sliced with a razor blade. I was lucky I was close enough to get help!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
D. Greene
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0593-A1
1
No
Comment: The Great Lakes are the largest source of fresh water in the world and the reason the
mid-west has prospered from trade and settlement. These lakes must be protected from pollution
and that includes invasive species.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
416
-------
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
M. Pickett
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0594-A1
1
No
Comment: Please work to stop the Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes Watershed, which
will have devastating consequences in the one of largest freshwater ecosystems on earth. I have
seen what the zebra mussels have done to Lake Erie and the surrounding bodies of water.
Please act now.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
L. Weingart
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0595-A1
1
No
Comment: Note the Prohibited and Restricted Items listed on the CBP.com site under Travel:
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/kbvg/prohibited restricted.xml#Pets.
These rules should be applied to all transport including ballast water discharges.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
G. Bargerstock
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0596-A1
1
No
Comment: Though I live in Ohio now, my heart's home will always be two miles off the coast
of Lake Ontario, in Ontario, Wayne County, New York, where I was raised. What the zebra
mussel has done to the life in Lake Ontario was preventable if we had known to take precautions
back then. Please, please don't let new invasive species be released into her waters when the
knowledge to stop it is known and can be implemented.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
417
-------
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Z. Strickland
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0601-A1
1
No
Comment: I think it is important to protect the greatest freshwater reserve on the world. A
simple regulation as this, in relative terms, can provide the necessary road block to these invasive
pests that are a detriment to our resources.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Mittelstaedt
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0602-A1
1
No
Comment: Not only has this effected the great lakes but many of our smaller local lakes
throughout the midwest have been effected as well. Boats go out for day on lake Michigan (for
example) the zebra mussels attach to bottom of boats, and then they go to Oconomowoc lake and
these zebra mussels spread fast causing problems in all our lakes. Please know that I do agree we
need to do something to stop these species from getting in our lakes but with that said the
damage has already been done and we need to address that as well.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
D. Dobrzyn
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0603-A1
1
No
Comment: This practice needs to stop. Also, we need a moratorium on snakes like the pythons
in the Florida everglades. What type of person would want a snake that could swallow their kids?
Keep them where nature put them and give a dog or cat a home.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
418
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
D. Stevens
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0604-A1
1
No
Comment: I live in Michigan and have seen firsthand the effects of the zebra mussels. We need
to prevent this type of catastrophe. Thank you.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
D. Broadway
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0605-A1
1
No
Comment: How many times have we allowed industry to tell us that they knew what they were
doing and there was no need to worry. Now we have Asian carp, zebra mussels, depleted
uranium dust, radioactive particles, a warming planet, cancer alleys, polluted aquifers, etc. etc.
All of these problems are irreversible and were preventable. The cost of coping with these
problems is staggering. And guess who pays, who has to deal with the problems and who
benefited.
The EPA has to take their name seriously and stop letting corporations tell them what to do.
We also need to hold accountable those who caused these problems and those who aided and
abetted them. Wrist slaps are woefully inadequate.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
P. Bloink
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0606-A1
1
No
Comment: Please help keep our Great Lakes safe! I have lived near one of these incredible
lakes all my life. I have seen the changes and I don't like it.
419
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
C. Carson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0607-A1
1
No
Comment: Stopping invasive species before they enter is critical to the health of the Great
Lakes. They are ruining the natural environment of the lakes so have affected the wildlife of the
lake, who are being overrun even now. These intruders have no natural enemies in the lakes.
Once established the lakes will no longer be as we know them, forever polluted. They need to be
eradicated at once. We have waited far too long for these basic, common sense protections.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
J. Mcintosh
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0609-A1
1
No
Comment: I grew up within walking distance of Lake Michigan and have been troubled by the
disastrous changes brought about by wave after wave of invasive species since the Great Lakes
were opened up by the St, Lawrence Seaway.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Tuttle
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0610-A1
1
No
Comment: In the future I would like to take my children to the Great Lakes and be able to show
them the beauty that we all take for granted. People outside of our region would be able to visit,
and not have to miss out on the natural life of the Lakes. It may just be fish and birds, but what
are the repercussions of actions that are taking place right now? What will their absence mean for
our area?
420
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: 3. The requirement that vessel owner/operators that are not required to submit NOIs
must complete, sign and maintain onboard the VGP PARI Form contained in Appendix K of the
Permit.
The global transfer and introduction of aquatic invasive species is most frequently attributed to
the ballast water discharge. As such, it seems reasonable that all vessels that can contribute to the
transfer and/or introduction of invasive species be required to properly manage or treat their
ballast water before discharge.
Response: Commenter's views on the global transfer and introduction of aquatic invasive
species have been addressed elsewhere in this response to comment document. Upon review of
the full comment letter, EPA notes that the comment above, which does not address the issue of
NOIs or PARIs at all, appears to result from commenter inadvertently pasting its comment 2
into comment 3 as well. As commenter's full letter contains no comment or discussion of PARI
or NOI issues, and further response is unnecessary.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
A. Dale
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0615-A1
1
No
Comment: Wise up! We know you're on the take! Why else would you put a whole natural
subsystem at risk? No amount of money can keep you from the Karmic effects of destroying
massive amounts of wildlife and the food chain that is built on those species! Your inactivity and
the apathy of the general public is killing the Great Lakes!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
J. Buchman
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0616-A1
1
421
-------
Late Comment?
No
Comment: Hasn't there already been enough damage done? Will you do something to stop this
idiocy before it is too late? We, the people, are depending on you to do the proper thing. Thank
you for listening.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: J. Erney
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0619-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Way too long! This has been an issue for decades and it will have major impacts on
our environment. This is my home too!!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
J. Horkulic
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0620-A1
1
No
Comment: Why is it that all our protected lands and waterways are under assault by energy
companies polluting and vessels bringing in invasive species that are released into the lakes. We
all have seen the effects the Asian bass has had.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
D. Ross
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0621-A1
1
No
Comment: I live in the Finger Lakes region of New York State, near one of the major lakes. In
recent years we have seen fishing sharply fall-off, as native species such as bass and trout find
themselves short of food due to the zebra mussels. It has become impossible to swim in many of
the lakes without wearing footgear due to the sharp edge of the prevalent zebra mussels. In a way
422
-------
as I sign this petition it strikes me like shutting the barn door after the horse has fled but I do so
anyway in the hope that cutting off the invasion will buy time for a solution to the damage that
has already been done.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Ray
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0622-A1
1
No
Comment: Do your job! Keep Michigan's Great Lakes protected. This includes bilge water
staying species free. But more importantly filling in the Chicago water way to the Mississippi
River to stop the Asian Carp before they enter. Please justify your existence and do something
now!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
M. Wilson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0623-A1
1
No
Comment: The disruption of this ecosystem could have far-reaching consequences for the
future. Dealing with this issue now will avoid trying to deal with a catastrophe in the years to
come.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
D. Lavender
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0625-A1
1
No
Comment: As one who grew up a few miles from Lake Ontario and spent many hours boating
and fishing on the lake, I am very concerned about the introduction of even more invasive and
destructive species to the Great Lakes. The lamprey eels have been dealt with more-or-less
423
-------
effectively. The zebra and quagga mussels are a current plague. Now 58 other invasive species
have been identified as threats.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
1
No
Comment: Several of our member companies are currently engaged in the development and
commercialization of ballast water treatment technologies, while others have been hesitant to
undertake research and development due to delays in establishing a national standard for ballast
water regulations in the United States.
Response: Commenter's discussion of its member's activities is noted.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
4
No
Comment: 3. The requirement that vessel owner/operators that are not required, to submit NOIs
must complete, sign and maintain onboard the VGP PARI Form contained in Appendix K of the
Permit.
The global transfer and introduction of aquatic invasive species is most frequently attributed to
the ballast water discharge. As such, it seems reasonable that all vessels that can contribute to the
transfer and/or introduction of invasive species be required to properly manage or treat their
ballast water before discharge.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name: Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
424
-------
Commenter Affiliation: Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 24
Late Comment? No
Comment: c. Implementation Schedule
It is imperative that the implementation schedule, at minimum, mimic the IMC) compliance
timelines and segmentation as it will eliminate any confusion and uncertainty for vessel owners
that must purchase equipment that meets both requirements. Even so, the schedule may be
unrealistic because the infrastructure to comply is not in place and it will take several years to get
third-party testing in place and U.S. certified systems installed. We suspect that variances will be
sought by vessel owners, accordingly.
Response: The VGP's implementation schedule for existing vessels is consistent with IMO; by
modifying its definition of new build vessels, EPA has in effect modified the schedule for new
builds. Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 11,
section 9.1.1 of this comment response document, and section 4.4.3.5.5 of the VGP Fact sheet
for further discussion.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Brent Paine, Executive Director, United Catcher Boats
(UCB) and Glenn Reed, President, Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
United Catcher Boats (UCB) and Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0630-A2
4
No
Comment: 2.2.3 Ballast Water
The VGP should clarify that re-circulating seawater tanks are not covered by these ballast water
requirements.
Recirculating seawater tanks are used to keep live catch healthy and robust until the time of
delivery. The VGP should clearly state that such activity is not subject to this Part.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
P. Fischer
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0635-A1
1
No
425
-------
Comment: We have known for so long the damage invasive species like zebra mussels do to
our native environments. I've seen the shores of beautiful Lake Michigan turned from beaches of
soft, inviting sand to beaches of sharp and hostile mussel shells. What I don't understand is why
our local, state and federal environmental protection agencies have not ALREADY put strict
maritime regulations and practices into place to protect the incredibly valuable resources we
have in our Great Lakes. And it isn't just about how the beaches look or smell, it's about local
and state economies. Invasive species kill off the fish our fishing and sports tourism industries
rely on for jobs and income. Invasive species increase the cost local municipalities and the states
must pay to keep waterfronts attractive to vacationers and potential builders. As vegetation die
off and all sorts of creatures that rely on it for survival die off, the entire ecosystem and
surrounding the Great Lakes deteriorates. We don't even KNOW all the negative and possibly
health threatening consequences we are facing down the road. I LOVE where I live and I LOVE
the part the Great Lakes and all they support adds to the beauty and health and joy I, my family
and neighbors, and all our visitors get from the waters of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior.
Please, as our representative decisions makers and thus, our fellow protectors of the lakes, do
what is necessary to protect what still remains of the bountiful and beautiful resources of our
Great Lakes systems. Thank you. Pam
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
J. G. Garey
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0636-A1
1
No
Comment: Please protect the Great Lakes from new invasive species. I grew up on Lake
Michigan and am aware many years of devastation of the Lakes. Why can't we be ahead of the
problem instead of paying to catch up and living with the results. We can't afford to mess with
our water and wildlife.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Y. Wootten
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0637-A1
1
No
Comment: My husband worked for a power company 10 years ago and even then they had to
clean the zebra mussels off of their screens because there were so many they plugged up the
intake screens. Did I mention that was 10 years ago?? How many more have invaded since
426
-------
then?? Obviously nothing has been done, as of now please apply stronger regulation to the large
ships that enter our waters. Between the Zebra Mussels and the Asia Carp that we have done
nothing about as of late our Pristine waters are being invaded by who knows how many other
species, not to mention the Fracking waste water. So I am asking that you please!!! protect the
Great Lakes from new invasive species.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
P. Andler
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0638-A1
1
No
Comment: We must protect our waters especially when we are already aware there is a
problem. For all of our health and well being let us be good stewards so we can enjoy the earth's
bounty in harmony.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: S. West
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0639-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Now in MN, we are already dealing with the entry of these invasive species into our
recreational and neighborhood lakes. We need to put a stop to it to protect our lake living way of
life.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
D. Rhomberg
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0640-A1
1
No
Comment: This has gone on for too long and the ecosystem of the Great Lakes is at risk as well
and the fish and birds dying in large quantities. Please restrict ballast water from containing
427
-------
ANY organisms and ships that travel within the Great Lakes to restrict spreading these invaders
from one place to another.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
J. Okazaki
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0641-A1
1
No
Comment: We have allowed them to literally, suffocate and kill thousands of native mussel
species - and this must stop. Moreover, even for anthropocentrists, invasive species, such as
zebra mussels have cause about 6 billion dollars of damage to pipes; therefore, it is worth the
hassle to prevent their arrival since removal costs much more.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
E. Hursh
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0642-A1
1
No
Comment: The Great Lakes are a special ecosystem that we are blessed with in this country,
and we have a responsibility to protect them, even has we make use of them for transportation,
etc. Please strengthen the 2013 Vessel General Permit !
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
S. Secrest
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0643-A1
1
No
Comment: As a Minnesota Native who has camped near, swam in, splashed in, hunted for and
found Lake Superior Agates, fished for and caught Lake Trout, and simply partook in the
majesty and brilliant blue expanse of the Largest Freshwater Lake in the WORLD! I implore
beseech you all to follow implement these edicts! Forthwith!!
428
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
T. McKinney
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0644-A1
1
No
Comment: This is vital for the unique ecology of the Great Lakes, and also for the sports and
tourist industries that rely on that ecology.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
P. A. Johnson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0645-A1
1
No
Comment: Come on, every little thing we do helps our world, we need to be faster, smarter or
else our natural resources will be gone.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: B. Vosburg-Bluem
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0646-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Please think about the BIG PICTURE and the short/long term implications of NOT
taking action. Don't overlook this matter simply because it doesn't might not seem important to
you at this exact moment in time.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
429
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
A. Case
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0647-A1
1
No
Comment: This is very critical to the health of our ecosystem, and thereby our own health. The
Great Lakes, especially Lake Erie, have already endured tremendous environmental disaster at
our hands; please do all that you can to help us make our lakes truly great again.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
S. Knudstrup
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0648-A1
1
No
Comment: Michigan and the other Great Lake states have enough problems/issues without
adding to them with invasive species in our waters. We didn't ask them to become part of our
environment and we are asking now that we don't allow them to bring greater problems into our
waters. Take action now while we are still able to keep these species out!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
C. VandePolder
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0649-A1
1
No
Comment: I am a Michigan resident and truly love living in a state that is in the heart of the
Great Lakes watershed. The states referred to as the Water Wonderland for good reason. I have
lived through the alewife and the present Zebra Mussel species population explosions. Presently
it is the Asian Carp that is threatening a population takeover. Thousands of dollars (more likely
100's of thousands) and untolded man hours have already gone into very significant studies and
cross agency collaborations. One electrical "fishnet" system is in place along the Chicago River
also at great cost in dollars and man hours. It is common knowledge in the Great Lakes part of
the country that the Calumet River watershed has already been hugely devastated by manmade
and industrial waste. There has been a very large effort in the most recent decades to address this
matter. Now we have international freighters traveling up the Mississippi into the Great Lakes
430
-------
basin. In their wake, we have their contaminated ballast water being dumped all along the
traveled waterways.
It has now become clear that this contaminated water brings non native species, particularly fish,
when dumped in our country's major Mississippi River and Great Lakes basin. A relatively
straightforward solution has been identified and recommended. The outcome is the 2013 General
Permit for ballast water discharge legislation. The focus of this legislation does have very
significant impact on ocean going vessels. The ballast would be dumped in ocean water before
entering US coastal waters. This impacts the transport of these non-native species greatly by
reducing the major source of contamination significantly.
Apparently, experts in hydrology, ecology, and biology are strongly urging further strengthening
of the 2013 legislation. They advise as a minimum the adoption of the most stringent guidelines
of the states through which these vessels traverse. Using these stricter levels of compliance
would benefit all the population along the large waterway and does not result in further
environmental pollution. The goal should be 0 tolerance of contaminated ballast water.
The most strategic and economically important rivers are kept intact The largest sources of
freshwater, the Great Lakes, would be firmly protected while keeping economic advantages in
place. Yes it means more personal responsibility from the international shipping lines and then
looking for this strengthening of the 2013 ballast water legislation to be seriously reviewed.
Please step up to the plate, demonstrate leadership and responsibility. This issue cannot remain
"tabled" for lack of interest any longer. Every day, week, month stringent legislation is not
enforced is a serious loss of opportunity and increases the possible introduction of additional
invasive species.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: S. Ebershoff-Coles
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0650-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: This seems to me to be a "no-brainer." We must stop all invasives wherever
possible. With global warming a reality, new invasives will stress native plants, animals, insects,
water quality, even more than they already are. The whole balance of life is upset everywhere
and we must do all in our power to hold that balance steady. The Great Lakes are far too
important to the whole country to allow new attacks by any sort of invasives. Clean ballast water
from every ship from anywhere is a good place to start. NOW.!!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
431
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
J. Whitney
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0651-A1
1
No
Comment: I have a home on Lake Erie's southern shore and have seen the effects zebra mussels
have had on the lake. I've also seen the cuts on the feet of those unfortunate enough to step on a
zebra mussel while wading in the lake.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
C. Spencer
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0652-A1
1
No
Comment: Our great lakes are a precious resource, and their entire ecosystem will be thrown
out of balance by invasive species. Thanks for your support in protecting the lakes and their
inhabitants.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
J. Beecher
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0653-A1
1
No
Comment: I grew up on the shore of Lake Erie. I believe the Zebra mussels are already a
problem. Please stop them!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: B. Pinti
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0654-A1
432
-------
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
1
No
Comment: The tourism economy depends on the health of these lakes! Such protection will
help keep the Great Lakes, GREAT!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
P. Baker
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0656-A1
1
No
Comment: We started ballast water discharges long ago when we hadn't yet begun to
understand or think about problems like invasive species. But, it's not like that now. We have to
update our practices to keep pace with what we know. Anything else is irresponsible and
dangerous.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
J. Thompson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0657-A1
1
No
Comment: Grew up on Lake Huron and it's devastating to see the degradation of the Great
Lakes. I'm from Bad Axe, MI originally. Military brought me to DE. Even still, I have a
profound love and appreciation for our Great Lakes.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
P. Clemo
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0658-A1
1
No
433
-------
Comment: Every 8 months a new invasive species is introduced to the Great Lakes. These
foreign species wreak lasting environmental and economic havoc on the Great Lakes system,
costing businesses and citizens billions of dollars each year.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: L. Wilkinson
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0659-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: The Great Lakes is the world's largest source of fresh water. Once it is gone, it is
gone. Please protect it.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
A. I. Aurelio
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0660-A1
1
No
Comment: We must stop changing the ecosystem but allowing invasive species where they
don't belong. Please protect the balance of things before it is too late.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
L. Strain
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0661-A1
1
No
Comment: Michigan's health as a state depends a great deal on our water quality. We must
protect from invasive species of all kinds!!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
434
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
L. Shuman
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0663-A1
1
No
Comment: You will do this or I will go to the area EPA office, sit down at their computer and
write the order for the military to board ocean going ships that enter the Great Lakes in the
Atlantic and empty and flush the ballast tanks before entering the Great Lakes.
Response: Saltwater flushing and ballast water exchange are already mandatory practices for
ocean going vessels and would remain so under the final 2102 VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
P. Heithaus
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0664-A1
1
No
Comment: As a resident of Ohio I am familiar with the damage caused by the introduction of
invasive species through ballast waters. It is way past time to set new standards for water
released into the Great Lakes. New standards should require that potential invasive species are
either killed or removed from ballast water before it is released.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: G. and P. Holcomb
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0665-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: IT IS NOT TOO LATE! However, the 2013 Vessel General Permit for ballast water
discharges must be strengthened and enforced, and this must be done BEFORE THE END OF
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2012.
Thank you so very much, I consider this to be a favorable timeline before the Great Lakes are
destroyed.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
435
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. J. Nicholson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0666-A1
1
No
Comment: As someone who lives within thirty miles of Lake Superior, I can tell you that this
issue is of enormous regional concern and should be of national concern. Of course, the invasive
species don't invade only the Great Lakes. The water systems across the northern area of our
nation covered by the Great Lakes are enormous, beautiful, economically productive, and
irreplaceable. Thank you for your intelligent stewardship.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
M. Scott
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0668-A1
1
No
Comment: Water that is fresh is a rare commodity. If people let the Zebra Mussel take over, the
water will be contaminated too.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
V. Snider
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0670-A1
1
No
Comment: As a resident of Erie County on the shores of Lake Erie, I know firsthand what a
problem invasive species like the zebra mussel can be. We must make a greater effort to stop
these unwelcome visitors from getting a free ride on vessels entering the Great Lakes.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: J. DiNardo
Commenter Affiliation:
436
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0671-A1
1
No
Comment: Zebra mussels have devastated native fish in the Great Lakes, like Lake Erie, near
which I live, exploding in number as they consumed the small organisms that would otherwise
be food for larger fish. The small, sharp mussels were brought to the Great Lakes by ocean-going
ships, and these same ships are still allowed to give invasive species a "free ride" in the water
they carry in their ballast tanks from across the globe to the Great Lakes. Take action to stop new
invasive species from harming wildlife in the Great Lakes. By filtering out the small bits of food
from the lakes, zebra mussels and the nearly identical invasive quagga mussels have wrecked the
food chain and created water conditions that are ripe for toxic algae blooms-causing massive
deaths of fish and birds. You, the Environmental Protection Agency, proposed new requirements
for the water discharged from commercial vessels' ballast tanks, where invasive species get a free
ride into the Great Lakes. But, these proposed requirements still allow ships to dump exotic
organisms into the Great Lakes.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
G. Pearson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0674-A1
1
No
Comment: First it was Zebra Mussels in 2008, now Asian Carp in 2011. If either or other
invading alien seafood species do not upset the ecological balance of our Great Lakes, that's OK.
However, that does not seem to be the case.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
S. Teel
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0675-A1
1
No
Comment: How can this not be simple common sense? It'll be much costlier to the industries
once these invasive species gain a foothold. It makes environmental, business, and financial
sense...how is this something anyone including the boat owners needs to debate?
437
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
C. Lasecki
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0676-A1
1
No
Comment: Having lived along Lake Michigan my entire sixty-eight years, I can tell you that I
have seen the devastating effects of pollution and invasive species damage. I have decided to do
what I can to help save the Great Lakes and the river systems which discharge into them.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. B. Schwartz
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0678-A1
1
No
Comment: As a longtime resident of the Finger Lakes region of New York State, I am sadly
aware of the problems caused by zebra mussels in Cayuga Lake.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
P. Donnelly
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0679-A1
1
No
Comment: The presence of the invasive species has already altered recreational fishing in the
Great Lakes. Quagga and Zebra mussels have devastated the bottoms of the lakes so that larger
fish such as the Chinook salmon cannot find the bait fish which they feed upon. Please
strengthen the ballast discharge to zero for incoming ocean vessels.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
438
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
W. Stroessner
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0680-A1
1
No
Comment: While you're at it, close the gates at Chicago so that the Asian Carp cannot enter
Lake Michigan. If they ever get in...
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
W. Stroessner
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0681-A1
1
No
Comment: I was born and grew up in Michigan and have always treasured the Great Lakes, and
realized what a precious WORLD resource they are. I vividly remember the terrible problems
brought about by the invasion of the sea lamprey during my childhood. Since that time the Great
Lakes have been burdened by successive "waves" of invaders. This just cannot be allowed to
continue.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
W. Stroessner
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0682-A1
1
No
Comment: I find it amazing that we have to email you to get this done. Shouldn't this be
automatic for an agency such as the EPA?
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
W. Stroessner
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0683-A1
1
No
439
-------
Comment: If every boat/ship were checked before they entered new waters these problems
would not exist. Have not enough invasive species been introduced to our waters in this country?
It is downright ridiculous and needs to be addressed by someone with the backbone to stand up
for what is right not for the almighty dollar they are paid to shut up and go along for the ride.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
J. Rothenberg
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0685-A1
1
No
Comment: If we think of the Great Lakes at all, we think about how we can exploit them. As
big as they are (enough fresh water to be the ENVY OF THE ENTIRE PLANET), they are in
peril because of the extent to which we have exploited them- as if they were in some way
limitless. In the overall scheme of things, zero tolerance for invasive species is a small thing. At
a minimum, we can be expected to accomplish that.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
E. Schultz
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0686-A1
1
No
Comment: Being, myself, from a city on Lake Michigan, I want to see the Great Lakes
protected and preserved!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
A. Eastham
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0687-A1
1
No
440
-------
Comment: The Great Lakes are unique ecosystems, and are vital in so many ways, not the least
for their sport and tourist attractions. They should be maintained in as close as possible to their
natural state.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
C. Grubb
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0688-A1
1
No
Comment: I've lived in the Great Lakes region my entire life. It pains me to think that even
after the devastating effects that the zebra and quagga mussels have had on the Great Lakes, we
still have not done more to address the problem.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Liberacki
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0689-A1
1
No
Comment: Imagine if these get into the Great Lakes then spread to other waterways i.e., the
Mississippi and so on. It would be a pandemic!! Just look what the Emerald Ash Borer, Zebra
Mussel and Cane Toads have done.. Don't add another to the list!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
L. Adams
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0690-A1
1
No
Comment: When a species is invasive, no amount is permissible; it WILL multiply.
441
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
K. Robbins
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0691-A1
1
No
Comment: Remember the old adages "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", "A
stitch in time saves nine" or "It's no use to shut the barn door after the horse has already bolted"?
There are so many common sense calls to be vigilant and proactive for good reason. Sometimes
even the most drastic and expensive remediation isn't enough to fix a problem once it is allowed
to start. We should be investing now in the strictest protections possible for our priceless Great
Lakes, before the Pandora's box of more invasive species is allowed to be opened.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
T. Swedberg
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0692-A1
1
No
Comment: We need to stop treating these bodies of water as nothing more than roads,
causeways, and simple means to commerce! We protect a giant hole in the ground (Grand
Canyon) but keep on dumping on the Great Lakes, this is tragically short sighted. These
magnificent life giving resources require better stewardship and long overdue protection. Please
act now to protect these priceless fresh water resources!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
T. Cannon
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0693-A1
1
No
Comment: It is unthinkable, that a few "well connected" people and companies, have been
allowed to have their interests, over-ride the greater welfare and interests of a far larger amount
442
-------
of people and companies, in the NON-CLOSING of the MAN-MADE waterways connecting the
Great Lakes (mainly Michigan), to the Mississippi river watershed basin.
The so-called monetary interests they are whining about is FAR LESS than the amount that
could be destroyed, and are RIGHT NOW costing the Great Lakes regions multi-MILLIONS of
dollars a year, to clean up the damage they are and will cause.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
M. Jackson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0694-A1
1
No
Comment: While we are aware of the claim of "financial burden" imposed on seagoing vessels
and their owners, university research has provided treatment options that are easily installed on
existing ballast tanks that cost little and are easily operated by crew with little/no training
required to operate. The alternative is a collapse of marine industries in the Great Lakes with a
cost greater than the financial burden imposed on those vessels. It is a small price to pay to
preserve our livelihoods and healthy ecosystems.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
M. Zwicker
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0695-A1
1
No
Comment: While the draft VGP is a step forward from the status quo 2008 permit, it does not
go far enough to protect the Great Lakes. The VGP fails to recognize that zero is the only
acceptable level of invasive species, does not set a strong national standard that meets the
standards already set by the state of New York, and allows vessels far too long to comply with
the new permit.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: K. Linn
Commenter Affiliation:
443
-------
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0696-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: You have known the dangers posed to our Great Lakes by alien invasive species for
many years. It is time to act NOW.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
C. Francis
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0697-A1
1
No
Comment: I have lived by the Great Lakes all my life. Huge portions of the country depend
upon their health and beauty for our livelihood and our inspiration.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
K. Simonik
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0698-A1
1
No
Comment: This must be looked into immediately. This is how the destruction chain of events
starts and then it is most difficult to stop!! Please take this threat seriously!!!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
N. Sorlie
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0700-A1
1
No
Comment: The state already requires the removal of these invaders from personal vessels, so
why shouldn't the corporate ones have to remove these invaders from their boats/ships as well?
444
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
P. Turon
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0701-A1
1
No
Comment: Please protect our environment from all invasive species that enter our country. No
matter if it's these zebra mussels, various bugs, plants, or insects these species damage and over
take our native species. Let's protect our planet starting with our own country. With the mussels
in the Great Lakes they won't be GREAT for long. Thank you.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
J. Tannehill
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0703-A1
1
No
Comment: We need to protect our Great Lakes! As someone who has enjoyed the waters of
Lake Michigan all my life I have seen the devastation caused by invasive species and would like
to see those vessel companies take responsibility for damages they cause.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. J. Mendoza
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0704-A1
1
No
Comment: Non-native species can devastate out Great Lakes and other inland waterways.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
445
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. S. Keil
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0705-A1
1
No
Comment: I live in a Great Lakes state where I greatly enjoy the recreational opportunities the
Lakes create. I have seen the damage done by invasive species especially to the commercial
fisheries and the cities and industries that must fight off the zebra mussels. I have also
experienced the effects on beaches of die offs.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
I. Senn
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0706-A1
1
No
Comment: I am very concerned about the way that invasive species have been damaging the
ecosystems of the Great Lakes. The least we can do is keep new species from invading the lakes!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
N. Price
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0707-A1
1
No
Comment: As a sailor on Lake Ontario, I am very aware of the effect invasive species have on
the health of the lake. Please help keep our lakes natural and in their near-original states.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
G. Opem
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0708-A1
1
No
446
-------
Comment: I have a home on the Lake Michigan shore. I have witnessed how the zebra mussel
and similar invasive species have upset the natural balance in the Great Lakes.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
C. Jolliff
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0709-A1
1
No
Comment: Invasives have also destroyed tourism and fishing, both sport and commercial, on
the Great Lakes because the shipping industry has refused to do something. Invasive species
have had a major impact on multi-billion dollar economies that many small Great Lake's towns
rely on for income, and many people have lost their livelihoods because of it. That's the last thing
Americans in the Great Lakes region need, especially when it's already hard enough to earn an
American dollar. Do something right for once, and take measures to protect the people who
make up the back bone of our great nation!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
A. Lucchini
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0710-A1
1
No
Comment: I was raised in Erie, PA, and spent a good part of my life on Lake Erie. It has
survived many threats and gone through much change. It is time to once and for all protect the
Great Lakes- one of the most important aquatic ecosystems in the world and an economic
powerhouse for the region.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
D. Murphy
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0711-A1
1
No
447
-------
Comment: This is becoming a monumental crises for the entire country, with much of the world
maintaining a watchful eye on how we manage it. There is no place for politics here, only ethical
choices will protect this remarkable natural treasure.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
R. Stiefel
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0712-A1
1
No
Comment: This is serious and requires definite action. The invasive species must be stopped to
save our precious lakes. Please, for our sake and that of our children and all future generations.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
K. Smith
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0713-A1
1
No
Comment: Please do the right thing for our Great Lakes and our future.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
C. Caldie
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0714-A1
1
No
Comment: Living in LaPorte County, Indiana, at the tip of Lake Michigan, this issue is
important to me and my relatives. I remember swimming with dead fish in the 60's. Invasive
species are harder to clean up than pollutants, so please take action.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
448
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
H. Santiago
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0715-A1
1
No
Comment: We are experiencing a terrible foreign invasion that threatens our native species.
Failure to act effectively after it became clear that native species were endangered has
jeopardized our ability to undo the damage the Great Lakes have already sustained and now the
"kudzu"-like invasion will be even harder to overcome. We have gotten some control of kudzu,
but the increasing threats to Great Lakes species may not be as readily contained.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
S. Saari
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0716-A1
1
No
Comment: this is a new bit of information for me and I am horrified to hear that this is
happening. Growing up in White Fish Bay Wisconsin the lake was right below our back yard. It
is beautiful and we cannot let these practices to just keep dumping junk into the Great Lakes. It is
clearly destroying the eco balance of the 5 lakes. I feel confident that there is more that you can
do to end these disgusting practices. We on the Great Lakes and the country are counting on you.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
S. Long
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0717-A1
1
Yes
Comment: With the economy the way it is, can we really afford to lose, or at least adversely
affect, the fishing industry in the Great Lakes? No. Please protect our waters.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
449
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
M. Leven
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0718-A1
1
No
Comment: We do not need invasive species in the Great Lakes. We have had problems with
zebra mussels and eels. These animals upset the balance of life in the lakes and harm fishing in
the lakes. I have seen figures that claim that allowing ships to enter the Great lakes thru the
seaway costs us more than the money the shipping brings in. Maybe time to ban the ships?
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
G. Crouse
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0720-A1
1
No
Comment: As an emeritus member of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), I
ask you to stop invasive species' free ride into the Great Lakes by incorporating into the 2013
Vessel General Permit a goal of zero invasive species in vessel ballast water discharges.
Establish discharge standards as strict as the highest standards established by the states. Apply
regulations to vessels that travel only within the Great Lakes basin but increase risk of spreading
invaders. Require compliance on the date the new permit goes into effect.
Response: Issues as to the stringency of discharge standards, applicability of discharge
standards for "Lakers," and schedule for compliance are addressed elsewhere in the VGP Fact
Sheet and this response to comment document. Please see the Fact Sheet section 4.4.3 (and
following subsections thereto) and sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.6, 9.1.9, 10, 10.1, 10.1.1, and 10.1.2
of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Gil ma n
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0721-A1
1
No
Comment: Here in the Finger Lakes region of New York, due to our hydro logic linkages to the
Great Lakes, we suffer the same harmful consequences when invasive species enter our waters.
The time to act completely and correctly is now.
450
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
C. Litweiler
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0725-A1
1
No
Comment: I don't know the expense of the economic trade-offs that have kept us from dealing
with invasive species all this time. The damage to the ecosystems and to Great Lakes fisheries
has been plain-and increasing-for decades.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: C. Fries
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0726-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: As a citizen of Michigan I know the Great Lakes our one of our nation's most
valuable resources.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
D. Mcintosh
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0727-A1
1
No
Comment: HASHEM, Alone and One, is waiting for these basic, common sense protections as
people are too busy going to and fro to actually care.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: P. Wormley
Commenter Affiliation:
451
-------
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0728-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: The Great Lakes are very Special Asset to our State, the Midwest and Our Country.
They deserve a Very High Priority for protection and preservation!!!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
A. Stroh
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0729-A1
1
No
Comment: I live in Cleveland, Ohio, so I am very close to Lake Erie. PLEASE protect our
beautiful lake and all the Great Lakes. They are one of our country's greatest national resources
and need to be protected from invasive species.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
L. Swider
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0730-A1
1
No
Comment: I live on the 7 chains of lakes in Pinckney, Michigan and we have this problem in
our lakes. I can't begin to tell you how harmful this problem is to our beautiful lakes. Our fish are
dying, our children can't go into the lake without being sliced to pieces because the mussels are
like razor blades, the delicate balance of the eco-system has been totally thrown off balance. I
can't imagine what will happen to our lakes if this continues to go on. It has only taken a few
years for it to get completely out of hand as it is. Please help.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: J. A. Bule
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0731-A1
452
-------
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
1
No
Comment: As a Midwestern resident in a state that borders Lake Michigan I respectfully ask
that you please protect the Great Lakes from new invasive species.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
C. Wagner
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0732-A1
1
No
Comment: Please protect the Great Lakes from new invasive species.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
J. Smith
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0733-A1
1
No
Comment: Gobies and zebra mussels have screwed up Lake Michigan's ecosystem.These are
common sense protections. Why spend trillions on "defense" if our ecosystems and agriculture
can be destroyed through invasive species?
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
M. Guest
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0734-A1
1
No
Comment: Invasive species are also a threat to native ecosystems. They can harm or destroy the
environment home to animals and plants that keep it in balance. Please put a end to this invasive
situation before it gets worse or too late. Act now.
453
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
F. Canonizado
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0735-A1
1
No
Comment: If we know that invasive species are introduced to the Great Lakes via ships' ballast
water and we do nothing about it, that is akin to watching a polluter dumping into our water
supply and not doing anything about it.
There are many families in the region whose livelihoods are dependent upon the health of the
Great Lakes. Please make sure you do everything you can as an agency tasked to "protect the
environment" to actually protect our Great Lakes.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
A. Mahan
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0737-A1
1
No
Comment: This has been a known issue for decades, yet we continue to allow more destructive
invasive species into the Great Lakes without strengthening preventive regulations.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Birnbaum
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0738-A1
1
No
Comment: Without natural predators, species imported to our shores breed out of control. Look
at pigeons, which are bad enough. Kudzu, also a disaster. And not, yet another species is helping
destroy our natural ecology.
454
-------
Try to get an orange into Florida or California, and you'll see that protecting our native species is
a priority when money is at stake. Well, money is at stake here too, along with our populations'
health and welfare.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
C. Yeany
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0739-A1
1
No
Comment: One environmental change affects us all down the line. Please protect the Great
Lakes from new invasive species that are devastating native fish populations.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Wallick
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0740-A1
1
No
Comment: If you don't happen to live near these Great Lakes this might not seem like an
important issue. I do and after growing up watching our state battle with a beast from Hell, the
lamprey eel, and now the more recent devastations with the various mussels, it is time for serious
action. The Great Lakes are an incredible, natural, national treasure. Their health is more
important than profits or a war in some distant part of the world. Fresh water is crucial to our
future.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. R. Sherding
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0741-A1
1
No
455
-------
Comment: I have lived in Ohio for over 35 years and the deterioration of the ecosystem of Lake
Erie and the other Great Lake is very disappointing to see. The Great Lakes are the earth's crown
jewels of fresh water lakes and they need our protection for future generations.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gary Rosenlieb, Acting Chief, National Park Service Water
Resources Division, United States Department of the
Interior
National Park Service, United States Department of the
Interior
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0742-A2
1
No
Comment: One of our main concerns is ballast discharges and the potential threat of invasive
species. Ballast introduced aquatic invasive species (AIS) pose a tremendous threat to aquatic
resources broadly and specifically at many NPS units and partnership managed areas. A 2008 US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report lists 58 new AIS invaders that have potential to
significantly disrupt the Great Lakes system. Estimates for AIS species damages in the Great
Lakes alone range from a conservative $200 million to $5.7 billion. These figures do not account
for significant changes in the large lakes food webs, nor the potential costs of long term impacts
from new diseases that cannot be eradicated. AIS would significantly harm the millions of acres
and innumerable aquatic resources in parks throughout the Great Lakes and the U.S.
Overall, NPS has three goals relative to ballast management:
1. Protecting the parks aquatic resources from releases associated with ship groundings along
shipping routes within and near park boundaries,
2. Helping prevent transfers of species between the basins of the Great Lakes in order to
prevent potential introductions in Great Lakes parks, and
3. Protecting coastal waters of the United States by enabling emergency treatment during the
interim 9-plus years until wide adoption of permanent shipboard ballast treatment systems.
We applaud the EPA's efforts to address the threat of AIS from ballast discharges. However, we
believe a few changes to the proposed VGP rules would help hasten and strengthen the proposed
measures.
Response: EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and other
documents in the administrative record, that ballast water has been a major source for the
introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the Great Lakes and other water
bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and social costs. EPA notes that the
limits and other requirements contained in the VGP are expected to substantially reduce the
environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS introductions and establishments. We
456
-------
appreciate NPS concerns over invasive species and their potential impact to National parks and
note that the final VGP establishes specific discharge restrictions for National Park waters. See
e.g., VGP section 2.2.3.6.5. With respect to the 2008 EPA report referred to in this comment,
please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0491-A1, excerpt 4.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Imam
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0743-A1
1
No
Comment: Please stop invasive species' "free ride" into the Great Lakes; the Great Lakes and
the species therein are beautiful gifts from GOD.
As you are well-aware, invasive species can lead to further destruction and alteration of species'
survival and ecosystems.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
K. Arellanes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0744-A1
1
No
Comment: You are the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ANGENCY! When are you going
to stand up and fight strong for what you were established for? When are you going to tell the
greedy corporate Congressman to shut the hell up? When are you going to kick the corporate
lobbyists out?
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
E. Olsen
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0745-A1
1
No
Comment: Our Great Lakes are a huge natural resource that we must step up and protect; for
ourselves and for future generations. Please protect the Great Lakes and help keep them clean
and healthy.
457
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
G. Prevost
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0746-A1
1
No
Comment: Here in Dundas, Ontario, at the west end of Lake Ontario sits Cootes Paradise. An
internationally recognized area of importance for birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians, and mammals.
It is one of the most biologically diverse areas on the continent. However, alien invasive species
has devastated the marsh over the past 100 years. For example, invasive carp require constant
attention with a dam to prevent them access to the march. This costs a significant amount of
money to operate, funds that could have gone to better use elsewhere. It also harms the marsh.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
P. Wilson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0747-A1
1
No
Comment: As a child I lived close to Lake Superior. (The Lakes were formed by the melting of
the last ice age, and had some of the most pristine water in the world). On Sundays families
would gather along the shore in many places and wade or swim as they enjoyed their picnics.
Today, from what I have read about the invasion of various species of animal and fish life,
ballast and perhaps even garbage of large ocean-going ships, I would not set foot in any of the
Great Lakes today.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
K. Moore
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0748-A1
1
No
458
-------
Comment: Yes, these are common sense steps to save, a drinking body of water. To not take
these steps would be equal to putting, dirty mud, poisonous chemicals into your child's orange
juice every morning. Please, stand up and do "The Right Thing" by demanding these step be in
place to protect the Great Lakes (all of them). Do not fall for the pressure of the MONEY.
Corporations, including shipping firm, are not interested to promote clean water, only to destroy
if it save a dollar for their stockholders. Please, vote for clean water over the Stockholders!!!!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
D. Niergarth
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0750-A1
1
No
Comment: I cannot condone nor can I see why the US government should condone ocean going
ships dumping ballast water in our freshwater biosystem resource. Especially when we could,
conceivably, make some very good money out of servicing those ships ourselves. Jobs created
could be on the order of hundreds, and all of them with a "green" in the name.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
1
No
Comment: Nearly all of Michigan's waterways have suffered substantial environmental impacts
over time. This is especially true when you consider the impact of invasive species upon the
Great Lakes. Invasive species such as round gobies, zebra and quagga mussels, sea lamprey, and
ruffe have taken over Great Lakes ecosystems not only at the expense of native species, but also
to the expense of Great Lakes residents and businesses as well. As such, the majority of our
comments focus on invasive species and the ballast water requirements within the draft permits.
Since the 1800s, more than 185 alien species have invaded the Great Lakes ecosystem from
around the world, costing us millions, and in some cases, irreparably damaging the Great Lakes
ecosystem. Most invasive species introductions can be linked to economic activities, such as
production, trade, shipping, and recreation. More than one-third of these organisms have been
introduced in the past 30 years - since the St. Lawrence Seaway opened up. Exotic species are
brought to the Great Lakes region and spread in ballast water dumped by ships that have been
459
-------
overseas, and are further spread on board personal watercraft, and by people traveling between
bodies of water.
There are both economic and ecological impacts, both of which are quite serious. Ecologically,
aquatic invasive species impacts include food web disruptions, native species reduction or loss,
water quality degradation, and the introduction of pathogens. Furthermore, ecosystem
disruptions and imbalances can result in increased danger to human health. Once introduced into
the Great Lakes, many aquatic invasive species can find their way into inland lakes, rivers,
wetlands, and other waterways, thus greatly compounding the problems associated with invasive
species. Moreover, 42 percent of threatened and endangered species in the U.S. are at risk,
mainly because of invasive species.
The negative economic impact of invasive species is in the billions of dollars and once they are
introduced into the Great Lakes ecosystem, controlling them is a losing battle. Invasive species
adversely affect many commercial, agricultural, aqua-cultural, and recreational activities that
rely heavily on a strong and stable ecosystem. Economic losses in the Great Lakes Basin from
aquatic invasive species were estimated in 2005 at $5 billion per year. Additionally, the costs
incurred by the state, local municipalities, and businesses to respond to the introduction of an
aquatic invasive species is quite significant. Furthermore, studies have estimated lost property
values on infested water bodies of $12,000 per property.
General Comments:
The VGP and sVGP essentially provide an institutional "rubber stamp" on projects that should
otherwise be reviewed on an individual permit basis. Through the individual permit review,
professional and knowledgeable agency staff are able to more fully assess impacts and ensure the
least damaging alternatives are identified and exercised. Such review is preferred to ensure
protection of our valuable Great Lakes; however, we recognize that lack of funding has severely
limited the resources required for the EPA to conduct individual permit reviews for all vessels in
US Waters. Furthermore, the permit-by-rule granted by the proposed VGP and sVGP hinders
enforcement and actual protection of the Great Lakes from pollution and invasive species.
We do acknowledge that the proposed Vessel General Permit and Small Vessel General Permit
are an improvement over existing regulations in that they require vessels entering the Great
Lakes system to adhere to a numeric system for discharges. This is an important intermediary
step toward reducing the risk of invasion by non-native aquatic species brought in by oceangoing
vessels. We appreciate the EPA taking these further steps to protect the Great Lakes and the
Waters of the U.S.
Response: EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and other
documents in the administrative record that ballast water has been a major source for the
introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the Great Lakes and other water
bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and social costs. EPA notes that the
limits and other requirements contained in the VGP are expected to substantially reduce the
environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS introductions and establishments. We
note that neither the VGP or sVGP are "permits by rule," as commenter asserts, but are general
NPDES permits issued under authority of CWA section 402. EPA's regulations specify when
460
-------
general permits may be used - see 40 CFR 122.28 - and the commenter provides no argument
for why EPA's use of that approach is impermissible here. Further, EPA notes that any
comments expressing disagreement with that regulation are outside the scope of today's
permitting action. In any event, EPA notes its disagreement with commenter's assertion that
general permits are institutional "rubber stamps", as they contain specific effluent limitations,
monitoring, and reporting requirements and, as with individual permits under section 402, are
fully enforceable under the CWA. Commenter is referred to section 2.4 of the VGP Fact Sheet
for further discussion of CWA general permits. Commenter's acknowledgement that the
proposed VGP and sVGP are an improvement over existing regulations is noted; commenter
specific concerns with the ballast water discharge standards are addressed elsewhere in this
response to comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
19
No
Comment: While scientists throughout the region agree that invasive species are one of the
greatest threats to the Great Lakes, you do not have to be a scientist to recognize the damage
these invaders inflict on our fisheries, economy, and human health. Comprehensive action is
needed to combat the future wave of invasions from occurring. A strong national standard that
will eliminate the threat of invasive species from ballast water is needed now. If we are going to
maintain the proud heritage of the Great Lakes, now is the time to shut the door on aquatic
invasive species. The longer the wait, the more expensive the investment will be and the more
we will lose because of the delay.
Response: As previously stated, EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the
VGP and other documents in the administrative record that ballast water has been a major
source for the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the Great Lakes
and other water bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and social costs. EPA
notes that the limits and other requirements contained in the VGP are expected to substantially
reduce the environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS introductions and
establishments. This comment is a summation at the end of the commenter's full letter and the
specific concerns raised in that letter are addressed elsewhere in this response to comment
document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
P. Haumann
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0753-A1
1
No
461
-------
Comment: I have lived within 16 miles of Lake Erie for more than 65 years, and I am shocked
that we have allowed these conditions to continue. Protect this GREAT Lake!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
J. MacArthur
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0754-A1
1
No
Comment: Why aren't our Coast Guard ships at the entrances of the St. Lawrence checking to
see that the ships dump their Ballast water out in the ocean and bringing in fresh water coming
out from the St. Lawrence? The way the invasive species are destroying our fresh water habitats
is frightening.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
C. Azan
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0755-A1
1
No
Comment: The Great Lake are my life here in the Midwest. My water source, my vacation, my
livelihood. A beauty and strength that is in great need of protection from many sources.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
C. Maciel
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0756-A1
1
No
Comment: The Great Lakes are part of our natural heritage to preserve for future generations:
this is our duty.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
462
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
J. Davis
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0759-A1
1
No
Comment: And not to give you too much to think about, help us block Asian Carp from
entering the Great Lakes. Once they are there, it will be devastating to tourism and the fishing
industries.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
P. Orr
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0763-A1
1
No
Comment: We have invasive earthworms in Ohio, due in part to ballast dumping, which are
ruining our forests; zebra mussel fallout which is partly responsible for the dangerous recent
algal blooms in Lake Erie. The Asian carp will be here with certainty if nothing is done quickly
and this may well destroy the commercially and ecologically valuable fisheries.
I am not a bleeding heart. My MS in Ecology comes from Case Western Reserve University and
I am the Immediate Past President of the Audubon Society of Greater Cleveland.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
E. Litten
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0764-A1
1
No
Comment: The Great Lakes have been damaged too much already by invasive species. It is
crucial that we prevent any more invasive species from getting into the Great Lakes.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
463
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
D. Moderacki
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0765-A1
1
No
Comment: People do not harm what they value. Show me what you value.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
R. Atkin
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0766-A1
1
No
Comment: We need to get this done so we can deal with the threat of Asian Carp before they
come and really mess things up for Lake Erie.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
M. Maxson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0768-A1
1
No
Comment: It is also common sense to prevent a problem from happening at a much lower cost
than spending millions to billions fixing a problem that didn't have to occur in the first place. Do
the right thing and protect our Great Lakes - they are worth it!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
D. Hart
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0769-A1
1
No
464
-------
Comment: If doing this is not a perfect job for your agency, and EXACTLY why your agency
exists, then what the hell do we need you for? There's plenty of other government agencies,
including Congress, selling out our environment to the Big Business 1%.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: C. Newhouse, Ph.D.
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0770-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: As a professional biologist I ask that you do everything in your power to strengthen
the 2013 Vessel General Permit for ballast water discharges. We need a zero-tolerance policy for
ballast water discharge. Our Great Lakes are too valuable to trust to hope and "probably-
effective" measures. We need the best protections possible. Thank you for your part in achieving
this.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
C. Fletcher
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0771-A1
1
No
Comment: As a native Michigander, I have spent my entire life in and around the Great Lakes. I
value their contribution to both nature and the economy and I grieve to see them abused.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
A. Eilenberg
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0772-A1
1
No
Comment: Our aquatic species desperately need our protection, now! Now is the time to
preserve as much diversity as possible, in the face of the massive extinction that has already
taken place in the animal world.
465
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
L. Alexander
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0773-A1
1
No
Comment: As a former resident of Michigan, and having a B A in Environmental Studies from
the University of Michigan, I know what a problem the zebra mussels have been for many years.
Time to work on a safe solution. Potassium worked in the lab.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
T. Murcko
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0774-A1
1
Yes
Comment: As E. O. Wilson emphasizes in The Creation, invasive species (along with habitat
loss, pollution, human over-population, and over-harvesting) is a major threat to the diversity of
life on this planet. We caused this threat to the Great Lakes, and we must be the solution. In my
life time, I have witnessed our failures and successes in meeting our responsibility to Lake Erie. I
know we can have a powerful negative or positive effect.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Dr. A. Agarwal
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0775-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: As a scuba diver, it is disheartening to see all the shipwrecks covered with zebra
mussels. Gobies are everywhere, eradicating the natural population of our Great Lakes.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
466
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
R. Gilbert
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0776-A1
1
No
Comment: If more stringent regulations had been in place 20 years ago, we would not have the
current catastrophes of zebra and quagga mussels. The yearly economic cost to companies and
cities around the Great Lakes is outlandish and could have been prevented with appropriate
regulations requiring any the bilge or ballast discharge to be sterilized. Additionally invasive
species such as this are causing irreversible ecological changes to the lakes. We can't afford any
more invasive species.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
RS. Stoner
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0777-A1
1
No
Comment: As I sit here looking out my home windows at Lake Superior (always in awe), I feel
particularly protective of this great body of water. In our uncertain times, with terrorism and
many groups angry at our nation, this supply of water could save the world someday because it's
drinkable now. I would drink water directly from this lake and many here do. Anything we can
collectively do as a world to save this magnificent clean body of water is in all of our best
interests.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
M. Coe
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0778-A1
1
No
Comment: I think we have been extremely lucky up to this point. I have been fishing on the
Great Lakes for over 30 years and have seen many invasive species introduced, some have been
good but most have been harmful. We must restrict the import of further invasive species before
something drastic happens that we could have prevented.
467
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: D. Gordon-Brown
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0781-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: This is a standard petition but the issue has been disturbing us for years. Without the
appropriate protection we despoil everything that makes this incredible planet give us
sustenance. Every little bit helps/or hurts. It is up to you on this one. We, the citizens, can do
nothing but beg you to be wise, not politically driven.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
L. Hau
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0783-A1
1
Yes
Comment: We who rely on the Great Lakes as our water source also realize that these lakes
belong to the rest of America and also to the rest of the world, as our lakes hold so much of the
fresh water on Earth. We have to be good stewards of this wonderful resource. - Lara Hau
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
D. Selvaggio
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0785-A1
1
No
Comment: As a biologist, I understand something of the devastating impacts, both direct and
indirect, that invasives have upon us. Dealing with these consequences is complicated, but
imperative.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
468
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Leveta Fisher
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0786-A1
1
No
Comment: The Great Lakes have been my home for over 50 years. In Michigan, we enjoy the
largest overall bodies of fresh water in the US. It is our duty to protect the clean, fresh water
source and our privilege to live so close to its wonder.
You must consider the future of our state, as if we don't have enough problems already. We have
waited far, far too long to do anything about this. I live on an inland all sports lake. For 20 years
now, we have had to spend thousands of dollars a year because of invasive species brought in by
boats having been on Lake Michigan, and the pollution from Factory Farmers on two sides of the
lake. It affects our health, pleasure, safety and pocket books. I plead with you to make this a
priority.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
V. Smith
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0787-A1
1
Yes
Comment: Especially in today's stretched budget situation, please think of this issue this way; it
is WAY cheaper to prevent a problem than try to fix it after the fact. The cost to try to go back
and put the genie back in the bottle is beyond calculation.
It is time to do the right thing and help prevent new problems since we have so many invasive
species plaguing us already from Zebra Mussels to Asian Carp that threaten to overwhelm
delicate systems that are themselves out of balance already. This is a real no-brainer.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
S. McLelland
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0788-A1
1
No
469
-------
Comment: We need to do all we can to stop invasive species from entering the lakes. It is easier
to prevent them from getting in the lakes than it is get them out once they are in.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
G. Gabel
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0789-A1
1
Yes
Comment: Personally, I'd have thought you'd have taken care of this problem a long time ago.
Please Act NOW!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
J. Stephenson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0791-A1
1
Yes
Comment: I live near Lake Michigan, The combined factors of pollution from multiple sources
like unsanitary waste and industrial run-off, as well unnatural pressure from invasive species
which disrupt the ecosystem by interfering with delicate food chains, increasingly push the lake's
ecological balance closer and closer to the breaking point.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
C. McVie
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0793-A1
1
No
Comment: The health of the Great Lakes are key to the economic well being of all the
surrounding states not to mention the health of the drinking water millions depend on.
470
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stuart T. Theis, Executive Director, United States Great
Lakes Shipping Association (USGLSA)
United States Great Lakes Shipping Association
(USGLSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0797-A1
1
No
Comment: While undertaking and scope of the proposed revision and renewal of the VGP is
wide ranging, USGLSA proposes to offer comment regarding three areas with emphasis, quite
naturally, on Great Lakes/Seaway impacts:
1) The exemption of Lakers" or "confined Lakers" as those terms are employed,
2) An apparent disconnect between when certain vessels may be required to have technology
installed and the time it may take for required approvals to be obtained, and
3) The administrative desirability to have new VGP and U.S. Coast Guard standards
harmonized to a single universal set of standards as the means to restore regulatory order in
the Lakes/Seaway System and avoid future potential chaotic consequences.
Response: This comment is an overview of the more specific comments on each of the above
three subjects. With respect to "Lakers" and harmonization of VGP and Coast Guard standards,
please see sections 9.1.1, 9.1.6, 9.1.19 and 14 of this comment response document.
Commenter's concern regarding timing of technology installation is addressed below.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Installation Timing
The draft VGP states that vessels constructed after January 1, 2012, be subject to the ballast
quality standards stated and referenced therein. Studies by recognized experts and officials are
emerging making the point that compliance with such standards will be impossible to achieve as
the technology and equipment to deliver the desired performance will not have been tested and
approved as required by U.S. Coast Guard, Classification Societies and other bodies with
jurisdiction. In addition, these same constraints may be found to exist as to the phase in period
stated for older vessels between 2014 and 2016. Pure weight of numbers could also be a
constraining factor on shipyards as the estimated 72,000 vessels potentially affected are to be
Stuart T. Theis, Executive Director, United States Great
Lakes Shipping Association (USGLSA)
United States Great Lakes Shipping Association
(USGLSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0797-A1
3
No
471
-------
brought to compliance. These matters would suggest a review of time tables and construction
capabilities especially in light of any negative effects on the ability of the fleets to adequately
conduct their trades in U.S. waters.
Response: In finalizing the VGP, EPA did review the implementation schedule for vessels
with respect to both new and existing vessels EPA made adjustments to that schedule for new
vessels. With respect to the implementation schedule, please see the response to comment EPA-
HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 11 for further explanation. EPA notes that only a
fraction of the estimated 72,000 vessels covered by the VGP would have to install ballast water
treatment systems. However, EPA also notes that there are numerous ships plying international
trades which never operate in U.S. waters which will also place demands on ship yards. EPA
notes that the multi-year implementation schedule has been included in the permit to take
factors such as construction capabilities into account. However, at this time, EPA does not
believe it appropriate to extend this multi-year implementation schedule more than the Agency
has already specified. Please also see the response to comments sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 of this
comment response document for further discussion.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Menkes
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0799-A1
1
No
Comment: I don't know why this was not done ages ago. Seems like one of the easiest answers
to a problem.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
R. Grande
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0800-A1
1
No
Comment: The great lakes are one of the most precious resources left on this earth. They are
more valuable than liquid gold, and smart forward-looking people know it. They need to be
protected and preserved at all and any cost.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
472
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
M. H. Watson
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0801-A1
1
No
Comment: Accidental - and deliberate - introduction of alien species to ecosystems not
prepared to deal with them has been one of the major causes of environmental disruption. Please
strengthen this and all other environmental protection regulations.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
M. Florey
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0802-A1
1
No
Comment: The Great Lakes are an international treasure. Fresh water is becoming an
endangered resource, and the planet's food supply has been compromised, as well. We have
already lost a large number of our commercial fisheries and our best farmlands. We cannot
afford to lose the productivity of the Great Lakes. This is time-critical action. Just do it.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
T. Lucas
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0803-A1
1
No
Comment: We have to be just as cautious about the wildlife that enters our waters as we are
about what people enter the USA. Upsetting the balance of nature in the waters will affect the
eco system in the waters as well as birds and ultimately the people.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: K. Shair
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0804-A1
473
-------
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
1
No
Comment: The Great Lakes are among the great bodies of water belonging to this country, and
are so important for economic reasons to the surrounding states, and are the source of water for
millions. Please protect the Great Lakes from new invasive species.
Establishing discharge standards which are at least as strict as the ones created by the states,
applying stronger regulations of "laker" vessels which travel within the Great lakes basins, and
which can be carriers of new invaders, and making compliance mandatory on the date upon
which the new permit goes into effect, would greatly improve the situation. Then we should set a
policy of "no tolerance" for new species.
New rules to prohibit new invasive species from entering these lakes is long overdue. Thank you
for your consideration.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
J. Y. Doesschate
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0805-A1
1
No
Comment: We foolishly allow our natural environment to be destroyed by commercial interests
who only care about their short term gain, and then in the end we pay dearly for what they have
done. And the cost to us is not just short term, but often irrevocably damaging. When we know
there is an answer to avoid the destruction, we need to put our nation's interests first.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
C. Rabbit
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0806-A1
1
No
Comment: Please take immediate action to stop the invasion of Asian Carp from Illinois!! Once
the carp are allowed to enter the Great Lakes, the sport and commercial fishing industries will be
wiped out with consequent serious financial impact to the economy!! Thank you for listening and
taking immediate action!
474
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
R. Mowday
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0807-A1
1
No
Comment: We need to think about our impacts on future generations by the protections we
sponsor and enforce. You are in a position very few of us are: "who knows but that you are
brought to the nation for such a time as this!"
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
F. Quail
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0808-A1
1
No
Comment: Once we have failed in protecting the Great Lakes, there is no going back. Please
help future generations enjoy the lakes as we have.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
E. Monis
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0810-A1
1
No
Comment: We are blessed with the world's only Great Lakes system. With this blessing is an
awesome responsibility. We need to protect the Great Lakes. Experts are discovering invasive
species that we are transporting into our lakes.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
475
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
L. Berling
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0811-A1
1
No
Comment: Our family has spent time on Michigan lakes for 4 generations. We treasure these
waters. We have seen a steady deterioration of water quality over time including invasive
species. If we have a way to intervene by stopping invasive species, there is definitely no
question that it must be done. We are very late in taking measures against the invaders.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
R. Bertrand
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0812-A1
1
No
Comment: The need for this protection and the means to do it are in no way new information. It
is time to stop and take the necessary measures.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
S. Sweeney
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0813-A1
1
No
Comment: I was born in Michigan and have lived on or near Lake Huron my entire life. Over
the years I have seen the problems caused by sea lampreys and zebra mussels when they showed
up in our lakes. Unfortunately these are only two of the drastic problems we face because of
ballast water from ships Please protect the Great Lakes from new invasive species
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Dr. K. R. Crocker
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0814-A1
476
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: I have lived my whole life on the shores of a northern Minnesota lake. I have
witnessed accelerating degradation and the advent of invasive species. I can barely imagine their
potential harm on the large scale of the Great Lakes.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
S. Brown
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0815-A1
1
No
Comment: I have friends in Milwaukee that will not drink tap water because they got sick when
these things attacked the Milwaukee pumping stations.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: D., D., D., and B. Poole
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0816-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: I totally agree with this letter, I've personally seen what these zebra mussels have
done since they also invaded Lake Webster, Indiana where our family cottage is. PLEASE
STRENGTHEN THE BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES!!!
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
A. Benjamin
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0817-A1
1
No
Comment: I live in Chicago, so I'm very concerned about protecting Lake Michigan and the
other Great Lakes. I urge the EPA to protect our Great Lakes from any new invasive species.
477
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document, the
Fact Sheet for the Final VGP, and elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 31
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: 2. Definitions. "Fish Hold," "Ballast Water," and "Ballast Tank" need to be defined.
Most of our vessels have one area called a fish hold and another area called an engine room.
Your discussion of ballast water, fish hold, and ballast tank suggests these terms are all the same.
These terms for our industry represent very different construction areas of our vessels.
Response: The terms "ballast water" and "ballast tank" are already defined in the VGP and
sVGP in a manner consistent with existing Coast Guard regulations and the 2008 VGP. Please
see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1, excerpt 7 and comments
elsewhere in this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 32
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: Definitions of "Fish Hold" "Ballast water" and "Ballast Tank" should be included in
these draft permits. The criteria for whether a vessel needs a VGP or sVGP is related to length
(greater or less than 79 feet) as well as capacity of ballast water (greater or less than 8 cubic
meters). While the draft permit makes the distinction in categories between "fish hold effluent"
and "ballast water", no definitions are provided.
Response: The terms "ballast water" and "ballast tank" are already defined in the VGP in a
manner consistent with existing Coast Guard regulations and the 2008 VGP. Please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1, excerpt 7 and comments elsewhere in
this comment response document. Based on this and other comments, EPA added a definition of
Fish Hold to the VGP. The EPA has defined Fish Hold, based on information collected in its
2010 Vessels Report to Congress and other sources, to be: "Fish Hold" means the area where
seafood or seafood products are kept once caught and kept fresh during the remainder of the
voyage before being offloaded to shore or another tender vessel. The fish hold is typically a
refrigerated seawater holding tank, where the seafood product is kept cool by mechanical
refrigeration or ice. It can also include continuous flow systems needed to keep certain
organisms such as lobster and crab alive until they are unloaded. Fish hold effluent is the water
discharged from fish holds."
478
-------
9.1.1 Numeric Limits for Organisms and Microorganisms
Response Essay:
Overview:
Within this category, we received numerous comments on EPA's determination of what
constituted technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) for ballast water discharges. Many of
these comments focused on the appropriateness of the TBEL numeric discharge limits,
including the VGP's use of the numeric limits contained in the IMO Regulation D-2 standards.
Some of the comments also discussed monitoring, detection limits, and interpretation of
existing ballast water testing data so as to support establishment of more stringent limits as
TBELS. Other TBEL-related comments included matters related to the implementation
schedule, applicability of TBELs to certain vessel classes (e.g., Lakers and tugboats), and the
US Coast Guard type-approval process. Besides TBEL-related issues, within this comment
category EPA also received numerous comments related to the VGP's water quality based
limits (WQBELs), including comments on EPA's determination that WQBELs were infeasible
to calculate, the adequacy of the VGP's WQBELs, and the practicability of meeting those
limits. Additionally, some of the commenters asked EPA to define specific terms used in the
VGP such as drydocking, discussed the appropriateness of 401 certifications, opposed making
ballast water plans public, sought a future "grandfathering" period if limits become more
stringent, and requested EPA apply an overall systems risk-management approach to regulating
ballast water. Finally, one commenter requested that EPA redefine "Confined Lakers" and
include a definition of the Great Lakes which would exempt vessels operating on the lakes from
applying treatment if they operated exclusively upstream of Anticosti Island in the Laurentian
Great Lakes system.
As explained in further detail below, EPA considered all of these comments, and based on the
comments, made several notable changes to the permit, including:
Modifying the date defining "new build vessel" for purposes of meeting numeric ballast
water treatment limits to December 1, 2013.
Finding that ballast water treatment technologies are not currently available for small inland and
seagoing vessels, including tug boats. EPA established the regulatory cutoff for applicability of
limits for these inland and seagoing vessels at those greater than 1600 gross registered tons.
Defining the term "drydocking" in the context of ballast water numeric limit applicability.
Changing the definition for "Lakers" which are not subject to numeric effluent limits during this
permit term, but are required to meet alternate management measures for them in Part 2.2.3.4 of
the VGP.
TBEL-Related Comments
Discharge Limits: Several commenters discussed EPA's adoption of the IMO D-2 standard as
479
-------
an appropriate technology based effluent limit. One such commenter included discussion noting
that though some vendors claimed their systems were capable of exceeding the IMO D-2 limits,
they were unable to locate any vendors who would warranty that their systems would meet
more stringent limits. Some commenters, including several industry sources and the
government of Canada, thanked or commended EPA for adopting the D-2 standard. EPA These
comments are consistent with the Agency's findings and support our approach; however, EPA
does note that the VGP's standard, though consistent with the IMO-D2 standard, is based on our
independent evaluation of what limits ballast water treatment technologies can achieve.
Other commenters, including environmental groups, certain U.S. States, Indian tribes, and
private citizens asserted that EPA should adopt more stringent limits, suggesting limits that are
lOx, lOOx, l,000x IMO-2, adoption of the "California standard" or "zero detectable living
organism" standard, or use of a "zero living organism" discharge standard. As discussed in
Section 4.4.3.5 of the VGP fact sheet, EPA conducted an extensive analysis of available
treatment technologies, including commissioning and taking into account a report by the
Agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB) to evaluate the status of shipboard ballast water
treatment technology. The Science Advisory Board concluded that five types of ballast water
treatment systems have been demonstrated to meet the IMO Regulation D-2 standard, and that
while these five systems have the potential to meet a lOx IMO standard in the near future,
improvements to test methods/approaches will be required to demonstrate conclusively that
improved systems meet standards beyond the D-2 standards. SAB report at pg. 38. With respect
to the ability of systems to achieve lOOx IMO or lOOOx IMO, the SAB concluded that given the
available data, it is "highly unlikely" that any of the systems considered could provide organism
removal to those levels. SAB report at pg 38. In addition, the SAB concluded that reaching the
lOOOx IMO, or even lOOx IMO, will "likely require wholly new treatment systems" that will
have "many attributes different from existing systems." SAB report pg 56.
One commenter, an environmental group, asserted that the SAB report suffered shortcomings
because the committee only assessed a "small subset" of systems and did not review "whole
categories of treatment systems under development." That commenter believed that not
assessing all systems undermined the conclusions of that committee. EPA disagrees, because
while the SAB did not conduct a full assessment of all treatment systems , it did consider
information on 51 existing or developmental ballast water management systems and fully
assessed the capabilities all systems for which there were credible (reliable) data for conducting
such an assessment. See, SAB report at pg 36. The SAB determined that "To earn a 'reliable'
rating, the data package had to include, at a minimum, methods and results from land-based or
shipboard testing." See, SAB report at pg. 30. Transparency in ballast water treatment data,
laboratory methods, quality assurance and quality control information from tests, and laboratory
results from type-approval and ship based testing has been lacking with numerous treatment
vendors and is crucial to the ability to perform an informed and objective judgment as to
treatment system capabilities. Some vendors claim that their systems are capable of exceeding
certain limits, but base those claims on partial data set releases or did not have their systems
tested using appropriate test methods. See, SAB Report §§ 3.5 and 4.3. EPA, as well as the US
Coast Guard, believes data transparency is essential, and absent data being released, and its
method of collection being clear, the validity of vendor or others' claims of system performance
cannot be meaningfully assessed. In light of this, the SAB only evaluated data for systems from
480
-------
vendors which made data and testing procedure information available to that body or which had
previously made such information available to EPA's Office of Water or the United States
Coast Guard. See SAB Report § 4.2 (SAB considered data resulting from solicitation of various
Maritime Administrations, direct communication with system developers and manufacturers,
and searches for publically available sources. See also, SAB Report Appendix A). That resulted
in the SAB finding that five types of ballast water treatment systems had underlying data
quality sufficient to show they could meet the IMO Regulation D-2 standard. Active steps were
taken by the SAB panel to obtain more data, including inviting any attendees and public
participants at their first meeting to submit additional data and encouraging attendees to let
others know to submit those data. For example, the State of California independently sent an
email to all vendors with which they had contact encouraging them to submit data to the SAB
panel. The SAB panel cannot be faulted that additional vendors failed to be transparent with
their results, or submit them for evaluation. The SAB could not scientifically evaluate systems
for which only summary slides, cursory data references, or limited type or unsupported
approval certificates were available. EPA also notes that the commenter did not provide
information on any systems for which there is credible data which the SAB failed to consider in
its assessment. For further discussion of SAB report, please see section 9.1 and section 9.1.2 of
this comment response document.
The systems with sufficient data to enable SAB evaluation included some, such as
"Echochlor," which some commenters contend can achieve a lOx IMO limit or more. For
instance, one State commenter (New York) submitted a statistical analysis of the data which
they believe demonstrates that system achieves standards more stringent than IMO. The
commenter also submitted its analysis and comments to the SAB. The SAB panel considered
that submission, but concluded that "Measuring adherence to a standard that is lOx more
stringent may be possible if a continuously isokinetically taken representative sample is used."
SAB Report at pg 29 (emphasis added). (For information on SAB meetings conducted in
preparing the report and comments submitted to the SAB, visit
http://vosemite.epa.gOv/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/9e6c799df254393a8525762c004e60fflQpenDocu
ment&TableRow=2. 2#2). The results of the SAB report were utilized by EPA as one important
piece of information in setting the TBELs for today's permit. See also, discussion of NY State
comments on VGP and associated "Vaughn" analysis in essay for section 9.1.2 of this comment
response document. EPA concurs with the SAB's results at this time.
Another commenter stated that "per the literature there are at least two or more treatment
systems currently available capable of meeting these standards in both salt and fresh water."
EPA is unaware of the literature the commenter is referencing, as the commenter did not cite
any sources. Despite its continued participation at IMO, coordination with the US Coast Guard
(which is responsible for type-approval in the US), and review of technical and scientific
literature, the Agency remains unaware of any peer reviewed literature, government technical
reports, or other objectively verifiable reports indicating there are systems shown to meet these
limits.
Additionally, a different State commenter [Michigan] stated that it was their understanding that
analytical detection/quantification levels 10 times IMO are currently being achieved by several
laboratories. EPA is unaware of laboratories consistently achieving detection and quantification
481
-------
levels 10 times IMO and the commenter did not provide any documentation for its statement.
The Agency further notes that other documents, including the SAB report and EPA's ETV
protocols (both available in the docket for today's permit) indicate that laboratories cannot
regularly achieve a quantification limit of lOx more stringent than IMO with existing
monitoring approaches and the volumes of ballast water that have been sampled to date.
In order to inform EPA's evaluation and establishment of the technology-based limits for the
final VGP, EPA also reviewed all data reports reviewed by the SAB panel, reviewed a
technology report prepared by Wisconsin evaluating the status of ballast water treatment
technologies, and a report produced by the California State Land Commission (see discussion in
Section 4.4.3.5 of the Fact Sheet for further explanation). EPA believes that all of these sources
directly support the determination that systems are available which meet the IMO limits, but do
not support a determination that systems are available to meet more stringent limits such as
suggested by commenters. In particular, we note the California report merely expresses the
view that systems are available which "potentially" meet a different standard - i.e., whether
systems can "potentially" meet limits of no detectable living organisms. Please see discussion in
Section 4.4.3.5.1 of the VGP Fact Sheet regarding EPA's analysis of the California report and
section 9.1.9 of this comment response document for more discussion on the California
Discharge Limits.
As discussed above, some commenters emphasized that certain systems could achieve the IMO
standard, while other commenters argued that systems could not achieve a limit more stringent
than IMO. One commenter, the government of Canada, disputed another commenter's assertion
[New York] that a particular system could achieve limits far more stringent than IMO. The
Canadian commenter noted that there were several complications in the type approval
documentation and analysis which should preclude EPA from accepting this determination, and
they noted further that the system should undergo testing to determine whether it was effective
in the Great Lakes environment. Issues around type approval testing procedures are beyond the
scope of this permit, and instead are covered by the Coast Guard final ballast water discharge
standard rule. Nonetheless, EPA notes that the information before the Agency indicates that
systems would be expected to work in the Great Lakes, and EPA agrees with the government of
Canada and US Coast Guard that systems are currently available which can achieve the IMO
limit. See, 77 Fed. Reg. 17272 at col. 1 (March 23, 2012) (USCG discussion that treatment
systems using processes (e.g., filtration, U.V.) that will function in such an environment are
available).
Implementation Schedule: Several commenters requested changes to the implementation
schedule for ballast water discharges. Specifically, some commenters were most concerned by
the draft VGP's requirement that those vessels constructed after January 1, 2012 would be
subject to the updated ballast water requirements upon the effective date of the permit. At the
time the draft VGP was issued, the schedule for installation of BWTS was consistent with the
schedule contained in a proposed Coast Guard ballast water rulemaking (74 FR 44632 (August
28, 2009)). Subsequent to the close of the comment period for the VGP, EPA notes the USCG
promulgated its final ballast water regulations, including a modified schedule for installation of
ballast water treatment systems with respect to "new" vessels. 33 C.F.R. §§ 151.1512(b) and
151.2035(b). As explained in section 4.4.3.5.5 of the Fact Sheet for the final 2012 VGP, the
482
-------
final 2012 VGP now reflects a schedule for "new" vessels that is consistent with that in the
USCG final rule. This was done by revising the final 2012 VGP, to define "new build" vessels
as those constructed after December 1, 2013 (as opposed to the draft VGP's use of a January 1,
2012, date) and, like the Coast Guard rule, requiring compliance with the technology-based
ballast water numeric limitations upon delivery. For the reasons set out in the Fact Sheet for the
final 2012 VGP, EPA believes that this change is appropriate to resolve concerns about the
availability of BWTS for "new" vessels. Please also see section 9.1 and section 9.1.2 of this
comment response document.
In regard to EPA's conclusion that systems for vessels constructed after December 1, 2013, will
be available and economically achievable, EPA notes that the Coast Guard has both a type
approval process and an Alternate Management System (AMS) Approval Process. EPA expects
approvals to be granted well before January 1, 2014. However, whether approvals are granted
or not, use of a Coast Guard approved system is not a requirement of the permit. Use of a
system that has been tested by a third party vendor and meets the effluent limits in the VGP are
the requirements. VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.1. Though EPA believes that type approval and AMS
approval provide substantial quality control, and help increase assurance for both regulators and
industry that numeric limits are likely to be met, these approvals are not mandatory to meet the
requirements of the permit. EPA notes, however, that to meet the requirements of the final
Coast Guard rulemaking, they are required. We also note that the final USCG rulemaking did
not make changes with respect to the schedule for existing vessels. The draft VGP was
consistent with that schedule, and as explained in section 4.4.3.5 of the Fact Sheet for the final
2013 VGP, EPA continues to believe that schedule is appropriate, and we thus did not make
changes to the schedule for installation of BWTS by existing vessels.
Some commenters argued that EPA should make the implementation schedule more rapid for
existing vessels. As discussed in Parts 4.4.3.5 and 4.4.3.5.5 of the Fact Sheet, EPA does not
believe that a more rapid schedule than the one proposed is feasible at this time. Thousands of
vessels ply the international trade and vendor manufacturing capacity is not sufficient to supply
all of these vessels in a two or three year time period. EPA also does not believe it appropriate
to require all vessels to meet the numeric treatment limits on the first permit effective date as
only a small minority of vessels could actually install ballast water treatment systems between
the time of permit finalization and the permit's effective date. Hence, as discussed in the Fact
Sheet, responses to comments in section 9.1 and section 9.1.2 of this comment response
document, EPA does not believe it to be economically achievable for systems to be installed on
a more rapid basis than that in the VGP.
Additionally, in regards to schedule, one commenter was concerned that EPA was requiring
vessels to use systems that had satisfactorily completed ETV testing. EPA notes that the
Agency intended that systems would need to be tested in a manner consistent with ETV testing,
primarily dealing with issues requiring data transparency, testing at a third party vendor, and
appropriate Quality Control/Quality Assurance metrics. Based on this and other comments,
however, EPA has updated the permit to clarify that a system need not have undergone ETV
testing; rather, that system must have been tested at a third party test facility with appropriate
QA/QC measures in place. VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.1.
483
-------
One environmental stakeholder suggested a schedule that is somewhat compressed relative to
what EPA proposed, with an initial implementation phase starting Mar. 1, 2016 with a deadline
of March 1, 2020, to require vessels to use systems that discharge zero living organisms. As
discussed above, EPA does not believe that is the appropriate standard to use for this permit,
and thus did not include the schedule proposed by commenter.
One commenter, a ballast water treatment vendor, asserted that EPA should "grandfather"
systems installed on board vessels for a 20 year time period. EPA notes that grandfathering is
beyond the scope of today's permit, as EPA cannot in today's permit impose requirements or
other limitations on future permits. See also discussion of grandfathering issues in responses to
comments in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document. Also related to schedule, a
commenter requested clarification of what the Agency meant by "dry docking". The agency
intends dry docking, for purposes of ballast water limit applicability for existing vessels, to have
its common meaning -- the hauling out of a vessel or placing a vessel in a drydock or slipway
for an examination of all accessible parts of the vessel's underwater body and all through-hull
fittings, and, consistent with this, has added a definition of "drydocking" to the VGP. Vessels
typically do not go more than 5 years between dry dockings, meaning the implementation
window for vessels will span over 7 years (from Jan. 1 2014 to Jan. 1 2021). All things being
equal (e.g., no dramatic surges or drop offs in new build construction date), this schedule will
result in peak installation requirements from Jan.l 2016 to Jan. 1 2019.
As far as the process of continuing ballast water exchange and saltwater flushing practices
before vessels must install ballast water treatment systems (e.g., as interim requirements), EPA
has left those requirements in, consistent with the proposal. For discussion regarding ballast
water exchange requirements in addition to ballast water treatment for certain vessels, please
see the response to comments in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document and Part
4.4.3.7 of the Fact Sheet. EPA notes that one major vessel owner/operator operating in and out
of the Great Lakes supports the view that increased protection is offered to the Great Lakes (by
exchange plus treatment) and that it is a more preferable alternative for that company than a
more stringent numeric discharge standard.
Applicability to Various Types/Sizes of Vessels: Numerous commenters requested that EPA not
apply the ballast water treatment limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of the permit to smaller vessels such as
tugboats and tow boats. Commenters expressed concern that systems were not available for
these vessels, noting that no type approved systems were designed, tested, or installed for use
on these sorts of vessels. Based upon a second review of information in the docket, and of
additional information submitted by commenters, EPA generally agrees with the commenters.
EPA found that U.S. or foreign flagged type approved systems were not available for smaller
inland and sea going vessels, and that system vendors had not, to date, generally been designing
their systems for smaller vessels with shorter duration voyages. EPA notes that one commenter
noted the installation of a ballast water treatment system on their 155 foot, 855 ton vessel.
However, at this time, this is the only inland or seagoing vessel less than 1600 gross registered
tons (GRT) for which EPA is aware of an installed ballast water treatment system. Hence, based
on the information submitted by the commenters and EPA's review of the information in the
docket demonstrating that systems are not available for these vessels, EPA is currently not
requiring inland and seagoing vessels less than 1600 GRT to meet the numeric limits found in
484
-------
Part 2.2.3.5.6.4 of the Permit. Please see the response to comments in section 9.1.2 of this
comment response document.
No commenter suggested a specific cut-off in terms of size that EPA should use to determine
treatment system applicability. As discussed above, the most appropriate limit EPA identified
was that contained within the final U.S. Coast Guard ballast water rulemaking, which
established numeric treatment limit applicability at 1600 GRT for inland and seagoing vessels.
Based on a review of tug and supply boat sizes, establishing a threshold at 1600 GRT would not
require treatment systems to be installed on the vast majority of tugboats and supply boats,
consistent with the requests and recommendations of commenters. EPA notes that the vast
majority, if not all, of the tugs operating in U.S. waters are below 1,600 GRT. There are
approximately 5,200 tugboats/ towboats in operation in the navigable waters of the United
States according to the U.S. Waterway Data maintained by the Navigation Data Center of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/index.htm). The majority of
these tug boats are less than 300 gross tons (USCG. 2006. Uninspected Towing Vessel Industry
Analysis Project, Final Report, Report Number: 469-05; included in the docket for today's
permit). One of the largest tug boats listed in the database is the John R. Ingram which is 1116
GT, which is clearly below the 1600 GRT (approximate 3000 GT) cutoff for inland and
seagoing vessels listed in the VGP section 2.2.3.5.3.4. Additionally, EPA notes that when
establishing regulatory thresholds, the Agency believes it appropriate to maintain consistency
with other appropriate requirements such as the ballast water Coast Guard rulemaking unless
the Agency has a reason not to do so (e.g., the Agency were able to find ballast water treatment
systems were available for inland and seagoing tugboats and supply boats). Such consistency,
when warranted and consistent with the Clean Water Act (as is this determination), reduces
regulatory uncertainty and increases efficiency of the program, thereby increasing economic
achievability for the regulated industry to meet permit limits. With respect to numeric ballast
water limits for smaller vessels, please see section 2 and section 9.1.2 of this comment response
document.
EPA notes that these vessels must still meet the technology-based ballast water limits and
related requirements found in Part 2.2.3.1, 2.2.3.2, and 2.2.3.3 of the permit. Additionally, these
vessels are also subject to the water quality based limit found in Part 2.3 of the permit. EPA will
continue to explore whether ballast water treatment technologies will become available for
these vessels, and if so, will explore whether to require their use in the future. Please see part
4.4.3.5 of the Fact Sheet for additional discussion. Additionally, if these vessels are found to
cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards, the vessel operator must take all
steps necessary to cease causing or contributing to that exceedance. Please see Part 4.5.3 of the
VGP Fact Sheet and response to comments sections 10.2 and section 10.1.1 of this comment
response document.
Also in regard to applicability of technology-based numeric treatment limits, some commenters
questioned EPA's rationale for selecting the "Welland Canal" for the geographical barrier to
define a confined Laker. One commenter said that there is no scientific rationale for doing so
and that the risk of moving ANS between the upper lakes is no less significant than the risk
posed by moving water from the St. Lawrence River to the upper lakes. One commenter
suggested that EPA should instead change the boundary to Anticosti Island: that is, any vessels
485
-------
coming in from outside of that point should be required to meet the numeric limits found in Part
2.2.3.5 of the permit, but those staying exclusively inside that boundary would only be subject
to the technology based treatment requirements found in Parts 2.2.3.1 through 2.2.3.4 of the
permit. For a response to such issues, please see the response to comments section 9.1.4 of this
comment response document.
WOBEL Related Comments
Some commenters questioned EPA's use of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences National
Research Council (NRC) report to inform its decision regarding numeric water quality-based
limits for ballast water. For additional discussion of EPA's water quality based limits
determination for ballast water, please see Parts 4.4.3.7, 4.4.3.9 and 4.5 of the VGP Fact Sheet,
and response to comments sections 10, 10.1, 10.1.1, and 10.1.2 of this comment response
document. As discussed in our Fact Sheet, the NRC noted that a "profound lack of data"
prevents a robust understanding of the "risk-release relationship" which can be used in
modeling attempts to conduct better risk assessments. Until that relationship is better
understood, the NRC recommended adoption of a benchmark standard, and specifically stated
that the IMO D-2 standard is one such standard. Though EPA found that numeric water-quality
based limits were infeasible to calculate, the Agency did establish the IMO D-2 standard as a
technology based effluent limit. Hence, EPA has effectively concurred with, and independently
implemented, the NRC's recommendation. Additionally, based on, the information in the NRC
report among other things, the Agency does not agree with several commenters'
recommendations, including environmental groups and some States, that the information before
the Agency compels EPA to establish numeric water quality based limits more stringent than
the IMO limit. We believe the best scientific information to instead clearly support that
calculating numeric water quality based limits is not feasible at this time due to lack of data to
calibrate and validate models which would help inform determination of an appropriate numeric
water-quality based effluent limit.
One environmental commenter noted that the NRC recommended establishing a benchmark
limit (e.g., IMO D-2) "only in aid of advancing" a robust understanding of the risk-release
relationship in order to inform future decisions about ballast water discharge standards." EPA
agrees with this comment in part and disagrees in part. EPA disagrees that the NRC made the
recommendation only to inform future decisions about ballast water discharge standards. The
NRC unequivocally stated that "significantly reducing propagule pressure will reduce the
probability of invasions..." and that "the IMO D2 standard represents a significant reduction in
concentrations beyond ballast water exchange, especially for the largest size ranges" (NRC
2011 at pp 5 and 117). Hence, establishing a ballast water discharge numeric limit at IMO D-2
clearly adds additional protection to our waters. However, EPA does agree with the commenter
that the NRC sought a better understanding of the risk release relationship and that, where
possible, validated models should be used to inform development of numeric limits. Though
beyond the scope of this permit issuance, EPA is leading efforts to better define and understand
these relationships. These include leading efforts, in partnership with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF),
to develop a national strategy or U.S./Canadian Bilateral strategy to fill in several key data gaps.
EPA hosted a scientific workshop, sponsored as part of an ANSTF research subcommittee, at its
headquarters from Wednesday September 26 to Friday September 28, 2012. Attendees at the
486
-------
meeting included numerous top invasive species experts, including 4 of the 9 members of the
NRC panel. Additionally, EPA staff is working through traditional scientific channels to further
our scientific understanding of the issues and identify pressing research needs. For example,
EPA staff currently have 5 peer reviewed journal articles in press at ecological applications
(Lee et al., Frazier et al., Frazier et al., Reusser et al., Albert et al.) dealing with such issues as
invasive species risk assessments and how improving risk assessment methodologies can lead to
better information to be used in making environmental management decisions. In short, EPA is
taking active steps to contribute to identifying key data gaps and spurring progress in closing
them.
Another environmental commenter stated their belief that higher standards [more stringent
limits] than IMO are necessary to "significantly combat and prevent the spread" of ANS. The
commenter further notes that use of IMO D-2 limits is a step in the right direction, but does not
shut the door on invasive species. EPA notes that "shutting the door" may not be necessary to
protect water quality standards.
Several commenters noted that the States of California and New York have expended
significant resources in analyzing appropriate ballast water discharge limits. EPA is aware of
these efforts, and appreciates the work of our state partners to improve our understanding of
ballast water discharge limits. However, EPA does not believe the information produced by
either of these entities justifies setting either a more stringent TBEL than that in today's permit
(see TBEL discussion above) or in establishing a numeric WQBEL under the standards of the
Clean Water Act. For instance, California's standard for the largest size class of organisms is
set at "no detectable living organisms" and as discussed in our Fact Sheet at 4.4.3.5.1, EPA
does not believe this standard is any more stringent than IMO D-2 with existing monitoring
technologies. Zero detectable living organisms does not mean "zero organisms," and the state of
monitoring technologies do not let us detect significantly below (if at all below) the IMO
standard in a shipboard setting at this time (EPA SAB, 2011). Please also see the response to
comments in sections 9.1.2 and 9.1.9 of this comment response document for additional
discussion on the California Standard. Finally, EPA notes that, although not a substitute for
EPA WQBELs, States are free to include additional effluent limits and monitoring conditions in
the Permit as part of their State 401 certification conditions as they deem appropriate to protect
water quality standards and to be consistent with State law. Both California and New York have
done so for this permit, as have other States including Michigan and other State commenters.
Please see section 12 of this comment response document for additional discussion regarding
401 certification comments and part 8 of the VGP Fact Sheet.
Additionally, some commenters noted that EPA should establish a standard of "zero living
organisms." EPA is simply unable to conclude that requiring zero discharge is "necessary."
Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpt 4.
Additionally, please see discussion in sections 10, 10.1, 10.1.1, and 10.1.2 of this comment
response document, and Fact Sheet Sections 4.4.3.7 and 4.5.3 for further discussion and for
discussion of EPA's narrative water quality limits.
One commenter opposed EPA's expression of the Agency's intent to include more stringent
numeric water-quality based limits in the future if necessary to protect water quality standards.
487
-------
EPA notes the factual issue of whether the Agency will require more stringent standards in
future permits is not directly relevant to the issuance of today's permit. EPA further notes that
under the Clean Water Act, the Agency has the obligation to ensure compliance with water
quality standards and to set limits that are protective of those standards. The Agency believes
that the limits expressed in today's permit are protective of water quality standards, but if the
Agency becomes aware that more stringent limits are necessary (or, in the case of TBELs, that
technologies exist that can achieve more stringent limits), the Agency will require more
stringent limits to be met, consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act. EPA also
notes that several commenters expressed support for EPA's commitment to ratchet down limits
in future permits or by reopening the permit as necessary to protect water quality standards or if
better technologies become available. See additional discussion regarding water quality based
limits under sections 10, 10.1, 10.1.1, and 10.1.2 of this comment response document, and Fact
Sheet Sections 4.4.3.7, 4.4.3.9 and 4.5. With respect to regarding permit modification, please
see the response to comments in section 9.1.12 of this comment response document.
Other Comments
One commenter noted that EPA should employ an "overall systems risk-management
approach" consistent with the recommendations of the SAB. EPA notes that we believe the
VGP does just that: among other things, it requires management practices and training
requirements for all vessels in Parts 2.2.3.1 through 2.2.3.3. It includes additional management
measures for Lakers in Part 2.2.3.4 and numeric limits for ocean going and many sea going
vessels in Part 2.2.3.5. In that section, it contains monitoring requirements to ensure that the
systems are working as designed, and where monitoring techniques are reasonably available, to
confirm discharges are meeting the numeric living organism and biocide discharge standards.
Additionally, it contains the exchange plus treatment requirements in Part 2.2.3.7 for certain
high-risk vessels entering the Great Lakes.
One commenter noted that some of the biological indicators for which there were treatment
limits (e.g., E. coli, V. cholera, and eneterococci) were not the same as indicators for which
there were testing requirements (e.g., Total heterotrophic bacteria (HPC), E. coli and
enterococci). The Agency is aware that these sections have differences. The Agency believes
that V. cholera is rare enough that it need not be monitored specifically. In addition, pursuant to
CWA section 308, EPA is requiring monitoring for HPC to get a better sense of how bacterial
communities respond after ballast water treatment. See discussion in response to section 9.1.10
of this comment response document and Section 4.4.3.5 of the Fact Sheet for further discussion;
please see also response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0449-A1, Excerpt 4.
Some commenters noted that EPA and the Coast Guard must work together to sync each
Agency's ballast water requirements. EPA notes we do work quite closely with the Coast Guard
to develop and implement ballast water requirements, but that differences in program
requirements sometimes occur as the two Agencies operate under different statutory authorities.
That being said, the Agencies' ballast water requirements generally align, although EPA
imposes additional management measures and discharge monitoring, while the Coast Guard
implements type approval processes. In these regards, the two actions complement each other
without creating conflicts, differences in numeric limits, differences in applicability, or
differences in the stated implementation schedule.
488
-------
Several stakeholders sent in letters to thank EPA for meetings they had with the Agency prior to
permit proposal, or letters they sent to EPA after those meetings (also before permit proposal).
EPA appreciates the opportunity to meet with all stakeholder groups, including Michigan,
environmental groups, and industry groups and EPA remains happy to meet with any interested
stakeholder group in the future. Commenters submitted these letters in the comment period and
they are addressed in this response to comment document.
One commenter asserted that the numeric standards in today's permit will not drive technology
development, a "role which standards historically play." EPA's regulations governing
imposition of technology-based standards require that EPA adopt standards that reflect the best
available technology economically achievable. Today's limits meet that requirement. Whether
or not today's limits alone promote innovation, EPA notes that the structure of the Clean Water
Act itself is designed to drive the development of improved technologies, as once the best
performing technologies are available and economically achievable, their imposition in the next
Vessel General Permit will be required. For discussion related to 401 certification requirements,
please see the response to comments section 12 of this comment response document.
For discussion regarding ballast water monitoring, including activities EPA is taking to improve
methodologies for monitoring ballast water discharge standards, please see section 9.1.10 of
this comment response document. EPA notes that the Agency, in partnership with the US Coast
Guard and the Naval Research Lab, have led research, development, and validation of verifiable
ballast water monitoring methods under the ETV program. The Agency's commitment to that
process is evident by the quality, citability, and utility of the products produced to date.
For additional discussion related to ballast water management plans, their public availability,
and training requirements, please see the response to comments section 9.1.14 of this comment
response document.
For discussion of whether the IMO standards reflect "outdated standards" please see section 9.1
and section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
For additional discussion about the ballast water requirements in the permit, please see other
ballast water response to comments in sections 9.1.1 through 9.1.19 of this comment response
document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Douglas W. Craven, Director, Natural Resource
Department, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Natural
Resource Department
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0433-A1
2
No
489
-------
Comment: The draft permit does not attempt to achieve zero introductions.
Part 2.2.3.5 Ballast Water Numeric Discharge Limitations states the numeric amount of living
organisms allowed to be discharged from a vessel. Reducing the amount of allowed living
organisms to "fewer than 10" per unit of water does not prevent the introduction of new species.
Only one living, breeding species is needed to reproduce in foreign waters. With the new draft
permit EPA does not attempt to try to achieve zero introductions of invasive species. Although
the EPA has stated that current technologies do not allow for stricter standards, both New York
and California are, at least, attempting to achieve zero detection of living organisms in ballast
water released in their states. With the numeric limits currently in the draft permit, EPA is
asserting that the release of foreign and potentially invasive organisms in acceptable. LTBB
NRD believes that the risk of allowing any foreign, living, organism to enter the Great Lakes is
too high, and all attempts should be made to prevent the introduction. LTBB NRD requests that
the EPA reassess the numeric discharge limitations of Part 2.2.3.5 and adopt a standard that
attempts to achieve 'zero detection.'
1V Cynthia Dizikes, Chicago Tribune, December 2, 2011.
Response: EPA believes that the commenter overstates the risk of invasion being caused by a
single living organism. EPA notes that the potential for invasion is affected by a variety of
factors besides organism density, and that the likelihood of an invasion being successful with
the release of a single organism is extremely low. See, NRC report, chapter 3 discussion
regarding propagule pressure. With respect to other issues raised in this comment, including use
of a "zero detection" standards see the response essay in section 9.1.1 of this comment response
document.
Commenter Name: Public Hearing Oral Comments by WSC's Doug Schneider.
January 11, 2012
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0441
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Citing the year-long studies of the Science Advisory Board, the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS), and other assessments of technology efficacy and availability, the draft VGP
proposes adoption of the 0-2 treatment standard contained in the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) Ballast Water Management Convention. EPA's conclusion that the IMO 0-2
standard represents the best available technology that is economically achievable is supported by
sound science.
EPA also notes that the NAS report concluded that adoption of a standard consistent with IMO
0-2 is "clearly the first step forward" and represents a "significant reduction in [organism]
concentrations beyond ballast water exchange". We agree and encourage EPA to communicate
these and the other study findings to U.S. states that have proposed treatment standards that can
neither be achieved by existing technology nor measured using existing scientifically recognized
tools. Adherence by states to the fiction that standards beyond IMO 0-2 can be achieved today
490
-------
will not result in the adoption of technologies meeting those standards - because such
technologies do not exist -- and will only delay adoption of protective existing technology and
threaten ships that do install technology with non-compliance.
Response: Support for the IMO D-2 standard, which is included in the final VGP, is noted.
With respect to communication of NAS study findings, EPA has made this report available to
the States and discussed its findings in the Fact Sheet for the draft and final VGPs.
Commenter Name: Public Hearing Oral Comments by WSC's Doug Schneider.
January 11, 2012
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0441
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: We also support EPA's proposal to adopt a technology installation schedule for
existing ships that aligns with the schedule contained in the IMO Ballast Water Management
Convention. This is particularly important because existing oceangoing commercial vessels will
need to be taken out of service and typically placed in drydock to facilitate the installation of the
treatment technology. Taking advantage of the existing process for scheduling drydockings will
provide a structure that allows technology vendors, marine engineers, and installation technicians
to manage the demand for systems installation in an orderly fashion.
With respect to the installation of treatment technology on new vessels constructed on or after
January 1, 2012, we note that the draft VGP would require compliance with the ballast water
treatment standard upon delivery.1 The VGP would also require that installed ballast water
treatment systems demonstrate compliance with the D-2 standard using the Environmental
Technology Verification (ETV) protocol. We understand, however, that no treatment systems
have completed ETV testing, that portions of the protocol may require further clarification before
such testing can proceed, and that independent testing laboratories currently have only a limited
capacity to perform ETV testing. This means that it is not yet known what treatment systems will
meet the EPA proposed testing requirements. Although it is possible that ETV-tested systems
will be available in time for some vessel owners to choose demonstrably compliant ballast water
treatment systems in time to have them installed before delivery (or before the VGP effective
date, if after delivery), it is impossible to know whether that will in fact be the case.
1 While vessel construction can take much longer, new liner vessels are commonly delivered approximately twelve
months after construction begins.
Response: For discussion regarding the schedule for new vessels, the schedule for existing
vessels, and the standards installed ballast water treatment systems must meet, please see the
response essay in sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 of this comment response document. EPA also directs
the commenter to their other written responses, which fundamentally mirror this oral comment.
491
-------
Commenter Name: January 11, 2012 Public Hearing Oral Comments by PVA's
Jennifer Wilk and Ed Welch
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: Draft VCP Any numeric standard for the level of ballast water treatment should be a
single national standard. The one proposed by EPA is appropriate.
Only a minority of PVA vessels has ballast water discharges, and some of them will likely be
able to take advantage of the "Short-Term Voyage" provision in the proposed revised VGP.
Nonetheless, some PVA vessels will have to adhere to a ballast water numeric standard in the
permit. Therefore, it is essential that there be a single national standard for a vessel that operates
across state lines and that the standard be measurable and achievable. The standard proposed by
EPA is appropriate, as it conforms to an international standard developed by the International
Maritime Organization. Furthermore, two expert panels have recently concluded that this
standard can be attained in the real world, whereas more aggressive standards (for instance, the
ones imposed by the states of New York and California) cannot be attained give the state of
technology that exists now or that can be realistically expected to be developed anytime soon.
Response: Support for the VGP standard is noted. With respect to the need for a single national
standard, EPA notes the VGP is issued under authority of the CWA which both preserves state
authority (CWA § 510) and, in the case of an EPA-issued NPDES permit such as the VGP,
affords States the opportunity to impose more stringent limitations based, among other things,
on State law requirements (CWA § 401).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
8
No
Comment: Dear Martin and Dawn,
We appreciated the opportunity this past Thursday, August 4, 2011, to share with Martin and
members of EPA's staff our views regarding appropriate numeric concentration-based effluent
limits for ballast water for the next Vessel General Permit. We look forward to hearing EPA's
views at our next meeting with you.
In advance of that meeting, we would like to reiterate the serious concerns we expressed about
the reports of the National Research Council and the agency's Science Advisory Board, which
the agency commissioned to assist in the development of the next VGP. Although some might be
tempted to characterize these reports as justifying the use of the IMO D-2 standard for the next
VGP, either as technology- or water quality-based effluent limits, they do not provide such
justification.
492
-------
The NRC recommended the use of a benchmark discharge standard that reduces concentrations
of non-indigenous species below current levels resulting from ballast water exchange, and
identified the IMO D-2 standard as such a standard. National Research Council of the National
Academies, Assessing the Relationship between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast
Water ("Assessing the Relationship") at 7, 110 (National Academies Press, 2011). But the NRC
made this recommendation only in aid of advancing "a robust understanding of the risk-release
relationship in order to inform future decisions about ballast water discharge standards." Id.
The NRC did not recommend the use of the IMO D-2 standard as effluent limits for the next
VGP, and it certainly made no claim that compliance with the IMO D-2 standard will be
sufficient to protect water quality. The NRC explicitly cautioned that "[bjallast water discharge
standards should be based on models," and "[bjefore being applied, it is essential that candidate
models be tested and compared, and their compounded uncertainty be explicitly analyzed."
Assessing the Relationship at 89. Currently, "the available methods for determining a numeric
discharge standard for ballast water are limited by a profound lack of data and information to
develop and validate models of the risk-release relationship. Therefore, it was not possible with
any certainty to determine the risk of nonindigenous species establishment under existing
discharge limits." Id. at 3.
The NRC stated as a general proposition that reducing propagule pressure reduces the probability
of invasions. Assessing the Relationship at 4. But the NRC quickly acknowledged that this only
is a general proposition, subject to considerable uncertainty. This is because "inoculum density
... is but one of scores of variables that can and do influence invasion outcome." Id. "These
factors include the identity (taxonomic composition), sources, and history of the propagules, and
their abundance (total number of organisms), quality, and frequency of delivery. Further
influencing the outcome of propagule release is a host of factors that include both species traits
and the recipient region's environmental traits." Id. at 47.
Turning to the SAB report, the SAB panel concluded that "none of the assessed BWMS [that is
to say, ballast water management systems] can meet a standard that is 100 or 1000 times more
stringent [than the U.S. Coast Guard's proposed Phase 1 standard, which is comparable to the
IMO D-2 standard.] Letter from Dr. Deborah L. Swackhammer, Chair, Science Advisory Board,
and Dr. Judith L. Meyer, Chair, SAB Ballast Water Advisory Panel, to Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 2 (Jul. 12, 2011). The key word in this
conclusion is the word "assessed." The panel reviewed only a small subset of treatment
technologies and did not review whole categories of treatment systems under development. As a
result of the limited scope of the panel's review, its conclusion about the inability of BWMS to
meet a standard that is 100 or 1000 times more stringent than the Phase 1 standard deserves little
credence, as does its conclusion that "wholly new systems need to be developed to meet
proposed standards that are 100 or 1000 times more stringent than Phase 1." Id. We regret the
panel's failure to gather data that would have made it better informed and better able to produce
a realistic evaluation of the state of the art.
The States of California and New York have invested considerable resources and analysis in
justifying numeric concentration-based effluent limits for ballast water more stringent than the
493
-------
IMO D-2 standard. We recommend that EPA take advantage of their efforts and use their
standards as the starting point for developing effluent limits for the next VGP. We believe that
EPA should not propose or adopt effluent limits less stringent than their standards.
Response: EPA does not agree with commenter's assertion that the NRC recommendation as
to the IMO D-2 standard was a "recommendation only in aid of advancing 'a robust
understanding of the risk-release relationship in order to inform future decisions about ballast
water discharge standards.'" The NRC recommendation stated more broadly that: "a benchmark
discharge standard should be established that clearly reduces concentrations of coastal
organisms below current levels resulting from ballast water exchange (such as the IMO D-2
standard). This will serve to reduce the likelihood of invasion in coastal ecosystems beyond that
of the present time." NRC at pg. 7 (emphasis in original). EPA notes that while the Agency did
consider the NRC recommendation and notes that it supports the VGP's approach, EPA did not
use it to "justify" adoption of the IMO standard. As explained more thoroughly elsewhere, that
standard is based on information before the Agency - including that in the SAB report -
demonstrating that the standard reflects the best available technology economically achievable.
The NRC report was primarily concerned with risk of establishment of invasions, which is an
issue primarily relevant to establishment of WQBELs. With respect to commenter's other
concerns, including discussion of the SAB report and use of NY or California standards, see
also response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section 9.1.2 and 9.1.9 of this
comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Whitney Leake, on behalf of Patriot Maritime Compliance,
LLC
Patriot Maritime Compliance, LLC
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0447
1
No
Comment: In response to the EPA's request for comments on whether the rolling
implementation schedule for BW treatment systems is realistic: The Coast Guard has not issued
the final BW treatment rules, let alone commenced the certification process for said BW
treatment systems. We believe that the timeline is unrealistic as the Coast Guard has pushed back
the issuance of this rule time and time again, for years. We do not believe that the Coast Guard
will be able to approve enough systems in so short a time frame, and the cost of installing these
systems in the remaining time frame would burden vessel owners tremendously. Vessels being
built now would have to be delivered with approved equipment. If the standards haven't been
established, how can an owner know which system to install?
Response: EPA notes that in March 2012 the US Coast Guard promulgated its final ballast
water rulemaking (77 FR 17254). With respect the implementation schedule of the VGP, we
note EPA has made a schedule adjustment in the final VGP which addresses the types of
concerns raised by this commenter. With respect to the implementation schedule, please see the
response essay in section 9.1.1 and the responses to comments in section 9.1.2 of this comment
response document.
494
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief, Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0450-A1
1
No
Comment: We appreciated the opportunity to meet with the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) staff on August 31, 2011, to hear the USEPA's current views
regarding appropriate numeric concentration-based effluent limitations for ballast water and time
frames for regulated entities to come into compliance with such limitations for the draft next
Vessel General Permit (VGP). Unfortunately, after hearing the USEPA staffs presentation,
Michigan believes the USEPA is unlikely to establish appropriate effluent limitations and
compliance time frames for ballast water in the draft next VGP. As described in paragraph 21 of
the Michigan-USEPA VGP Litigation Settlement Agreement, it is our understanding the USEPA
will now provide Michigan with "an opportunity for a meeting with appropriate Agency political
management (as determined by the USEPA)." It is our understanding that the USEPA will
schedule this meeting quickly; therefore, it is unlikely that Michigan representatives will be able
to travel to Washington, DC, to meet with the USEPA's political management in person on such
short notice. Michigan will participate in this meeting by conference call. It is our understanding
that the USEPA will propose September 22 or 23, 2011, for this meeting. Michigan is available
for this meeting September 22, 2011.
Response: EPA notes Michigan did participate in the meeting referred to in this comment via
telephone. With respect to concerns about standards and timelines, please see the response
essay in section 9.1.1 and the responses to comments in section 9.1.2 of this comment response
document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief, Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0450-A1
2
No
Comment: Michigan understands that the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, the Northwest Environmental Advocates, and other environmental group
petitioners have requested a meeting with the USEPA's political management for similar reasons.
Michigan is interested in meeting jointly with the environmental group petitioners in discussing
these issues with the USEPA's political management only if a total of two hours is allotted for
the call. Otherwise, Michigan would like an independent meeting.
495
-------
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-045Q-A1, excerpt 1.
Comment: A protective set of water quality-based limitations for live organisms in ballast water
discharges needs to be included in the draft next VGP.
A key point raised by Michigan during the August 5, 2011, meeting was the need for draft next
VGP to contain numeric concentration-based limitations for live organisms in ballast water
discharges that are protective of water quality. As the USEPA is already aware, Michigan feels
strongly that the water quality-based BWDLs need to apply to all ballast water discharges
regardless of where they occur in the Great Lakes basin.
Michigan agrees with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee's conclusions/
recommendations that: (1) ballast water discharge standards should ideally be based on validated
risk-release models; (2) there is a profound lack of data/information to develop and validate
models of the risk-release relationship; and (3) a benchmark discharge standard be established as
a first step that clearly reduces live organism concentrations below current levels resulting from
ballast water exchange. However, Michigan strongly disagrees with the NAS Committee's
apparent suggestion that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) D-2 standard be selected
as the benchmark ballast water discharge standard. From Michigan's perspective, inclusion of a
set of final BWDLs equivalent to IMO D-2 by the USEPA in the draft next VGP would provide
an inadequate degree of water quality protection for the Great Lakes region. As stated on p. 39 of
the NAS Committee Report, Bailey et al. (2009) postulated that the IMO D-2 standard would
result in a 0.27 probability of establishment for some zooplankton, like the parthenogenetic water
flea Daphnia retrocurva, which because of its live history could colonize at very low inoculum
densities. Michigan believes the draft next VGP should include final BWDLs for the 2:. 10 - <50
um and 2:.50 um in minimum dimension live organism size categories, which are preferably 3
orders of magnitude more stringent than their corresponding IMO D-2 standard, but no less than
2 orders of magnitude more stringent than their corresponding IMO 0-2 standard. Inclusion of
such final BWDLs in the draft next VGP for these live organism size categories would result in
reasonable probabilities of establishment «0.01) for high risk (for invasion)-scenario species.
Michigan requests the final BWDLs be made effective on January 1, 2016, for existing vessels.
New vessels constructed after the next VGP's issuance date should be required to comply with
the final BWDLs immediately upon receipt of a certificate of coverage.
Michigan also requests the draft next VGP contain interim BWDLs that are 1 order of magnitude
more stringent than their corresponding I MO 0-2 standard for live organisms in the >10 - <50
urn and >50 urn minimum dimension size categories. Michigan suggests an effective date of
January 1, 2014, be included in the draft next VGP for these interim BWDLs.
Commenter Name:
William Creal, Chief, Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0450-A3
1
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
496
-------
During the period between November 30, 2012, (expected next VGP issuance date) and January
1, 2016, existing vessels should be required to continue to perform ballast water exchange and
saltwater flushing practices.
A complete set of the interim and final BWDLs recommended by Michigan for inclusion in the
draft next VGP is shown in Enclosure A.
Response: Please see the response essay to section 9.1.1 of this comment response document.
EPA does not believe that Bailey et al. (2009) provides sufficient basis for calculating a
numeric water quality based standard. Though Bailey et al (2009) discusses the invasion
probability of "six Cladocera using growth rates measured during enclosure experiments
conducted under favourable environmental conditions" those experiments do not provide the
necessary information to inform a reasonable quantification of the risk of invasion. While EPA
acknowledges experiments like these may be necessary for filling the data gaps identified by the
NAS, this experiment in and of itself does not plug all of those gaps. This view is supported by
the NAS, which as acknowledged by the commenter, discusses this exact study. Despite
recognition and discussion of this study, the NAS still found that "a profound lack of data"
prevented them from evaluating the risk of successful establishment of new aquatic non-
indigneouns species associated with various ballast water discharge limits. Hence, though EPA
believes that additional research and progress by many scientists in the field (e.g., Bailey,
Briski, Cangelosi, Carlton, Darling, Maclssaac, Ruiz, and others) may plug these gaps such that
the Agency can calculate a numeric WQBEL in the future, Bailey et al. 2009 does not provide
the information to do so alone. In addition, EPA did not include the interim ballast water
discharge limits suggested by commenter as the commenter did not provide information
demonstrating that, contrary to the Agency's conclusions, such standards either reflected BAT
or are necessary to achieve water quality standards, as required by the Clean Water Act. For the
reasons explained in the Fact Sheet and the response essay to section 9.1.1 of this comment
response document. EPA's own analysis under the Act did not support imposition of such
limits. Finally, the commenter notes that they believe "water quality-based BWDLs need to
apply to all ballast water discharges regardless of where they occur in the Great Lakes basin."
EPA notes that the technology-based numeric ballast water limit contained within the VGP
applies to all ballast water discharges regardless of where they occur in the Great Lakes basin.
Additionally, the non-numeric water quality based limits found in Part 2.2.3.7 and 2.3 of the
VGP apply to all ballast water discharges regardless of where they occur in the Great Lakes
basin. Please see the response to comments sections 10.1, 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 of this comment
response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief, Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0450-A3
5
No
497
-------
Comment: Analytical detection/quantification levels for the live organism categories.
Michigan recognizes that a USEPA approved/promulgated sampling and analytical protocol for
ballast water discharge compliance monitoring does not currently exist. However, it was
encouraging to learn during the August 5, 2011, meeting that the USEPA is already deeply
engaged on several fronts to help develop ballast water discharge sampling and analytical
protocols, some of which may be applicable to BWDL compliance monitoring.
During the meeting, Michigan was asked to provide its expectations relative to analytical
detection/quantification levels for the different live organism categories to be limited in the draft
next VGP. In response to that request, Michigan expects the analytical detection/quantification
levels specified in the draft next VGP for the >10 - <50 um and >50 urn size live organism size
categories to be at least 1 order of magnitude more stringent than their corresponding IMO D-2
standard. It is our understanding that such analytical detection/quantification levels are currently
being achieved by several laboratories involved with ballast water discharge monitoring
activities.
Michigan expects analytical detection/quantification levels of 1 CFU1100 ml to be specified in
the draft next VGP for E. coli, Vibrio cholera, Intestinal enteroococci, and total bacteria.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and the responses to comments in
section 9.1.10 of this comment response document. As discussed in those responses, EPA does
not believe that the quantification level for the >10 - <50 um and >50 urn size live organism
size categories is at least 1 order of magnitude more stringent than their corresponding IMO D-
2 standard. See EPA 2010 (ETV Protocol), EPA SAB 2011.
Commenter Name: Yoshiaki Gonno, Naval Architect, Technical Development
Group, Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI), Marine &
Engineering Co.,Ltd.
Commenter Affiliation: Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0464-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: Comment 2: Detail definition of date of entry into force for existing vessels. (Table
6/ §2.2.3.5.2/P35)
Please confirm that "First scheduled dry docking" doesn't include annual, renewal and
intermediate survey under a float condition without using dry dock.
Response: With respect to drydocking issues, see the response essay in section 9.1.1 of this
comment response document. See also, definition of drydocking in final VGP (drydocking as
hauling out of a vessel or placing a vessel in a drydock or slipway for an examination of all
accessible parts of the vessel's underwater body and through-hull fittings).
498
-------
Commenter Name: Oral Comments from Canal Barge Company's Northern
Operation at the January 23, 2012 Public Meeting
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0469
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: One of the most egregious new requirements in VGP 2.0 is the numeric discharge
limitations for ballast water that would require some towing vessels to install ballast water
treatment systems. It is critical that EPA explicitly exempt towing vessels from this requirement
because no ballast water treatment system has been designed, tested, or installed for use on a
vessel with the physical and operational characteristics of towing vessels. While VGP 2.0 does
allow vessels to use alternative methods to comply with the numeric discharge limits, it is
impossible for many towing vessels to comply with those alternatives either.
Response: With respect to tugboats/towboats, please see the response essay in section 9.1.1
and the response to comments in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2
3
No
Comment: 3. New York has identified at least one existing technology that meets our 100 times
I MO requirement.
Recalling the addendum to the February 7. 2011 letter that the New York Department of
Environmental Conservation sent to applicants for extensions, for the purposes of this review
Canada has assumed that the technology referenced by the passage is the Ecochlor BVVTS.
Performance at the IMP standard on the Great Lakes
In order to be placed into active service under the I MO convention. BVVTS require testing and
approval according to the Guidelines for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems (G8)
and the Procedure for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems That Make Use of Active
Substances (G9).
As Germany has recently type-approved the Ecochlor BVVTS. this system now appears suitable,
pursuant to paragraph 6.2 of guideline G8, for installation on ships and use in waters for which it
has been proven effective. The test results cited in the addendum indicate that land-based testing
was carried out for saltwater and very salty brackish conditions. Any treatment system that has
not yet been type-approved on the basis of guideline G8 in cold, fresh water is not yet
appropriate for operation on the Great Lakes for two reasons:
499
-------
1. Its efficacy on organisms of high risk to the Great Lakes, which live in fresh and moderately
brackish waters, has not yet been demonstrated.
2. Its ability to safely neutralize active substances (such as chemical biocides) before discharge
into the natural environment of the Great Lakes has not yet been demonstrated.
Like any other BVVTS. Canada will welcome operation of Ecochlor on the Great Lakes once its
operation has been shown (in accordance with I MO guidelines G8 and G9) to be effective and
safe for ships, crews and the unique Great Lakes environment.
Performance at the lOOx IMP standard
The addendum concludes from the cited test results that "results are at or near the confidence
level needed to demonstrate compliance" with New York's lOOx I MO standard. Canada
disagrees with this statement for three reasons.
First, no internationally accepted testing protocol currently exists to make such a determination.
Canada accepts the testing protocol in guideline G8. and is encouraged by the ongoing
development of the ETV testing protocols, by the EPA and the United States (US) Coast Guard.
The land-based testing protocol in guideline G8 requires three samples, each of 1 m3. Due to this
small sampling volume, even excellent performance on this protocol does not allow for
demonstration of compliance with stricter standards. Demonstration of lOOx I MO performance
under the land-based ETV testing protocol would require processing of 1200-6000 m3 of water.1
The SAB. noting this, points out that the 5 m3 sampled under US land-based testing may already
tax the capabilities of current test facilities.2 Based on these concerns the SAB concluded that
"current methods (and associated detection limits) prevent testing of [BVVTS) to any standard
more stringent than [IMO) and make it impracticable for verifying a standard 100 or 1000 times
more stringent."3
Second, the statistics in the addendum are not sufficient to support this claim. Canada strongly
disagrees that statistical confidence of 57.68 percent is near the confidence level needed to
demonstrate compliance, as standard scientific practice requires 95 percent statistical confidence
to draw such conclusions.
Third, the SAB has concluded that it is unlikely or not possible that the treatment process used
by Ecochlor can meet the 1 OOx I MO standard. In coming to this conclusion, the SAB considered
data provided by Ecochlor - including the specific test data relied upon by New York's
addendum. The SAB has further concluded that "no current [BVVTSj types can meet a 1 OOx or
lOOOx discharge standard"4 and that "reaching [ 1 OOOx I MO], or even [ 1 OOx I MO], would
require wholly new treatment systems"5
1 NSF International (2010) Generic protocol for the verification of ballast water treatment technology. Document
number EPA1600/R-10/146.
2 EPA Science Advisory Board (2011) Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems, p. 26.
3
EPA Science Advisory Board (2011) Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems, p. 3.
4
EPA Science Advisory Board (2011) Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems, p. 37.
EPA Science Advisory Board (2011) Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems, p. 5.
Response: EPA notes this comment is part of Canada's Technical Review of October 20, 2011,
500
-------
Letter from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (see the full letter EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2
for context), rather than being a direct comment on the VGP itself. Commenter is referred to
EPA's responses to the issues raised in the October 20, 2011, New York DEC letter as set out
elsewhere in this response to comments document.
Please also see the response essay in section 9.1.1 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2
6
No
Comment: 6. New York ... respectfully suggests that EPA adopt VGP that incorporates the
following standards:
• A 100 times I MO discharge standard Implemented by June 1. 2016.
• A voluntary discharge standard of 10 times I MO by June 1. 2014.
• Grandfather until 2026 vessels deploying 10 times I MO systems prior to 2016.
• Continue to require ballast water exchange and /lush now and into the future.
Response: EPA notes this comment is part of Canada's Technical Review of October 20, 2011,
Letter from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (see the full letter EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2
for context), rather than being a direct comment on the VGP itself. Commenter is referred to
EPA's responses to the issues raised in the October 20, 2011, New York DEC letter as set out
elsewhere in this response to comments document.
Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 of this comment response document and response
to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2, excerpt 13.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2
11
No
Comment: 9. These findings are consistent with the European Maritime Safety Agency 2010
Report... which stated that:
On average systems are achieving 1 order of magnitude lower than the [IMO] standard"
(that is, they are achieving a 10 times IMO level of treatment).
501
-------
Canada does not agree that this report substantiates the existence of lOx I MO treatment systems
for the three reasons enumerated below.
1. This report consists of meeting notes from a workshop hosted by the European Maritime
Safety Agency. The partial quotation is from comments made by independent testing
laboratories on their experience working with guideline G8. offered by way of advice on
developing testing methods for enforcement. The full context makes clear that the discussion
was not about reliable adherence of BVVTS to above-IMO standards.
2. For large organisms, the quoted clause indicates that the common experience of the
laboratories is to detect approximately 1 viable organism (whereas the standard is 10) when
examining a 1 m3 sample of treated ballast water. As noted above, even excellent
performance under guideline G8 cannot establish reliable performance above the I MO
standard due to small sampling volumes.
3. Moreover, the complete sentence from the workshop minutes goes on to highlight the
significant variability in test scores: "On average systems are achieving 1 order of magnitude
lower than the [IMOl] standard, however numbers of organisms can vary significantly in the
discharge within the compliance limits of the [I MO] standard."" This variability suggests
that systems may in fact not be reliably performing beyond the I MO standard.
11 European Maritime Safety Agency (2010) Workshop report: EMSA workshop on ballast water sampling and the
development of a joint European ballast water sampling strategy (23rd and 24th February 2010), p. 7.
Response: EPA notes this comment is part of Canada's Technical Review of October 20, 2011,
Letter from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (see the full letter EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2
for context), rather than being a direct comment on the VGP itself. Commenter is referred to
EPA's responses to the issues raised in the October 20, 2011, New York DEC letter as set out
elsewhere in this response to comments document. Please also see the response essay in section
9.1.1 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Russell E. Painter, Regulatory Affairs Manager,
McNational, Inc.
McNational, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1
2
No
Comment: We also believe that towing vessels should be explicitly exempted from numeric
discharge limitations for ballast water.
Response: With respect to tugboats/towboats, please see the response essay in section 9.1.1
and responses to comments in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
502
-------
Commenter Name: Cory Sause, Environmental Coordinator, Sause Bros
Commenter Affiliation: Sause Bros
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0482-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: It's Sause Bros position that our towing vessels should be explicitly exempted from
numeric discharge limitations for ballast water. Our towing vessels rarely if ever ballast using
water, we normally ballast using the weight of fuel, further some of our vessels have had their
fuel tanks converted into permanent ballast meaning we never up take or discharge water. The
installation of ballast water treatment systems is impracticable because of the limited space
abroad our towing vessels that a treatment system would require. Further adding to the
impracticability is how extensively our vessels would need to be retrofitted; examples include
having to add additional pumps, piping, and sampling ports, etc. This extensive retrofit because
of the extremely limited space and logistics of how difficult it would be to do would require each
vessel to be out of service for months and would cost our family owned company millions of
dollars that we simply don't have. It would require that we take each vessel out of service and
would cause a horrible disruption of service, we would have to down crew each towing vessel
which could result in lost wages for employees. We would be left unable to fulfill contracts when
vessels were out of service as we don't have the spare vessels to replace the ones taken out of
service. Further, we've researched ballast water treatment systems and there's only one on the
market today that could meet the specifications needed. Manufacturers do not, at this point, have
systems that would work well with our low volumes of ballast water as well as that could fit in
our small and very limited space. Unfortunately, the cost associated with this particular system is
around $250,000 USD per unit. If we were required to retrofit each of our vessels with this
system it would cost us upwards of $10,000,000 USD. We wouldn't be able to afford to do this
and facing non compliance would be forced to cease operations. Because our towing vessels
ballast with fuel and rarely if ever ballast using water we feel towing vessels of this nature
should be exempted.
Response: With respect to tugboats/towboats, please see the response essay in section 9.1.1
and responses to comments in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document. EPA agrees
with the commenter that tugboat retrofits would be challenging and may not be feasible or
economically achievable with existing, available technology marketed for ballast water
treatment. This comment provides support for the Agency's conclusions discussed therein.
Commenter Name: LeRoger Lind, President, Save Lake Superior Association
Commenter Affiliation: Save Lake Superior Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0483-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
503
-------
Comment: Failure to respond to previous and now entrenched AIS threats as well as the current
VHSV threat has made implementation of effective discharge standards more urgent. Existing
AIS are both being replenished and new species introduced every shipping season on every ship
carrying ballast water.
Ballast water is a primary transfer vector for VHSV and other AIS in the Great Lakes. This is
also true in other freshwater harbors and estuaries along the US coast line such as the
Chesapeake Bay and the Puget Sound. The quantities of infected ballast water are huge. For
example, on the western end of Lake Superior the three ports of Duluth, Two Harbors and Silver
Bay, MN shipped 24.9 million net tons of iron ore in 2007. If the proposed standard allowance of
10 living organisms were adopted, roughly 75 million living organisms over 50 micrometers in
dimension would be permitted for release from associated ballast water and this would continue
for the next decade before the proposed standard would begin to be effected. Countless numbers
of the smaller organisms permitted by IMO standards would also be released. Even if the more
stringent standard were adopted, hundreds of thousands of the largest organisms would continue
to be permitted in this volume of discharge in these ports alone. Obviously a true "zero
discharge" ballast water management system (BWMS) must be adopted to eliminate this
continuing infestation. Fish, largest living organisms transported in ballast water, are important
because they act as co-vectors for viruses such as VHSv spreading the pathogens from ports into
main water bodies and their watersheds.
Response: EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and other
documents in the administrative record that ballast water has been a major source for the
introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the Great Lakes and other water
bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and social costs. For the reasons
discussed in the Fact Sheet and elsewhere in today's response to comment document, it is
EPA's conclusion that the standards adopted today meet the technology and water-quality based
standards of the Clean Water Act. The commenter provides no scientific or legal basis for its
conclusion that "a true 'zero discharge' ballast water management standard must be adopted..."
Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: LeRoger Lind, President, Save Lake Superior Association
Commenter Affiliation: Save Lake Superior Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0483-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: In view of the imminent and on-going threats of "natural" AIS and the potential for
"engineered" AIS threats being distributed via ships' ballast water we ask that the following
discharge standards and implementation dates be adopted in this rulemaking:
1. In the context of the proposed Phased timeframes:
• Set the proposed initial discharge limit at 100 times more stringent than IMO, D2.
• Set the proposed final discharge limit at 1000 times more stringent than IMO, D2 as a
surrogate for "zero discharge".
504
-------
Per the literature there are at least two or more treatment systems currently available capable of
meeting these standards in both salt and fresh water. These standards are therefore practicable
from the ballast water treatment standpoint. The U.S.EPA should focus on continued
development and integration of these and similar systems into the implementation schedule for
the mandated ballast water discharge standards.
2. The implementation schedule for the proposed phased timeframes must be set "without
exception" for the installation of these systems. Achieving the "zero living organisms"
standard within the shortest time possible should be the ultimate goal of this rulemaking. The
initial phase system implementation schedule should not interfere with the achievement of
the final phase systems in this compressed and achievable timeframe we state as:
• Implement initial phase by March 1st 2016.
• Implement final phase by March 1st 2020.
Claims by the shipping companies and the USCG that these schedules cannot be achieved or
financed are not supported by other information on their engineering and planning activities.
Considerable design effort and expense is being exerted on both expanding the Soo Locks for
2000 foot ships passage and adding another such lock. Year-around shipping is also on the
drawing boards including the new ice breakers for continuous ice "channel clearance" that have
been proposed. Nowhere have any such monumental plans been discussed for treatment of
ballast water either for the new and remodeled locks or on the new mammoth ship designs. Some
of the budgets for these projects must be directed at first achieving the installation of "zero living
organism discharge" ballast water treatment systems on all ships both entering and working
within the Great Lakes freshwater systems. Otherwise the Great Lakes will continue on their
path of degradation into nothing more than shipping canals and drainage ditches. These threats
have been on-going since 1954 and are well-known now.
The USCG's own modeling shows that only the degree of infestation of the Great Lakes with
AIS from ballast water discharges changes with the various scenarios of implementation dates.
The "no exception" requirement for implementation is critical in the quest to stem the tide of
infestation from both freshwater "Lakers" and saltwater "salties". Practicability review on a
continuing basis will be required to expedite the effort to meet the implementation schedule of
2016.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 of this comment response document.
With respect to the commenter's reference to practicability review, EPA notes that review is
conducted by the Coast Guard (see, 33 CFR 151.2030(c)). EPA would use the results of such
review as appropriate (including potential modification of the VGP or development of later
VGP iterations). See, VGP § 2.2.3.5, Note.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
505
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 34
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question 16. The appropriateness of the technology-based ballast water controls
proposed in this VGP, and whether there are data which indicate that certain ballast water
treatment systems reliably exceed the limits established in this permit. Whether the numeric
discharge limits can be applied to those vessel classes to which, under the proposed VGP, such
limits would not apply.
CSA is aware that a number of systems have either been tested or are in test which meet the IMO
standard. We know of no systems that meet more stringent standards although some statements
by ballast water treatment system manufacturers suggest they can meet more stringent
requirements. CSA's response to this is twofold. First, there is no accepted test protocol for
testing to standards more stringent than the IMO standard, so even if testing has occurred that
suggests systems can meet the more stringent standards, the test results are highly suspect.
Second, we are aware of some of the BWTS manufacturers that have made representations that
their systems can meet more stringent standards. We are also aware of shipping companies that
have contacted these manufacturers and were unable to purchase a system that the manufacturer
would warranty to a more stringent standard.
Response: The VGP reflects the IMO D-2 standard and EPA agrees that data from testing
under existing protocols is insufficient to show higher standards can be achieved. Please see the
response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section 9.1.2 and 9.1.9 of this
comment response document.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 35
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question 17. The appropriateness of including alternative treatment limits used by
other regulatory agencies, specifically limits promulgated by the State of California and whether
the numeric limits for ballast water discharges from the Performance Standards for the
Discharge of Ballast Water for Vessels Operating in California Waters, California Code of
Regulations Title 2, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.7sections 2293-2294 as codified as of
March 4, 2011, should be included in the final VGP. (Additional text of California regulation
omitted).
There is no justifiable reason for including impossible to achieve requirements in a 4 or 5 year
VGP any more so than was there justification for including them as state 401 certifications in the
2008 VGP. While we understand EPA had no choice but to include the state certifications as
filed, we are all aware of the problems this approach has created and should not be duplicated by
inclusion in the proposed VGP.
506
-------
Response: EPA notes the final VGP does not use the California standards for its numeric
ballast water technology based limits. Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and
responses to comments in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Comment: General Comments
Ingram Barge would like to first discuss some overarching comments and then provide some
section specific comments.
Ballast Water Numeric Discharge Limitations
First, towing vessels should be exempt from the ballast water numeric discharge limitations in
Part 2.2.3.5 of the proposed VGP. alongside other classes of vessels such as unmanned,
unpowered barges and confined Great Lakes bulk carrier vessels. Much like Great Lakes bulk
carrier vessels and unmanned, unpowered barges, tugboats and towboats have unique
environmental, operational, and design constraints that make the installation of onboard ballast
water treatment systems impractical. For example, towing vessels have relatively small volumes
of ballast water, as well as very low ballasting rates compared to other classes of commercial
vessels. Additionally, at this point. Ingram Barge, as well as other operators, have not come
across currently available ballast water treatment system that has been designed for. tested and/or
installed onboard towboats and tugboats. Moreover, operational aspects of towing vessels may
limit suitability and/or effectiveness of ballast water treatment systems, as over half of the
towing vessel population operates in freshwater environments of the inland waterways systems.
Additional operational concerns are presented by the limited space available on towing vessels
for such systems, as there is limited room in the engine room of towing vessels for a safe
placement of additional technology. Thus, due to the numerous challenges listed above. Ingram
Barge would urge the EPA to exclude towing vessels from the requirements to meet the effluent
and related limits suggested in the proposed permit.
Second, we would request that EPA exempt towing vessels from all of the requirements of Part
2.2.3.5, because many towing vessels cannot meet these limits using any of the prescribed ballast
water management measures. Such measures as the use of onshore treatment are not feasible for
the industry to use as there do not seem to be adequate onshore facilities in existence at this time
and any venture to construct such facilities would be a lengthy and expensive process with
limited utility. Additionally, the recommended use of water from the drinking water system as
ballast water is often operationally and economically infeasible for some towing vessels, would
require many stops and could cause operational concerns as to fuel bum. Also, fueling dockside
and via a fuel flat also present operational challenges, as fuel flats carry limited amount of
Commenter Name:
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
3
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
507
-------
potable water that is used for other purposes and the ability to come to the dock may be limited
by the size of the tow and maneuverability of the vessel. Therefore, we would request that EPA
exempt towing vessels from all of the requirements of Part 2.2.3.5.
However, if EPA chooses not to exempt towing vessels from ballast water numeric discharge
limits. Ingram Barge would urge EPA to extend the schedule for when ballast water treatment
would become Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) by at least 5 (five)
additional years.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section
9.1.2 of this comment response document. EPA agrees with the commenter that "towing vessels
have relatively small volumes of ballast water, as well as very low ballasting rates compared to
other classes of commercial vessels" and that a "currently available ballast water treatment
system that has been designed for, tested and/or installed onboard towboats and tugboats" is not
currently available for these vessels. EPA also acknowledges the lack of availability of onshore
treatment for these vessels and that use of public water supply water poses operational
challenges for some operators due to the reasons described by the commenter.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Roger Harris, Senior Vice President - Operations,
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0488-A1
6
No
Comment: Fifth, our towboats rarely use ballast water and accordingly should be exempted
from the numeric ballast water discharge limitations.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section
9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Algis Vanagas, Senior Vice-President Technical, Algoma
Central Corporation
Algoma Central Corporation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1
7
No
Comment: Part 2.2.3.5. Ballast Water Numeric Discharge Limitations
The draft permit proposes that vessel owner/operators meet discharge limits equivalent to the
IMO D-2 ballast water discharge standard according to a specified schedule. Algoma is
supportive of the adoption by EPA of the IMO standard and not a standard more stringent, since
it has been well documented that verification of treatment efficacy to any standard more stringent
than IMO is not achievable at this time.1 That being said, we assert that we cannot even meet the
508
-------
EPA/IMO D2 standard according to the schedule contained in the draft permit for a number of
reasons that will be explained below.
In the draft permit and fact sheet, the EPA acknowledges that the ability to treat ballast water
discharges on existing Lakers is constrained by the unavailability of technology that is suitable
for these vessel operations. We believe that our vessels must be recognized as a unique sub-
category of vessels for which an alternative risk mitigation approach is acceptable, such as the
use of enhanced best management practices, as is the case in the draft permit for 'Confined
Lakers.' Algoma vessels are faced with the same operational and technical obstacles as those
Lakers confined to operations above the Welland Canal. This includes large volumes of ballast
and extremely high flow rates, short voyage duration and lack of space for retrofit installation. In
particular, the challenge of retrofitting BWTS on tankers would be exceedingly difficult, as they
are not fitted with ballast pump rooms and all of the piping and ballast pumps are located in the
ballast tanks.
We are also aware that there are no BWTS that have been type-approved for the unique fresh
waters of the Great Lakes, which are known to be different from other fresh water systems,
particularly with respect to salinity. Both the salinity and temperature of Great Lakes water can
be outside of the range of testing parameters under the EPA's ETV protocol and also the IMO
G8 BWTS test standard.2 Algoma suggests that both of these protocols do not adequately
account for the specific conditions of the Great Lakes and therefore must be modified to include
testing in accordance with the USCG type-approval process at a facility such as the Great Ships
Initiative in Duluth Minnesota to ensure that systems work effectively in the Great Lakes. It is
not reasonable to require ship owners to invest multi-millions of dollars in equipment per ship
without the confidence that these systems, which to date have only been type-approved
elsewhere, will work effectively in the regions in which we operate.
Further to this, no scientific rationale has been provided by EPA for applying differing
requirements to Lakers operating above and below the Welland Canal. No data has been offered
to demonstrate that the AIS risk associated with a ballast water movement from Lake Erie to
Lake Superior for example is any more or less of that from Lake Ontario or the St. Lawrence
River. In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Great Lakes
Aquatic Nuisance Species Information System (GLANSIS) ANS database indicates that the
number of known AIS in Lake Erie exceeds that of Lake Ontario.3
As noted previously, the majority of our vessels never leave the Great Lakes, which according to
the historically accepted definition includes the five lakes and their tributaries including the St.
Lawrence River to Anticosti Island.4 These vessels therefore should not be held to the same
standard as a vessel arriving to the Great Lakes from overseas and which may introduce aquatic
non-indigenous species (ANS). We accept that Laker vessels may transfer already established
species within the lakes, however note that there is a need to better understand the relative risk of
transfer and to consider an alternative risk management approach before implementing
equipment based-solutions. Algoma, along with a number of other Canadian and U.S. ship
owners and in conjunction with the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative, is participating in a
project to investigate such an approach.5 Possible alternative solutions could include
509
-------
development of specific management measures (i.e. biocides, filters, strainers, etc.) targeted to
specific organisms or trade routes identified as highest risk for transfer in the Great Lakes.
Lastly, we also note that EPA has stated their intention to implement a more stringent numeric
limit in the future. We categorically oppose this direction given the need for one common
international ballast water discharge standard and to grandfather early use of approved ballast
water equipment.
1 Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems: a report by the EPA Science Advisory Board, July 12, 2011.
2 MEPC 174(58) Guidelines for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems, IMO G8 Standard.
3
http://www. glerl.noaa. gov/res/Programs/glansis/nas database.html.
4
46 CFR 42.05-40 - Great Lakes - (c) In concurrence with related Canadian regulations, the waters of the St.
Lawrence River west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap de Rosiers to West Point, Anticosti Island, and west of a line
along 63° W. longitude from Anticosti Island to the north shore of the St. Lawrence River shall be considered as a
part of the Great Lakes.
http://www.greatlakes-seawav.com/en/environment/ballast collaborative 1109.html. Bruce Bowie, Robert Lewis-
Manning, and Azin Moradhassel, Canadian Shipowners Association, "Secondary Spread Risk Mitigation Project"
Presentation
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section
9.1.2, 9.1.4, and 9.1.6 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Anonymous Public Comment
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.3.5 Ballast Water Numeric Discharge Limitations and 2.2.3.5.1.1 Ballast Water
Management using a Ballast Water Treatment System Installation, maintenance and operation of
a ballast water treatment system (BWTS) on commercial fishing vessels less than 400 gross tons
would result in undue economic hardship for boat owners and operators. Space on board is very
limited and any RSW tanks if present would have to be retrofitted.
Response: With respect to fishing vessels and RSW tanks, please see section 9.1 and 9.1.2 of
this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Christian LaPense, Dann Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation: Dann Marine Towing
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
510
-------
Comment: Exempt Towing Vessels from Numeric Discharge Limitations for Ballast Water.
Dann Marine Towing strongly believes that EPA should exempt towing vessels from the ballast
water numeric discharge limitations described in Part 2.2.3.5 of the proposed VGP, alongside
other enumerated classes of vessels such as barges and confined Lakers. Coastal, Near Coastal
and Inland Towing vessels have relatively small volumes of ballast water, typically less than
70,000 gallons, or 265 cubic meters, which is a fraction of the thousands of cubic meters of
ballast water carried by large oceangoing ships. Towing vessels also have very low ballasting
rates compared to other classes of commercial vessels, usually ranging from 20 to 250 gallons
per minute, or 5 to 55 cubic meters per hour. Dann Marine Towing knows of no currently
available ballast water treatment system that has been designed for, tested, or installed onboard
vessels with these characteristic volumes and flow rates. Further physical and operational
attributes of towing vessels may limit the suitability or effectiveness of various types of ballast
water treatment systems. The installation of currently available ballast water treatment systems
on towing vessels is complicated by their very limited size. Many towing vessels are less than
125 feet long, with small engine rooms averaging between 900 and 1,300 square feet. In a
towing vessel engine room, there is virtually no space that is not already dedicated to machinery
or walkways. Keeping these areas clear and leaving enough room for engineers to maintain the
existing equipment is critical to the safe operation of the vessel. Due to the challenges of
installing currently available ballast water treatment systems on, and the lack of available space
aboard tugboats and towboats, Dann Marine Towing believes that towing vessels should not be
subject to the requirement to meet the effluent and related limits proposed in Part 2.2.3.5 during
the term of this permit.
Alternative Ballast Water Management Measures Are Not Feasible.
It is important that EPA exempt towing vessels from all of the requirements of Part 2.2.3.5
because many towing vessels cannot meet these limits using any of the prescribed ballast water
management measures, including those listed in Parts 2.2.3.5.1.2, 2.2.3.5.1.3, and 2.2.3.5. 1.4 of
the proposed VGP.
Part 2.2.3.5.1.2 would allow owners and operators of "vessels whose design and construction
safely allows for the transfer of ballast water to shore, if compatible onshore treatment is
available," to use "onshore treatment for any ballast water discharges to meet the requirements of
Part 2.2.3.5." However, EPA writes in its VGP Fact Sheet that it "is unaware of any such onshore
treatment facilities capable of meeting the VGP's 2.2.3.5 ballast water standards currently
available in the U.S."
Regarding the practicability of onshore reception facilities, the EPA calls the retrofitting of
vessels with suitable equipment to avoid "significant and costly delays" a "critical challenge" to
the implementation of onshore ballast water treatment. Due to the operational challenges
previously described, the installation of necessary piping and pumps on tugboats and towboats
would be especially difficult. In addition the VGP Fact Sheet discuss operational practices that
would be obstacles to onshore treatment, including discharges of ballast water before arriving at
berth to reduce time spent in port, which are utilized by some towing vessels. For all of these
reasons, Dann Marine Towing does not believe that the onshore treatment of ballast water is a
currently viable alternative to shipboard treatment systems for towing vessels and callDot be
used by this vessel class to satisfy the requirements of Part 2.2.3.5 of the draft permit.
511
-------
Part 2.2.3.5.1.3 of the proposed VGP provides that "vessels may meet the requirements of Part
2.2.3.5 by using only water from a U.S. public water system or Canadian drinking water system
[... ] as ballast water."
The use of a public water supply is indeed "a common practice for inland towing vessels," as
EPA notes in its Fact Sheet. However, it is not a universal practice, and it is in fact operationally
and economically infeasible for some towing vessels, including those that routinely carry ballast
water to maintain stability and trim as fuel is consumed during a voyage. These vessels must
compensate for fuel bum as it occurs in order to accommodate changes to its displacement and
balance.
For example, a towboat pushing loaded barges northbound on the Mississippi River must take up
3,000 to 5,000 gallons of ballast water a day to offset spent fuel. It is not operationally
practicable for the towboat to make the frequent stops that would be required to exclusively fill
its ballast tanks from municipal water supplies. Most Tugs that utilize potable water for ballast
report filling their tanks dockside with common hoses, which have estimated flow rates of 10 to
12 gallons per minute, or portable pumps, with flow rates of approximately 30 gallons per
minute, connected to a public water system. Taking on only 1,000 gallons of ballast water
requires anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour and a half. Such stops would therefore
compromise the efficient movement and timely delivery of the towboat's cargo.
Moreover, the towboat's ability to obtain public water supply water dockside while underway
would be dependent on the availability of docks at facilities with a public water supply along its
route -and at precisely the right times, so as not to compromise the maneuverability of the vessel.
Of course, a towboat does not usually travel independently; it could be pushing as many as 50
barges, which it could not leave at anchorage or in a fleeting area to take on ballast water at a
dock without further compounding its delay. Towboats can be refueled midstream by fuel flats,
small barges used for transporting fuel. Fuel flats often carry potable water, which the towing
vessels they service utilize for activities such as dishwashing, food preparation, laundry, and
bathing. However, the average potable water capacity of a fuel flat is only 10,000 to 20,000
gallons. If that water were taken on by towing vessels at the volumes necessary to ballast, the
fuel flat's water supply would be depleted far faster than its fuel.
In addition, towing vessels engaged in international commerce that must take on ballast water in
a foreign port are not permitted by the proposed permit to any other countries', save Canada's,
public supply water. If that vessel took on untreated ballast water, it could "not return to using
[public water supply] water until the tanks and supply lines have been cleaned, including
removal of all residual sediments," which would likely require a drydocking. Dann Marine
Towing does not believe that these operational parameters support the use of public supply water
as a practicable ballast water management measure for towing vessels to meet the proposed
permit's requirements under Part 2.2.3.5.
It is likewise infeasible for many towing vessels to stop discharging ballast water, as proposed in
Part 2.2.3.5.1.4, to meet the requirements of Part 2.2.3.5. EPA cites American Waterway
Operators' 2009 comments on the U.S. Coast Guard's ballast water management rulemaking in
512
-------
its fact sheet to support its correct assertion that "some tugboats use permanent ballast and never
discharge that water." For other tugboats and towboats, however, the ability to take on and
discharge ballast water is necessary to their safe operation. The owners and operators of such
vessels rely on the intake and discharge of ballast water to provide proper stability and trim, aid
maneuvering, reduce vessel motions of roll and pitch, and perform cargo operations. They cannot
redesign, reengineer, or retrofit these existing vessels to be ballastless. Dann Marine Towing
requests that EPA recognize the unique limitations of this class of vessels by not requiring
towing vessels to meet the ballast water numeric discharge limitations or alternative management
measures found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the proposed VGP during this permit term.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section
9.1.2 of this comment response document. As discussed by the commenter, EPA recognizes the
limitations of tugboats and towboats and that there is not a ballast water treatment system,
onshore treatment network, or public water supply infrastructure compatible with all vessel
operator operations currently available.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0497-A4
1
No
Comment: SEE ORIGINAL COMMENT LETTER FOR TABLE
Confidence level calculations are based on a Poisson distribution (see Lee et al., Density Matters,
EPA/600/R-10/031, 2010) and based on the assumption that living organisms are randomly
distributed in the ballast water tank.
Statistical confidence that Ecochlor's system meets the 1 per m3 (lOx IMO) living organism limit
for organisms >50 J.lm (corresponding generally to zooplankton) is 99% or better, based on 10
run test results (see Final Report issued February 2009 by NIOZ) in which 2 living organisms
were counted in a total sample volume of 30 m3.
Statistical confidence that JFE's system meets the 1 per m3 (lOx IMO) living organism limit for
organisms >50 J.lm is 99.4%, based on runs (see Final Report issued June 2009 by NIVA) for
testing that took place after 5 days after exposure to treatment via biocide, in a combination of
high and low salinity water tests, where 19 living organisms were counted in a total volume of
33 m3. In the high-salinity tests alone, 4 living organisms were counted in a total volume of 15
m3 indicating a 99.9% statistical confidence, and in the low-salinity tests alone, 15 living
organisms were counted in a total volume of 18 m3, indicating a 71.3% statistical confidence.
513
-------
Statistical confidence that NK3's system meets the 1 per m3 (lOx IMO) living organism limit for
organisms >50 micrometers is 99.99%, based on 9 run test results (see Final Report issued April
2011 by KOMERI) in which 0 living organisms were counted in a total sample volume of 9 m3.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section
9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Comment: Ballast Water Numeric Discharge Limitations
First, towing vessels should be exempt from the ballast water numeric discharge limitations in
Part 2.2.3.5 of the proposed VGP. alongside other classes of vessels such as unmanned,
unpowered barges and confined Great Lakes bulk carrier vessels. Much like Great Lakes bulk
carrier vessels and unmanned, unpowered barges, tugboats and towboats have unique
environmental, operational, and design constraints that make the installation of onboard ballast
water treatment systems impractical. For example, towing vessels have relatively small volumes
of ballast water, as well as very low ballasting rates compared to other classes of commercial
vessels. Additionally, at this point. Ingram Barge, as well as other operators, have not come
across currently available ballast water treatment system that has been designed for. tested and/or
installed onboard towboats and tugboats. Moreover, operational aspects of towing vessels may
limit suitability and/or effectiveness of ballast water treatment systems, as over half of the
towing vessel population operates in freshwater environments of the inland waterways systems.
Additional operational concerns are presented by the limited space available on towing vessels
for such systems, as there is limited room in the engine room of towing vessels for a safe
placement of additional technology. Thus, due to the numerous challenges listed above. Ingram
Barge would urge the EPA to exclude towing vessels from the requirements to meet the effluent
and related limits suggested in the proposed permit.
Second, we would request that EPA exempt towing vessels from all of the requirements of Part
2.2.3.5. because many towing vessels cannot meet these limits using any of the prescribed ballast
water management measures. Such measures as the use of onshore treatment are not feasible for
the industry to use as there do not seem to be adequate onshore facilities in existence at this time
and any venture to construct such facilities would be a lengthy and expensive process with
limited utility. Additionally, the recommended use of water from the drinking water system as
ballast water is often operationally and economically infeasible for some towing vessels, would
require many stops and could cause operational concerns as to fuel bum. Also, fueling dockside
and via a fuel flat also present operational challenges, as fuel flats carry limited amount of
potable water that is used for other purposes and the ability to come to the dock may be limited
by the size of the tow and maneuverability of the vessel. Therefore, we would request that EPA
exempt towing vessels from all of the requirements of Part 2.2.3.5.
Commenter Name:
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
1
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
514
-------
However, if EPA chooses not to exempt towing vessels from ballast water numeric discharge
limits. Ingram Barge would urge EPA to extend the schedule for when ballast water treatment
would become Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) by at least 5 (five)
additional years.
Furthermore. Ingram Barge supports EPA's exemption of barges from ballast water numeric
discharge limits.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1, responses to comments in section
9.1.2, and response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-
QW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 3 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commenter Affiliation: Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: One of the most egregious requirements in VGP 2.0 is the numeric discharge
limitations for ballast water that would require some towing vessels to install ballast water
treatment systems. It is critical that EPA explicitly exempt towing vessels from this requirement
because there is no concrete scientific evidence to support the requirement for such systems on
inland towboats; no ballast water treatment system has been designed for use on towing vessels;
and the alternative compliance methods that EPA provides are also infeasible for many vessels.
First, the Federal Register notice states that the National Research Council found that there is not
enough data to evaluate the overall risk of invasive species transfer via ballast water.
Furthermore, EPA states in the Fact Sheet that the estimated rate of invasion for invasive species
in the Mississippi River System where our vessels transit is unknown, and that it cannot estimate
even the likelihood that an invasive species that is transferred via ballast water could successfully
establish itself in its new ecosystem (Pages 16, 120). While invasive species are extremely
harmful and we fully support efforts to reduce their transfer, without adequate knowledge of
where, how, and by which method they are being transferred, it is premature to require the
installation of extremely costly systems on towing vessels travelling on the inland rivers.
Furthermore, the Federal Register notice explains that EPA exempts existing Lakers from the
ballast water treatment requirements due to "challenges of installing ballast water treatment
systems," and exempts vessels under 79 feet with less than 8 cubic meters of ballast water
capacity because "it is infeasible to calculate numeric effluent limits at the time" and
"minimization of these discharges can be achieved without using highly engineered, complex
treatment systems." All three of these arguments apply to every inland towing vessel.
Second, the installation of ballast water treatment systems on our towing vessels is virtually
impossible. We are unaware of any systems that have been designed, tested, or installed on
vessels with the physical and operational characteristics of inland towing vessels. Ballast water
515
-------
systems are not designed for our vessels' small engine room size, low flow rates, and low ballast
water volumes. Even if a suitable system is developed that could be installed on a towing vessel,
retrofitting a vessel will be so expensive and time-consuming as to require us to take that vessel
out of service. EPA's Fact Sheet admits that installing and maintaining ballast water treatment
systems will cost thousands or millions of dollars, which does not include the extensive
retrofitting cost, or the lost opportunity costs due to the vessel being out of service.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section
9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commenter Affiliation: Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: Finally, while we appreciate the flexibility that EPA attempted to provide with the
alternative methods by which vessels could comply with the ballast water requirements, it is
impossible for our towing vessels to comply with those as well.
• No Ballast Water Discharge: For our vessels that discharge ballast water, ballast intake
and discharge is essential for the safe and efficient operation of the vessel. Not ballasting
is simply not an option for those vessels.
• Using Potable Water for Ballast: Many vessels cannot access potable water easily enough
to be able to use it for ballast. For example, for Illinois Marine Towing's vessels, we only
know of four locations to access potable water in the over 300 mile stretch between Lake
Michigan and St. Louis. It would be impossible for us to divert our vessels to these four
facilities to take on potable water for ballast and still be able to serve our customers.
Also, large towing vessels burn a relatively large amount of fuel, at times in excess of
10,000 gallons per day. This drastically affects vessel draft, requiring the vessel crew to
take on ballast to maintain vessel trim. Since the vessels draft requirements change while
underway, the obvious, safe, and efficient alternative is to use river water for ballast. ~
Short-Distance Voyages: While some of our vessels are oftentimes engaged in what EPA
defines as "short-distance voyages," none of them fully fit that definition because they
either transit a lock, cross a COTP boundary, or travel further than 10 nautical miles at
some point in their operations. While we understand that it is difficult to determine
ecological boundaries to set as the criteria for these voyages, the entire inland river
system can be considered one ecosystem, and it makes the most sense for vessels that
remain within that system to be exempt from ballast water treatment system
requirements.
• Discharging Ballast to Onshore or Vessel Treatment Facilities: EPA states in its Fact
Sheet that it is unaware of any of these facilities in existence (Page 103). We urge EPA to
restrict suggested compliance options to those that exist at this time.
516
-------
In conclusion, exempting towing vessels from numeric discharge limits is the best way to ensure
that no towing vessel is required to install a ballast water treatment system that does not exist.
There are two other ballast water provisions unrelated to the treatment system requirements that
warrant comment. The first is the proposed new ballast water management training requirements
in Section 2.2.3.1. These requirements are far too prescriptive, since every company has different
types of equipment on its vessels. It is important to allow companies the flexibility to train their
employees on the specific equipment they will be operating. The language in this provision
should be replaced with the more general training language found in Section 2.1.6. Second, we
strongly oppose the proposal to allow our ballast water management plans to be made available
to the public. Ballast water management plans are a proprietary part of our safety management
systems; making them public would increase the already-burdensome recordkeeping and
reporting requirements, as well as leave us open to frivolous lawsuits.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section
9.1.2 of this comment response document. See also responses to comments in section 9.1.14 of
this response document. EPA disagrees that the ballast water management plans in Part 2.2.3.1
of the permit are far too prescriptive. Among other things, the plans require that a written
training plan describing the type of training to be provided and the date it is provided be
maintained for how the master and appropriate crew are trained in ballasting operations and the
use of equipment. How and when this training is provided is generally left to the discretion of
the owner/operator, as is the specific requirements of that training, provided that those trained
understand the application of ballast water and sediment management and treatment procedures.
EPA acknowledges the commenters strong opposition to allow ballast water management plans
be made available to the public, and has discussed whether to make these plans available to the
public elsewhere in this comment response document, including in section 9.1.14 of this
comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
4
No
Comment: Exempt Towing Vessels from Numeric Discharge Limitations for Ballast Water
AWO urges EPA to exempt towing vessels from the numeric discharge limitations for ballast
water described in Part 2.2.3.5 of the proposed VGP, alongside other enumerated classes of
vessels such as barges and confined Lakers. Both unmanned, unpowered barges and Great Lakes
bulk carrier vessels, or Lakers, were identified by the EPA Science Advisory Board in its 2011
report on the efficacy of ballast water treatment systems as "important examples of specific
constraints [that] can greatly limit treatment options."2 In its VGP Fact Sheet, EPA relies on the
SAB's description of barges' and Lakers' "unique" limitations to make its determination that
ballast water treatment systems are not currently available for these vessel types.3 However, the
517
-------
SAB also acknowledged that "a multitude of vessel designs and operation scenarios exist" that
can influence the performance of ballast water treatment systems. The SAB concludes:
[T]here are several factors to consider beyond mechanical and biological efficacy. A variety of
environmental (e.g., temperature and salinity), operational (e.g., ballasting flow rates and holding
times), and vessel design (e.g., ballast volume and unmanned barges) parameters will impact the
performance and applicability of individual [ballast water treatment systems].4
Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Towing Vessels Are Not Currently Available
Like barges and Lakers, tugboats and towboats have unique environmental, operational, and
design constraints that make the installation of onboard ballast water treatment systems
impractical.
In particular, towing vessels have relatively small volumes of ballast water that amount to a
fraction of the thousands of cubic meters of ballast water carried by large oceangoing ships. A
typical inland towboat can carry 20,000 to 40,000 gallons, or 75 to 150 cubic meters, of ballast
water. A typical coastal tugboat has a ballast water capacity of 20,000 to 70,000 gallons, or 75 to
265 cubic meters. Towing vessels also have very low ballasting rates compared to other classes
of commercial vessels, usually ranging from 20 to 250 gallons per minute, or 5 to 55 cubic
meters per hour. AWO and its members know of no currently available ballast water treatment
system that has been designed for, tested, or installed onboard vessels with these characteristic
volumes and flow rates. In a 2010 analysis of ballast water treatment technology, Lloyd's
Register reported that most available treatment technologies "have been developed for a flow
rate of about 250 m3/hr" - more than four times the highest towing vessel ballasting rate.5
Other physical and operational attributes of towing vessels may also limit the suitability or
effectiveness of various types of ballast water treatment systems. For example, well over half of
the current towing vessel population operates exclusively in the freshwater environments of the
inland waterways system. As noted by the SAB, "electrochlorination and ozonation may only
work in freshwater with the addition of brine." These categories of treatment technologies "rely
on the salinity of the feedwater" to work effectively, so "supplementary brine is necessary when
the abstracted ballast water is fresh."6 The inland rivers also have a higher turbidity, which
diminishes the effectiveness of technologies using ultraviolet irradiation. UV "is well known to
be effective against a wide range of microorganisms [...] but relies on good UV transmission
through the water and hence needs clear water" to work successfully, according to Lloyd's
Register.7 In addition, the duration of the average towing vessel voyage is similar to that of a
typical Laker - "four to five days, with many less than two days."8 However, "[djeoxygenation
takes a number of days to come into effect due to the length of time it takes the organisms to be
asphyxiated."9 The SAB wrote that "deoxygenation and chemical treatments that require holding
times to effectively treat water (or for the breakdown of active substances) may not be
completely effective on short voyages."10
The installation of currently available ballast water treatment systems on tugboats and towboats
is also complicated by the very limited size of towing vessels. Many towing vessels are less than
125 feet long, with small engine rooms averaging between 900 and 1,300 square feet. In a
towing vessel engine room, there is virtually no space that is not already dedicated to machinery
518
-------
or walkways. Keeping these areas clear and leaving enough room for engineers to maintain the
existing equipment is critical to the safe operation of the vessel. The SAB acknowledged the
similar constraints of Lakers, writing that "the space and power needed for the required numbers
of filtration + UV treatments may simply not be available."11 This is equally true of towing
vessels, but not only for filtration + UV treatment technologies; size limitations will severely
restrict the feasibility of retrofitting towing vessels to accommodate any currently available
ballast water treatment systems. Lloyd's Register found that the mean footprint for currently
available treatment systems with a "small" capacity of 200 cubic meters per hour was 7 square
meters, or 75 square feet - one-fifth to one-tenth the size of an average towing vessel engine
room.12 The mean power needed to operate the technologies it surveyed was 68 kilowatts per
1000 cubic meters of ballast water, but Lloyd's Register noted a tendency "for larger units to be
more efficient in terms of power requirements,"13 and added, "[F]or large power consumers
(electrolytic and advanced oxidation processes), availability of shipboard power will be a
factor."14 If a tugboat or towboat's existing power generation capacity is not adequate to operate
these systems, there may be insufficient space to install additional generators. Additional or
larger generators would also have negative impacts on engine performance and result in
increased fuel consumption and carbon emissions.
Due to the challenges of installing currently available ballast water treatment systems on towing
vessels, and the lack of appropriate currently available treatment technologies for installation on
tugboats and towboats, AWO urges EPA not to subject towing vessels to the requirement to meet
the ballast water discharge standards and related limits proposed in Part 2.2.3.5 during the term
of this permit.
Alternative Ballast Water Management Measures Are Not Universally Feasible
It is important that EPA exempt towing vessels from all of the requirements of Part 2.2.3.5
because many towing vessels cannot meet these limits using any of the prescribed ballast water
management measures, including those listed in Parts 2.2.3.5.1.2, 2.2.3.5.1.3, and 2.2.3.5.1.4 of
the proposed VGP.
Part 2.2.3.5.1.2 would allow operators of "vessels whose design and construction safely allows
for the transfer of ballast water to shore, if compatible onshore treatment is available," to use
"onshore treatment for any ballast water discharges to meet the requirements of Part 2.2.3.5."15
However, EPA writes in its VGP Fact Sheet that it "is unaware of any such onshore treatment
facilities capable of meeting the VGP's 2.2.3.5 ballast water standards currently available in the
U.S."16 Likewise, the SAB reported that "[although reception facilities are allowed in policy and
rules have identified advantages relative to [ballast water treatment systems], there are no
reception facilities currently available in the U.S. to remove organisms from ballast water."17
Further, the SAB wrote, "It typically takes up to 30 months to design, permit, and construct a
sewage treatment plant larger than 10 [million gallons per day], and potentially much longer if
sites are scarce, or if there are issues related to permit approvals."18 While "[m]ost ballast water
reception facilities needed in the U.S. would be smaller" 9 than 10 million gallons per day, AWO
knows of no facility for onshore treatment currently under development. Given "the implications
of land availability adjacent to port terminals, and time to acquire and permit newly designed
treatment facilities and required support services,"20 it is evident that no onshore ballast water
treatment facility will be operational when this permit becomes effective on December 19, 2013,
519
-------
- let alone the many facilities that would be necessary for towing vessel owners and operators to
consistently employ this ballast water management measure. As EPA notes in its VGP Fact
Sheet, "if even one anticipated port location for a vessel does not have onshore treatment, that
vessel may need to install a shipboard treatment system, defer the discharge of ballast water, or
decline to call at that port."21
Regarding the practicability of onshore reception facilities, the SAB also observed that "[v]essels
would need to be outfitted with appropriate pipes and pumps to move ballast water to the deck
and off the ship at a fast enough rate so the vessel is not unduly delayed in port."22 EPA calls the
retrofitting of vessels with suitable equipment to avoid "significant and costly delays" a "critical
challenge" to the implementation of onshore ballast water treatment.23 Due to the operational and
design characteristics previously described, the installation of necessary piping and pumps on
tugboats and towboats would be especially difficult. For all of these reasons, AWO strongly
believes that the onshore treatment of ballast water is not currently a viable alternative to
shipboard treatment systems for towing vessels and cannot be used by this vessel class to satisfy
the requirements of Part 2.2.3.5 of the draft permit.
Part 2.2.3.5.1.3 of the proposed VGP provides that "[v]essels may meet the requirements of Part
2.2.3.5 by using only water from a U.S. public water system or Canadian drinking water system
[...] as ballast water."24 The use of a public water supply is indeed "a common practice for
inland towing vessels," as EPA notes in its Fact Sheet.25 However, it is not a universal practice,
and it is in fact operationally and economically infeasible for some towing vessels, including
those that routinely carry ballast water to maintain stability and trim as fuel is consumed during a
voyage. These vessels must compensate for fuel burn as it occurs in order to accommodate
changes to displacement and balance.
For example, a towboat pushing loaded barges northbound on the Mississippi River may need to
take up 3,000 to 5,000 gallons of ballast water a day to offset spent fuel. It is not operationally
practicable for the towboat to make the frequent stops that would be required to exclusively fill
its ballast tanks from municipal water supplies. AWO members that utilize potable water for
ballast report filling their tanks dockside with common hoses, which have estimated flow rates of
10 to 12 gallons per minute, or portable pumps, with flow rates of approximately 30 gallons per
minute, connected to a public water system. Taking on only 1,000 gallons of ballast water
requires anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour and a half. Such frequent stops would therefore
compromise the efficient movement of the vessel and impede the timely delivery of cargo in its
tow.
Moreover, the ability of a towboat to obtain public water supply water dockside would be
dependent on the availability of docks at facilities with a public water supply along its route -
and at precisely the right times, so as not to compromise the maneuverability of the vessel. Of
course, a towboat does not usually travel independently, or "light boat"; it could be pushing as
many as 40 barges, which it could not leave at anchorage or in a fleeting area to take on ballast
water at a dock without further compounding costly delays.
Towboats can be refueled midstream by fuel flats, small barges used for transporting fuel. Fuel
flats often carry potable water, which the towing vessels they service utilize for activities such as
520
-------
dishwashing, food preparation, laundry, and bathing. However, the average potable water
capacity of a fuel flat is only 10,000 to 20,000 gallons. If that water were taken on by towing
vessels at the volumes necessary to use as ballast water, the fuel flat's water supply would be
depleted far faster than its fuel.
In addition, towing vessels engaged in international commerce that must take on ballast water in
a foreign port are not permitted by the proposed permit to use public water supply from any other
country, save Canada. If a towing vessel took on untreated ballast water, it could "not return to
using [public water supply] water until the tanks and supply lines have been cleaned, including
removal of all residual sediments," which would likely require drydocking the vessel.26 AWO
does not believe that these operational parameters support the use of public supply water as a
practicable ballast water management measure for towing vessels to meet the requirements of
Part 2.2.3.5 of the proposed VGP.
It is likewise infeasible for many towing vessels to stop discharging ballast water, as proposed in
Part 2.2.3.5.1.4 of the draft permit, to meet the requirements of Part 2.2.3.5. EPA cites AWO's
2009 comments on the U.S. Coast Guard's ballast water management rulemaking in its Fact
Sheet to support its correct assertion that "some tugboats use permanent ballast and never
discharge that water."27 For other tugboats and towboats, however, the ability to take on and
discharge ballast water is necessary to their safe operation. The owners and operators of such
vessels rely on the intake and discharge of ballast water to provide proper stability and trim, aid
maneuvering, reduce vessel motions of roll and pitch, and perform cargo operations. They cannot
redesign, reengineer, or retrofit these existing vessels so as not to require ballast. AWO therefore
urges EPA to recognize the unique limitations of towing vessels by not requiring towing vessels
to meet the numeric discharge limitations for ballast water or alternative management measures
found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the proposed VGP during the term of the 2013 VGP.
2
United States Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA SAB). 2011. Efficacy of
Ballast Water Treatment Systems. Ecological Processes and Effects Committee Augmented for the Ballast Water
Advisory, U.S. EPA SAB, Washington, DC. Part 4.8.
3
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 201 lb. Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit Fact
Sheet. Office of Water, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Parts 4.4.3.5.6.2 and 4.4.3.5.6.3.
4 U.S. EPA SAB 2011, Part 4.8.
5 Lloyd's Register. 2010. Ballast Water Treatment Technology: Current Status. Lloyd's Register, London, p.14.
6 Ibid., p. 13.
7 Lloyd's Register 2010, p. 9.
8 U.S. EPA SAB 2011, Part 4.8.
9 Lloyd's Register 2010, p. 10.
10 U.S. EPA SAB 2011, Part 4.8.
11 Ibid.
12 Lloyd's Register 2010, Table 4.
13 Ibid., p. 14.
14 Ibid., p. 16.
15 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011a. Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit
(VGP). Office of Water, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Part 2.2.3.5.1.2.
16 U.S. EPA 201 lb, Part 4.4.3.5.2.
17 U.S. EPA SAB 2011, Part 4.8.
521
-------
21 U.S. EPA 201 lb, Part 4.4.3.5.2.
22 U.S. EPA SAB 2011, Part 6.4.
23 U.S. EPA 2011b, Part 4.4.3.5.2.
24 U.S. EPA 2011a, Part 2.2.3.5.1.3
25 U.S. EPA 201 lb, Part 4.4.3.5.3.
26 U.S. EPA 2011a, Part 2.2.3.5.1.3
27 U.S. EPA 2011b, Part 4.4.3.5.4.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1, responses to comments in section
9.1.2 of this comment response document and response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-
0496-A1, excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Berge, Vice President, Pacific Merchant Shipping
Association (PMSA)
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0508-A1
2
No
Comment: b) Implementation of Technology for Existing Vessels
The proposed VGP correctly adopts the implementation schedule for existing vessels with
construction dates prior to January 1, 2012. The schedule is consistent with the IMO convention
in that regard and reflects the logistical realities of taking vessels out of service and into the
limited number of dry docks available to accomplish the design, installation, certification and
testing of treatment systems into existing vessels.
Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's support for adopting the implementation
schedule for requiring vessels to meet numeric treatment limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP.
Please see the response essay in sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 of this comment response document for
further discussion regarding schedule.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
2
No
Comment: 1. Numerical Treatment Standards
Canada applauds the EPA's proposal to harmonize the ballast water numeric discharge
limitations with regulation 0 -2 of the International Convention for the Control and Management
522
-------
of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 (the "Convention") of the international Maritime
Organization (IMO).
Canada ratified the Convention in April 2010, and accordingly plans to establish and maintain
regulations in accordance with Convention requirements. As the required ratification conditions
have almost been reached, the coming into force of the Convention is at hand. The uniform
implementation of these requirements and timelines will allow vessels to operate in the U.S.,
Canada and other countries with the confidence that they are respecting their domestic and
international obligations; this will result in increased environmental protection as quickly as
possible while ensuring efficient marine transportation.
Canada appreciates the studies conducted by the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) and the
National Academies of Sciences (NAS) on the topic of ballast water management. Based on the
NAS study's conclusion that the protectiveness of various standards is not known,1 Canada
agrees that requirements based on protectiveness (i.e., water-quality-based effluent limitations)
cannot yet be established. However the NAS study also noted that the 0-2 standard is an
improvement over present practices,2 and the SAB study concluded that commercially available
BWMS are able to meet this standard.3 Thus technology-based effluent limits are appropriate.
1 "The available methods for determining a numeric discharge standard for ballast water are limited by a profound
lack of data and information to develop and validate models of the risk- release relationship. Therefore, it was not
possible with any certainty to determine the risk of non-indigenous species establishment under existing discharge
limits." National Academy of Sciences (2011) Assessing the Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and Invasion
Risk in Ballast Water, (p. 3).
2
The Convention's 0-2 standard "clearly reduces concentrations of coastal organisms below current levels resulting
from ballast water exchange." Ibid. (p. 7).
3
"The Panel concluded that [certain BWMS] have been demonstrated to meet the IMO 0-2 discharge standard,
when tested under the IMO certification guidelines, and will likely meet USCG Phase 1 standards, if tested under
EPA's more detailed Environmental Technology Verification CETV) Protocol." EPA Science Advisory Board
(2011) Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems, (p. 4).
Response: Commenter's support for inclusion of the IMO D-2 standards in the VGP is noted,
and the final VGP includes such standard. With respect to the NAS study and water quality
based effluent limits, please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments
in sections 10, 10.1, 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 of this comment response document
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
6
No
Comment: 4. Transiting Ships.
Although ballast water discharges are necessary for the safety and stability of ships, Canada
appreciates that the EPA has clarified, for its part, that not discharging ballast water is one way
to comply with the numerical ballast water treatment requirements of the draft permit. This will
523
-------
support continued marine transportation of Seaway cargo s, which are characterized by heavy raw
mining and agricultural products. Marine transportation of these cargos carries significant
environmental advantages, for example in terms of air emissions, when compared to other
modes.
Canada remains very concerned by state attempts to make impositions, by way of the VGP or
otherwise, on vessels transiting to and from Canada, without any intention of discharging ballast
water into waters subject to the permit. Canada calls on the EPA to exclude from the VGP all
requirements imposed by a state that could apply to transiting vessels that do not intend to
discharge ballast water, further requesting that the EPA seek additional authority to do so if
required.
Response: EPA acknowledges Canada's support for the Part 2.2.3.5.1.4 of the VGP, which
specifically notes that no discharge of ballast water is one way to comply with the numeric
limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP. Regarding 401 certification conditions and State
requirements to require vessels transiting their waters to have ballast water treatment systems
on board, please see section 12 of this comment response document which has a fundamentally
similar discussion regarding vessels transiting State waters.
Commenter Name: Kate Frantz, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0521-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Above all, MPCA and MDNR are interested in the soonest possible installation of
ballast water treatment systems that significantly reduce the risk of new invasive species
introductions in state waters. In addition, MPCA and MDNR would like to see the establishment
of a federal regulation that sufficiently protects state waters from new invasive species
introductions and eliminates the need for individual states to regulate the shipping industry. The
VGP2 should set a clear path for the implementation of numeric discharge limitations, and the
collection of data that demonstrates compliance with all permit conditions. Following are more
detailed comments:
Use of IMP D-2 Discharge Standards as Technology Based Effluent Limits
MPCA and MDNR understand USEPA's proposal to use the IMO D-2 Ballast Discharge
Standards as a basis for Technology Based Effluent Limits (TBELs) to be included in the VGP2.
Building consensus around a set of numeric discharge standards has been one of the more
challenging aspects of ballast discharge regulatory development. We believe implementation of
nationally supported TBELs will result in the soonest possible significant risk reduction of new
invasive species introductions in Minnesota waters. We also believe it is critical that treatment
technologies demonstrate effectiveness under true freshwater conditions.
Response: Commenter's support for use of IMO D-2 as technology based effluent limits is
noted, and the final VGP includes such standard.
524
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
14
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5: Ballast Water Numeric Discharge T.imitations
We congratulate the EPA for adopting the standard specified in the International Convention for
the Control and Management of Ship's Ballast Water and Sediments. This will provide
much-needed certainty not only to the regulated community, but also to technology developers,
and ensure further progress in the development of ballast water treatment systems.
Response: Commenter's support for use of IMO D-2 as technology based effluent limits is
noted, and the final VGP includes such standard.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
20
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.1.4: No Discharge of Ballast Water
As mentioned earlier in our comments, we believe that the inclusion of a provision specifically
stating that not discharging ballast water is a compliance option provides a welcome clarification
to the VGP.
Response: Commenter's support for inclusion of a no-discharge alternative is noted, and the
final VGP includes such an alternative.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Patsy Root, Senior Regulatory Affairs Specialist, IDEXX
Laboratories
IDEXX Laboratories, Inc
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0526-A1
1
No
Comment: Comment 1:
We would recommend the requirement for testing Heterotrophic Bacteria (total live bacteria) be
removed from this document. The HPC levels in these types of water matrices would likely be
extremely high. In some studies levels of HPC are well over 103 - 106/mL. Bacteria levels such
525
-------
as these are difficult to test due to multiple dilutions required and any resulting data has a very
low assurance for accuracy.
Comment 2:
There are inconsistencies both within and between EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 and EPA-HQ-
2011-0150. We recommend the EPA align the list of target fecal indicators within and between
these two documents. For example:
Section 2.2.3.5 Ballast Water Numeric Discharge Limitations, part 3, lists Vibrio cholera,
Escherichia coli and intestinal enterococci as indicator organisms along with reference to
section 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 for methods of analysis.
Section 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 Table 2 lists: Total heterotrophic bacteria (HPC), E coli and enterococci
as parameters along with associated methods.
These two sections should list the same target organisms.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 of this comment response document..
Additionally, regarding Heterotrophic Bacteria (total live bacteria), EPA is seeking to better
understand how bacterial communities respond after ballast water treatment, and the extent to
which bacterial regrowth differs between different treatment approaches (if any). However, as
discussed elsewhere in this response to comment document, in an effort to reduce burden for the
regulated community, while still providing EPA with the information it needs regarding the
performance of ballast water treatment systems, EPA has reduced monitoring frequency for
biological indicators to once per year after the first year of monitoring for systems for which
high quality data is available and that have met their ballast water permit limits for the previous
two sampling events. With respect to ballast water monitoring requirements, please see section
9.1.10 of this comment response document, Section 4.4.3.5 of the Fact Sheet, and the response
to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0449-A1, Excerpt 4.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 28
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question #16: Are the IMO ballast numeric discharge limits appropriate? Are there
data sources which indicate that certain ballast water treatment systems reliably exceed the
limits established in this permit? Can these limits be applied to those vessel classes to which,
under the proposed VGP, such limits would not apply?
LCA Response: Commenting on the appropriateness of the IMO ballast numeric discharge limits
would be a purely academic exercise for LCA, as there are no systems that can handle our ballast
volumes and flowrates. However, the second part of the question - whether there are data that
indicate some systems exceed these limits - it is our understanding that there are presently no
526
-------
procedures and technology which are scientifically valid to determine if systems can meet higher
standards. This view was shared by the Science Advisory Board in their report. Therefore, we
would strongly urge the EPA to ensure any such claims made by commenters to the docket
undergo strict scientific and statistical scrutiny before being accepted as fact.
Response: With respect to ballast water treatment systems and Lakers, please see VGP Fact
Sheet 4.4.3.5.6.3 and responses to comments in sections 9.1.1, 9.1.4, and 9.1.6 of this comment
response document. With respect to the need for scientifically valid data to support assertions
that treatment systems can achieve limits more stringent than IMO D-2, please see the response
essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section 9.1.2 of this comment response
document.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 45
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 86 Effluent Biological Organism Monitoring - EPA specifically requests
comments on the practicability of conducting monitoring of living organisms during initial,
annual, intermediate and renewal surveys as described in Regulation E-1 of the IMO BWM
convention. We raise several issues which EPA must discuss:
• EPA must discuss the compliance demonstration implications of conducting sampling
outside the United States, and possibly when not discharging. While a sample result
indicating an exceedance of the permit limits may indicate the performance of the system
at that point in time, how could it be used as a determinant of compliance for
enforcement or reporting under the requirements of this permit if the vessel was not
discharging in permit waters at the time the sample is taken?
• The volume of samples taken to perform monitoring must be addressed. Depending on
the vessel, ballast water storage/discharge volumes can be quite large. What volume of
sample must be taken to determine statistical validity?
• Ballast water discharges can occur from some of the largest discharge pipes on board.
Elementary sampling techniques such as flushing the pipe prior to sampling and the
possibility of bacterial re-growth in the discharge/sample pipe may complicate the
compliance monitoring system anticipated by EPA.
Undoubtedly the discharge pipe will be downstream of the treatment system, raising the
possibility of bacterial re-growth which could of course skew the results (this is
particularly of concern when considering the indicator bacteria that have been selected
are not actually invasive species). This is all the more complicated if the discharge pipe
serves more than one effluent, e.g. gray water or AWPS permeate.
527
-------
• We have previously commented on the frequency and spacing between samples for ships
that do not spend much time in permit waters (see comments above on Permit Part
2.2.3.5.1.1.4 Effluent Biological Organism Monitoring).
Response: With respect to monitoring in U.S. waters versus non U.S. waters, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2, excerpt 29. Though EPA considered
only allowing sampling to be conducted while in U.S. waters, the Agency determined it was
more appropriate to provide operators with flexibility as to when and where they could conduct
that monitoring for this permit term. EPA may reevaluate this decision for the next iteration of
the VGP. Regarding the volumes of samples required for monitoring, the method utilized will
specify the required volume. Though the commenter is correct that the volumes of water
required for enumerating living organisms in the greater than 50 |im size category can be quite
large (see e.g., EPA 2010 (ETV protocol)), the volume is not large for the parameters for which
permittees must monitor in today's VGP. For most tests, sample volume is 1 liter or less.
Regarding sampling guidance, EPA is in the process of actively finalizing an ETV shipboard
technology verification protocol that will address ship specific verification factors for shipboard
installed ballast water treatment technologies. Upon that document's finalization, it will be a
resource for vessel operators regarding appropriate sampling techniques. EPA acknowledges
that there may be concerns with bacterial regrowth in pipes before the discharge point.
However, EPA notes that the ballast water discharge limit in today's permit is an end-of-pipe
limit. EPA selected e. coli and enterocci as the indicator organisms because testing methods are
readily available and well developed. Additionally, limits for these indicators are found in both
the U.S. Coast Guard final ballast water discharge standard and the IMO D-2 limit.
With respect to ballast water monitoring and vessel inspections, please see the response to
comments in section 9.1.10 and 1.1 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Douglas B. Schneider, World Shipping Council (WSC)
Commenter Affiliation: World Shipping Council (WSC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: B. Not Discharging Ballast Water is a Logical Compliance Option.
The draft VGP would include "not discharging ballast water" as a compliance option. This is a
logical clarification to the VGP, because the Clean Water Act only regulates discharges.
Response: Commenter's support for inclusion of a no-discharge alternative is noted, and the
final VGP includes such an alternative.
Commenter Name: Douglas B. Schneider, World Shipping Council (WSC)
Commenter Affiliation: World Shipping Council (WSC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1
528
-------
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
4
No
Comment: D. The Technology Installation Schedule for New Vessels Is Impossible to Meet
Given the Proposed Testing Requirements and Must Be Changed.
With respect to the installation of treatment technology on new vessels constructed on or after
January 1, 2012, we note that the draft VGP would require compliance with the ballast water
treatment standard upon delivery.2 The VGP would also require that installed ballast water
treatment systems demonstrate compliance with the D-2 standard using the Environmental
Technology Verification (ETV) protocol. We understand, however, that no treatment systems
have completed ETV testing, that portions of the protocol may require further clarification from
EPA before such testing can proceed, and that independent testing laboratories currently have
only a limited capacity to perform ETV testing. This means that it is not yet known what
treatment systems will meet the EPA proposed testing requirements. Adding to this timing
problem is the fact that the draft VGP would require compliance with the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) Final Rule on ballast water management, which is expected to require that treatment
systems obtain USCG approval or a USCG-issued equivalency (for foreign type-approved
systems).
Vessel owners will not know what systems have satisfactorily completed ETV testing for quite
some time and will not know which systems have earned a USCG approval or equivalency until
well after the USCG Final Rule is published and the agency has begun issuing these
determinations. As a result, for a significant period of time that needs to be more clearly assessed
and defined, vessel owners will not be able to install approved and compliant systems.
International Maritime Environmental and Safety Associates (IMESA) has developed the
attached detailed estimate regarding how much time will be needed for ETV testing and USCG
Type Approvals to be completed. IMESA estimates it will take a minimum of 1 year and 8
months before a treatment technology has completed testing in accordance with the ETV
protocol. IMESA also estimates that, under a "best case" scenario, it will take a minimum of 2
years and 4 months from the date the USCG Final Rule is published for the first applicants to
obtain USCG Type Approval. In contrast to a "best case" scenario, IMESA estimates that a
"most likely scenario" is that the actual time to complete the Type Approval process will be 32-
36 months. If these estimates are correct, it would mean that it will not be known until late 2013
at the earliest whether some existing technologies have succeeded in meeting the standards of the
ETV protocol, and it would not be known until late 2014 to mid-2015 (assuming the USCG Final
Rule is published this spring) whether the first Type Approval applicants have been granted
USCG Type Approval. It would take more time to know when a reasonable number of
commercially available treatment systems have been granted USCG Type Approval.
Furthermore, IMESA's estimates do not factor in the time that technology manufacturers will
require to scale-up production of their systems after they have demonstrated that their systems
meet all applicable U.S. testing and approval requirements. Technology vendors may have
difficulty securing financing needed to scale-up production to commercial levels prior to
demonstrating that their systems comply with these requirements.
529
-------
It would be entirely unreasonable for the U.S. government to require the installation of costly
treatment technologies before it is known whether those technologies meet the government's
applicable approval requirements, which include both the EPA requirements and the USCG
requirements. Because both agencies' requirements must be met, any solution to this
schedule/type approval problem will require both agencies to address the issue in the same way.
Because the only two variables are the approval standard and the installation schedule, any
solution will have to involve one or both of those elements.
The EPA and the USCG need to agree on a common modification to the proposed approval
standards and/or schedule that would provide a reasonable time after the final requirements are
published by both agencies - and after a reasonable number of systems have been determined to
be compliant with both EPA and USCG requirements - for vessel owners to select and install
technology. The draft VGP accordingly needs to be amended to reflect that inter-agency
agreement. Failure to address this scheduling problem would render the ballast water provisions
of the VGP arbitrary and capricious, because the draft as currently written would require
regulated entities to do something that is impossible - install only approved technology when no
approvals have been granted. See Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 940
(D.C. Cir. 1991) ("three of the eight factors in the Administrator's eight-factor test appear
impossible to fulfill and thus must be regarded as arbitrary and capricious").
2
While vessel construction can take much longer, new liner vessels are commonly delivered approximately twelve
months after construction begins.
SEE ORIGINAL COMMENT FOR ATTACHMENT AND TIMELINE
Response: EPA has revised the implementation schedule for installation of treatment
technologies for new vessels and the VGP no longer limits acceptable systems to those tested
under the ETV Protocol. Please see, VGP Fact Sheet 4.4.3.5.5, the response essay in section
9.1.1 and responses to comments in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document. EPA
expects that systems that have received either U.S. Coast Guard type approval or a U.S. Coast
Guard Alternate Management System designation would meet the discharge limits found in the
VGP. As discussed elsewhere in this comment response document, the U.S. Coast Guard
expects to grant AMS determinations starting in March 2013, allowing vessel operators a clear
path to comply with both the VGP and the U.S. Coast Guard ballast water discharge standard
rulemaking for the permit term and beyond.
Commenter Name: Nick Schroeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes
Environmental Law Center
Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Environmental Law Center
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0535-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
530
-------
Comment: II. Standards more stringent than the International Maritime Organization ("IMO")
standard are necessary.
A key new provision of the permit is a proposed numeric standard to control the release of the
non-indigenous invasive species in ballast water discharges. The new ballast water discharge
standard addressing invasive species is based upon results from the independent EPA Science
Advisory Board and National Research Council National Academy of Sciences ("NAS") studies.
These limits are generally consistent with those contained in the International Maritime
Organization's 2004 Ballast Water Convention. In order to significantly combat and prevent the
spread of AIS, higher standards than the IMO limitations are essential in the draft VGP.
Though the NAS panel conducted studies, the panel found that they could not evaluate the risk
associated with a variety of regulatory discharge limits due to "a profound lack of data and
information to develop and validate models." The NAS report noted that "Setting a concentration
based, ballast water discharge standard that is consistent with IMO D-2 standard, would
"represent a significant reduction in concentrations beyond ballast water exchange." Based on
this information, the IMO standard is clearly not an effective numerical limitation.
The proposed numerical limitations are a step in the right direction but they do not shut the door
on invasive species. The EPA's proposed standard sill allows the discharge of invasive
organisms into the Great Lakes and the nation's waters at significant levels. Limits more
stringent than the IMO standard are necessary to drive the development of technology. For
example, the state of New York's water quality certification for the VGP, is 100 times more
restrictive than the IMO standards. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation
determined the existing best management practices for ballast water exchange and flushing do
not ensure compliance with the CWA, may not be effective, and have highly variable results in
preventing the release of viable aquatic invasive species.4 New York concluded the proposed
IMO standards would only provide a marginal improvement, and are not restrictive enough to
protect water quality.5
4 http://www.watertowndailvtimes.com/article/20120203/NEWS03/702Q39885.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section
9.1.2, 10, 10.1, 10.1.1, and 10.1.2 of this comment response document. EPA disagrees that "the
IMO standard is clearly not an effective numerical limitation." In addition to the response to
comments sections cited above, see Part 4.4.3.5 of the VGP fact sheet. Additionally, EPA notes
that New York's certification on the 2013 VGP does not contain a limit that is 100 times more
stringent than the IMO standard. For additional discussion on 401 certifications, please see the
response to comments in section 12 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A2
531
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: Since the mid-1990s, Michigan has been a major player at the regional and national
levels in the pursuit of aggressive strategies to prevent the continued introduction of AIS to the
Great Lakes through ballast water releases from oceangoing vessels. Michigan's Ballast Water
Control General Permit (issued on October 11, 2006) is still the only discharge permit in the
nation that currently requires oceangoing vessels to actually treat their ballast water discharges
for AIS.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement in State of Michigan v USEPA, (D.C. Circuit No. 09-
1131), representatives from the MDEQ's WRD and the Michigan Department of Attorney
General met with the USEPA's staff on August 5, 2011, and August 31, 2011, and again with the
USEPA's "political management" on September 22, 2011, to present Michigan's views
regarding appropriate numeric concentration-based ballast water discharge limitations and
associated compliance timeframes for the draft VGP2. Unfortunately, Michigan's review of the
draft VGP2 reveals the overall fruitlessness of those three meetings. It is imperative for the
VGP2 to be issued with a single set of numeric concentration-based limitations for live
organisms (applicable to ballast water discharges from oceangoing vessels) that are protective of
water quality in the entire Great Lakes basin. It is also imperative that this set of water quality-
based effluent limits for live organisms in ballast water be accompanied in the draft VGP2 with a
reasonable schedule of compliance.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section
9.1.2, 10, 10.1, 10.1.1, and 10.1.2 of this comment response document. EPA disagrees that
meetings held between EPA and Michigan were fruitless.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A4
1
No
Comment: Owners/operators are required to install and operate ballast water treatment systems
on their vessels and meet the following numeric concentration-based ballast water discharge
limitations by January 1, 20261, unless they are excluded from these requirements by parts of this
permit, elect to use water from a United States public water supply system or Canadian drinking
water system, as ballast water, or cease discharging ballast water into waters subject to this
permit:
• For organisms >50 um dimension: discharge must include fewer than 0.1 living
organisms per cubic meter of ballast water.
• For organisms <10 - <50 um: discharge must include fewer than 0.1 living organisms per
milliliter of ballast water.
532
-------
During the period between (date of permit issuance) and January 1, 2026, owners/operators of
vessels that elect to utilize a ballast water treatment system to meet the above ballast water
discharge limitations, shall fulfill the following requirements in accordance with the schedule
specified below:
1. On (date of permit issuance), owners/operators shall employ the ballast water
management practices and measures required in Parts 2.2.3.3, 2.2.3.6, and 2.2.3.7 of this
permit.2
2. On or before (1 years after permit issuance), owners/operators shall design and install
ballast water discharge sampling ports on their vessels consistent with IMO's Marine
Environment Protection Committee "Guidelines For Ballast Water Sampling (G2)."3
1 See #3 of Michigan's comment letter regarding the grandfathering of vessels that install and operate a BWMS that
achieves 10 times more restrictive than the IMO D-2 standard ahead of the compliance schedule.
2
See #5 of Michigan's comment letter regarding waiving BWE/SF requirements following the installation and
operation of a BWMS that meets the numeric ballast water WQBEL for live organisms.
3 Resolution MEPC. 173(58) Adopted on 10/10/2008.
Response: EPA notes that in this text, Michigan is proposing permit language for both
discharge limits and a schedule for implementation for those limits. EPA has not adopted the
language as proposed because the Agency found that numeric water quality based effluent
limits were infeasible to calculate. Additionally, EPA did not find that limits more stringent
than the IMO standard meet BAT. Furthermore, EPA notes that Michigan did not include this
language in their 401 certification. Therefore, the State did not determine these limits were
necessary to protect the States' water quality. With respect to ballast water limits and discussion
of EPA's rationale, please see the response to comments in sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 10.1, 10.1.1
and 10.1.2 of this comment response document and Part 4.4.3.5 of the VGP factsheet. Those
comments also specifically discuss why EPA did not adopt Michigan's proposed permit
language or Michigan's approach to setting appropriate limits.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jeffrey E. Parker, Vice President, Operations, Allied
Transportation Company
Allied Transportation Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0539-A2
3
No
Comment: We ask. that towing vessels be exempted from the ballast water numeric discharge
limitations found in Part 2.2.3.5 found in the proposed VGP. Like barges and Lakers, tugboats
have unique environmental, operational and design constraints that make installation of onboard
ballast water treatment systems impractical. Tugs carry very low quantities of ballast water. Our
largest capacity tugboat carries a maximum 178 cubic meters of ballast water. This is a fraction
of the amount carried onboard most ships. Tugboats are already by their very nature and design,
maxed out on space usage. Attempting to install a ballast water treatment system on our tugs
would be difficult at best and nearly impossible in many cases.
533
-------
Since towing vessels only take on ballast to compensate for fuel consumed, the only time it is
necessary to discharge ballast is prior to re-fueling. This is recognized in the current ballast water
management practices. If it is deemed imperative that towing vessels control their ballast water
output, one solution could be to require that fueling facilities accept the ballast water when
fueling a tug. Other alternative ballast water measures are not feasible. Using water from a public
water source is impractical and generally unavailable. Conducting ballast water exchange could
create safety issues associated with the tugs stability. The best solution is to recognize the limited
size of the ballast capacity of tugboats and exempt them from the treatment and control
requirements.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section
9.1.2 of this comment response document. With respect to requiring fueling facilities to accept
ballast water when fueling a tug, EPA notes it does not have the authority to require this of
fueling facilities in the context of permitting ballast water discharges from vessels, and further
notes that shorebased facilities for the treatment of ballast water do not exist. Please also see the
response to comments in section 9.1.18 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Raymond W. Johnston, President, Chamber of Marine
Commerce (CMC)
Chamber of Marine Commerce (CMC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0541-A2
5
No
Comment: C. Observations and Recommendations
i. Adoption of IMP Ballast Water Convention Standards
CMC supports EPA's proposal in the draft 2013 VGP for its ballast water discharge standards to
be in line with those numeric, technology-based effluent limitations as set out in the International
Maritime Organization International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships'
Ballast Water and Sediments (IMO D-2 discharge standard). Although CMC recognizes that the
EPA has no control over the number of regulating authorities that have jurisdiction over ship's
ballast water, it should nonetheless publicly declare its support for a world-wide, unified and
consistent ballast water regime. Adoption of the IMO standard at a Federal level in the United
States is a positive step in that direction, but there remain state-wide jurisdictions that have and
still can promulgate different ballast water standards. Such a potential patchwork regulatory
structure will continue to pose a nightmare scenario for industry that requires certainty, clarity
and harmony in legal systems in order to efficiently operate within legal boundaries.
Response: Commenter's support for use of IMO D-2 as technology based effluent limits is
noted, and the final VGP includes such standard. EPA notes commenter's concerns with respect
to States establishing different standards, but notes that CWA section 510 expressly preserves
state authority to adopt or enforce more stringent standards or limitations respecting discharges
of pollutants or requirements respecting control or abatement of pollution. See also responses to
comments in section 12 of this comment response document. Lastly, with respect to
534
-------
commenter's request that EPA support a worldwide, unified and consistent ballast water regime,
EPA notes that international regulation of ballast water is outside the scope of the VGP.
Commenter Name: Steven A. Fisher, Executive Director, American Great
Lakes Ports Association
Commenter Affiliation: American Great Lakes Ports Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0545-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: Science-Based Decision Making
We commend the EPA for approaching this difficult issue from a science—based perspective.
The question of aquatic invasive species and ballast water management is highly politicized.
Misinformation is abundant and has had a deleterious effect on implementing effective solutions.
We applaud EPA's initiative to commission reports from the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and
National Academies of Sciences (NAS). The research brought forward by these highly regarded
institutions has done much to inform the regulatory process and dispel false claims and
prejudiced data. The Science Advisory Board's 2011 study evaluated the efficacy of ballast water
treatment systems and concluded that currently systems can achieve the IMO's numeric water
quality standard, but cannot achieve a standard 100 times or 1000 times more stringent, as
required by some state governments. The National Academy of Sciences work focused on
identifying an environmentally protective ballast water discharge standard. That report
concluded that current science is insufficient to identify such a standard, but recommended that
federal regulators embrace the IMO standards as a first step forward — one that will reduce the
number and rate of invasions.
Response: EPA notes commenter's support for the commissioning of the SAB and NAS
reports. With respect to commenter's summary characterization of those reports, EPA notes this
is not a comment on the VGP as such, and further notes that these reports contained detailed
discussions and analyses which are not captured by commenter's summary.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Steven A. Fisher, Executive Director, American Great
Lakes Ports Association
American Great Lakes Ports Association
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0545-A2
4
No
Comment: Discharge Standard
Following the SAB and NAS guidance, EPA has proposed that the VGP adopt a numeric ballast
water discharge standard as described in the IMO convention. We support EPA's decision to
embrace the IMO discharge standard. The water quality standard defined in the convention is not
only technologically achievable, but will significantly reduce the number of viable living
organisms in ballast water and offer improved protection of the environment.
535
-------
Response: Commenter's support for use of IMO D-2 as technology based effluent limits is
noted, and the final VGP includes such standard. EPA agrees the standard is not only
technologically achievable, but will significantly reduce the number of viable living organisms
in ballast water and offer improved protection of the environment. EPA further notes that while
Regulation D-2 of the Convention is a ballast water discharge standard, the Convention does
not define a "water quality standard," as commenter seems to suggest, and that the final VGP
includes the IMO Regulation D-2 standard as a technology based effluent limit.
Commenter Name: Michael Lund, Chief Maritime Politics and Economics,
The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Commenter Affiliation: The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0548-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: A particular matter of concern is the suggested implementation of more stringent
ballast water discharge standards, like the earlier proposed phase 2 standard (set to be a 1000
times more stringent than the IMO Convention), that not yet nor in a foreseeable future can be
controlled and verified. Such requirements for uncontrollable and verifiable standards have to be
avoided to ensure that both ships and the enforcing authorities can provide liable and realistic
proof of compliance or noncompliance.
Response: The final VGP reflects the IMO Regulation D-2 standard as a technology-based
numeric ballast water discharge limit. EPA generally agrees that there is insufficient data to
support adoption of a more stringent technology based limit. Please see the response essay in
section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in sections 9.1.2 and 9.1.9 of this comment response
document.
Commenter Name: Abigail Blodgett, Legal Fellow, San Francisco Baykeeper
Commenter Affiliation: San Francisco Baykeeper
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0549-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: 3. The VGP Should Set a Goal of Zero Invasive Species in Ballast Water
Discharges, or in the Alternative, the VGP Should be Just as Stringent as the State Standards for
Ballast Water Discharges.
The EPA should strengthen the VGP by implementing stricter standards for ballast water
discharges. Under Section 2.2.3.5, permittees are allowed to discharge ballast water that contains
a limited amount of living organisms. (VGP 26) Since there are several waterways that are
already impaired by the presence of exotic species, including the San Francisco Bay, the VGP
should not allow permittees to discharge any living organisms into US waters. In the alternative,
536
-------
the VGP should be at least as stringent as the highest ballast water discharge standards in
California and New York.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section
9.1, 9.1.2 and 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
League's Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
10
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5 Discharge Standards:
With regard to the numeric standards for ballast water, the USEPA SAB's report (7.12.2011)
concludes that an "overall systems risk-management approach" is inherently more protective
than relying only on numeric standards (which cannot be routinely and accurately measured) and
which are not protective of the un-contaminated waters of the Great Lakes.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in
sections 9.1.2 and 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Brian P. Smith, Program and Communications Director,
Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE)
Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0553-A1
2
No
Comment: In the final 2013 VGP, CCE strongly urges the EPA to:
• Set a goal of zero invasive species in vessel ballast water discharges.
• Establish discharge standards that are at least as strict as the highest standards established
by the states.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in
sections 9.1, 9.1.2, and 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Commenter Affiliation: Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
537
-------
Late Comment? No
Comment: Given the international nature of world shipping, it is critical that the EPA adopt the
internationally accepted standards and guidelines of the IMO Ballast Water Management
Convention. Differing standards, requirements, policies and plans will likely result in confusion
on the part of the regulated industry while not significantly improving the maritime environment
from the threat of invasive species.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0541-A2, Excerpt 5
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A2
11
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5 Ballast Water Numeric Discharge Limitations We strongly support the
adoption of the IMO ballast water discharge standard as recommended by the Science Advisory
Board and the National Academy of Sciences. Establishing one national discharge standard for
both the Coast Guard and EPA which is consistent with the international standard will provide
certainty to not only the shipping industry, but also the BWMS developers and manufacturers,
and encourage expedited development, approval and installation of BWMSs.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0541-A2, Excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A3
5
No
Comment: 16. Issue: The appropriateness of the technology-based ballast water controls
proposed in this VGP, and whether there are data sources which indicate that certain ballast
water treatment systems reliably exceed the limits established in this permit Whether the numeric
discharge limits can be applied to those vessel classes to which, under the proposed VGP, such
limits would not apply.
Response: We fully support the EPA's decision to adopt the IMO D-2 Standard (equivalent to the
proposed Coast Guard Phase 1 Standard) in the VGP 2013. In its report, the Science Advisory
Board clearly stated there were no systems or technologies which could achieve a standard more
stringent than the IMO D-2 Standard. The SAB clearly rejected the New York Department of
Environmental Conservation's assertion that the EcoChlor system - or any BWMS - could
538
-------
achieve a more stringent standard. Given the direct declaration by the SAB that the IMO D-2
Standard constitutes the best available technology and the NAS recommendation that that same
standard be adopted as a first step in determining a water quality based effluent limit, the only
logical conclusion which can be drawn is that the standard proposed by the EPA in the VGP
2013 is the only appropriate standard.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0548-A1, Excerpt 3.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Randy Trapp, Safety, Security Manager, Dann Ocean
Towing, Inc.
Dann Ocean Towing, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0558-A1
2
No
Comment: We feel tugboats and towboats should be explicitly exempted from numeric
discharge limitations regarding ballast water. Dann Ocean Towing, Inc. published a ballast water
management program which specifies a "No Ballast" policy. The only time ballast operations are
allowed is for specific waterway transit where it is required (such as the Great Lakes) where a
"no discharge zone" is established and where the definition of "ballast water" includes black /
gray water. In these situations, black and gray water are held inside holding tanks aboard the tugs
and reported as ballast on ballast water report forms. Otherwise, our vessels do not ballast except
in case of emergency ballasting for stability or vessel handling characteristics. Any attempt at
using fresh potable water for ballasting operations in an emergency situation would be virtually
impossible by availability offshore. If our vessel were to take ballast water in an emergency
situation, it would be also necessary to discharge under those same emergency conditions to
maintain safe margin of list & trim. For this reason, we feel our vessels should be explicitly
exempted from numeric discharge limitations.
We are very much opposed to ballast water treatment systems being required onboard our
vessels. Our operations as noted above are very limited with regard to the capacity and use of
ballast water and its discharge. To require ballast water treatment systems on our fleet would be
extremely impracticable; first because there is so little physical space on the tugs for actual
installation of a system. This coupled with the extensive cost of retrofitting our vessels with the
equipment needed including additional pumps, piping, sampling ports and discharge valves and
the time of lost service in conjunction with the retrofit.
Response: With respect to exemption of tugboats, please see the response essay in section
9.1.1 and responses to comments in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.. EPA
agrees with the commenter that the cost of retrofitting vessels with the equipment needed
including additional pumps, piping, sampling ports and discharge valves and the time of lost
service in conjunction with the retrofit would not be economically achievable with existing
systems marketed and available for ballast water treatment for existing tug boats at this time.
With respect to Great Lakes no discharge zones and "where the definition of 'ballast water'
includes black/gray water," and commenter's related ballasting and ballast water reporting
539
-------
practices, EPA notes that this is not a comment on the VGP as such, and that commenter does
not provide further description or citations as to the definition referred to, such that further
response is not possible.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marc Gagnon, Director, Government Affairs & Regulatory
Compliance, Fednav Limited
Fednav Limited
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0559-A2
3
No
Comment: International Regime
We welcome the recognition, in the draft permit, of the ballast water treatment standards put
forward by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). It is imperative for the marine
industry that standards, rules and regulations be the same wherever our vessels call in the world.
It is unconscionable - even dangerous - that a moving asset like a ship be expected to follow
vastly different, and sometimes conflicting, regulations, since it constantly changes jurisdictions.
Available scientific research shows that the IMO standard provides adequate protection against
the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species. As stated by the EPA's Science Advisory
Board, the numeric limitations in the IMO rules "represent the most stringent standards that
BWMS currently safely, effectively, credibly, and reliably meet". We believe that a timely
adoption of this standard worldwide will enable a better protection of our ports, our coasts and of
our lakes and rivers.
We otherwise accept the increased protection that the draft permit confers to the Great Lakes, a
more fragile freshwater ecosystem that is exposed to invasive species.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0541-A2, Excerpt 5.
Commenter's acceptance of the proposed VGP's "increased protection" for the Great Lakes is
noted and EPA further notes such measures are included in the final VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marc Gagnon, Director, Government Affairs & Regulatory
Compliance, Fednav Limited
Fednav Limited
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0559-A2
6
No
Comment: No Discharge
Article 2.2.3.5.1.4 of the draft VGP states clearly that "vessels may meet the requirements of Part
2.2.3.5 of this permit by not discharging any ballast water into waters subject to this permit."
Considering the great difficulty we have with certain local jurisdictions in the application of the
current VGP, we would like to suggest that the EPA clarify the fact that vessels that only transit
540
-------
through US waters, without discharging ballast water, are not required to be submitted to stricter
or more restrictive rules. This would prevent any future threats like the one the State of New
York currently imposes on vessels transiting their waters.
Response: EPA notes that as a general matter, the VGP applies to discharges incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel. With respect to NY State requirements on vessels transiting their
waters without discharging ballast water, please see section 12 of this comment response
document for further discussion of those issues; See generally, Lake Carriers Ass'n v. EPA. 652
F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir., 2011).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and
Governmental Affairs, Foss Maritime Company
Foss Maritime Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0560-A2
2
No
Comment: Specific Issues:
Foss feels that tugboats and towing vessels should be exempt from ballast water numeric
discharge limitations as defined in 2.2.3.5 of the proposed vessel general permit. In our review of
the currently available ballast water technologies, we have concluded that installation of any of
these systems would be impractical due to both physical size constraints and/or operational
parameters.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section
9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tim Eder, Executive Director and Katherine Glassner-
Shwayder, Senior Project Manager, Great Lakes
Commission (GLC)
Great Lakes Commission (GLC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0562-A2
5
No
Comment: Priority Research Needs: The Commission is on record supporting national policies
to encourage rapid development of ballast water treatment technologies that are protective of the
Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River. It is a priority of the Commission that specific technologies
be developed and approved to treat the unique cold, freshwater environment of the Great Lakes.
The Commission also supports ongoing research for strengthening the numeric treatment
requirement for the ballast water provision of the draft 2013 VGP consistent with the IMO
standard. The Commission, however, recognizes the challenges of developing an achievable
standard greater than the IMO and therefore supports the development of improved,
economically practical technology to increase the effectiveness of ballast water treatment, in
541
-------
efforts to further reduce the risk of AIS release. This research and development must be coupled
with verifiable methodologies to test the effectiveness of treatment technology in meeting or
exceeding the 2013 VGP effluent limits which must include a certification process.
Response: While research and development activities as discussed in this comment are outside
the scope of the VGP, EPA notes that EPA participates in or helps support such activities,
including, among other things:
• Coordination with the Coast Guard in development of the ETV ballast water treatment
system testing protocols and funding/support for 2011 NAS and EPA SAB studies
related to ballast water discharges;
• Coordination with Canada under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement on ballast
water and other issues;
• Coordination with, and support for, activities under the Great Ships Initiative, which
addresses ballast water issues and equipment testing for the Great Lakes.
• Coordination with other federal agencies and Canadian counterparts in outlining
strategies to better understand the "risk-release relationship" (which can be used for
future calculation of a numeric WQBEL).
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0564-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: EPA must establish more stringent technology-based effluent limitations. These
standards should be at least as stringent as the highest standards established by the states or other
federal agencies.
Research has shown that the International Maritime Organization standards, which the EPA
proposes for use, are not sufficient to prevent new non-indigenous species from invading our
nation's waters. Moreover, the risk of invasive species is driven by many factors in addition to
the concentration of organisms discharged. The States of California and New York have
established numeric concentration-based effluent limits for ballast water two to three orders of
magnitude more stringent than IMO standards.11 In February 2011, the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation found that at least one treatment systems was "at or
near the confidence level needed to demonstrate compliance" with New York's Clean Water Act
Section 401 water quality based requirements that vessels meet standards equivalent to lOOx
IMO. The California State Lands Commission found that there are now at least ten (10)
commercially available treatment systems that have the potential to meet California's standards,
and that the technology continues to develop rapidly.12
We recommend that EPA take advantage of the efforts of New York and California and use their
standards as the starting point for developing effluent limits for the next VGP. We believe that
542
-------
EPA should not propose or adopt effluent limits less stringent than the standards adopted by
California and New York.
11 The standards being implemented by California under its state law, and by New York for new vessels under its
Section 401 certification of the VGP, are:
• Organisms 50 or more micrometers in dimension - no detectable living organisms.
• Organisms less than 50 and more than 10 micrometers in dimension - less than 0.01 living organism per
milliliter.
• Indicator microbes - all ballast water discharges shall contain:
— Less than 1 colony forming unit of toxicogenic Vibrio cholera per 100 milliliters or less than 1 colony
forming unit of than microbe per gram of wet weight of zoological samples;
— Less than 126 colony forming units of Escherichia coli per 100 milliliters; and
— Less than 33 colony forming units of intestinal entercocci per 100 milliliters.
• Any ballast water discharge shall contain less than 1,000 bacteria per 100 milliliters and less than 10,000
viruses per 100 milliliters.
12
California State Lands Commission, "2011 Update: Ballast Water Treatment Systems For Use In California
Waters," at 33, available at
http://www.slc.ca.gov/spec pub/mfd/ballast water/Documents/2011TechUpdateFinal lSep2011.pdf (last visited
Feb. 5, 2012).
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section
9.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0564-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: EPA must develop stringent numeric effluent limits for Lakers.
The lack of stringent numeric effluent limitations for "laker" vessels that only travel within the
Great Lakes creates a serious hole in managing the spread of invasive species. Laker vessels take
up and discharge billions of gallons of ballast water every year as they travel from port to port
within the Great Lakes, playing a significant role in spreading invasive species after they have
been introduced.13 Roughly 90% of the commercial shipping operations in the Great Lakes area
are domestic, and lakers account for over 95% of the volume of ballast water transferred.14 Thus,
although lakers may not introduce non-indigenous species to the Great Lakes ecosystem as a
whole, they transport invasive species to portions of the ecosystem where they were not found,
dispersing them wider and faster that those species could have spread on their own.15
13
See Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Comments Received on the Draft Section 401
Water Quality Certification (Dec. 8, 2008), available at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wb-swas-401cert-
response_258951_7.pdf (Response to Comment 2); Rup et al., Domestic Ballast Operations on the Great Lakes:
Potential Importance of Lakers as a Vector for Introduction and Spread of Nonindigenous Species, Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 67(2): 256-268 (2010).
14 TJ
543
-------
Response: Please see the response to comments in section 9.1.4 and 9.1.6 of this comment
response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. Guy Kaulukukui, Acting Administrator, State of
Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources
(DLNR)
State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources
(DLNR)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0572-A2
2
No
Comment: Our remaining comments rest with aquatic invasive species (AIS) management and
we would like to assure the EPA that DLNR supports management of vessel ballast water and
biofouling. It is felt that AIS have the potential to cause negative impacts to a range of core
values including biological, economic, environmental and social/cultural.
The proposed changes to numerical discharge limits for ballast water management (section 2.2.3)
within the VGP consistent with the International Maritime Organization's Ballast Water
Management Convention is timely, given the Convention is highly likely to take effect soon.
DLNR acknowledges the cost to the shipping industry to make the necessary amendments,
however feels that this is balanced by the international view that there is a need to manage the
biosecurity risk posed by ballast water. Such measures also provide the State of Hawai'i with a
greater level of protection from potential AIS impacts for those vessels transiting state waters.
Response: EPA notes commenter's support for management of vessel ballast water and
biofouling, including numeric limits for ballast water consistent with the IMO ballast water
Convention. EPA further notes the final VGP retains such features.
Commenter Name: Scott Strand, Executive Director, MN Center for
Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.3.5 Ballast Water Numeric Discharge Limitations
The standards presented in this section are the same as the "Regulation D-2 Ballast Water
Performance Standard "established by the International Maritime Organization in their 2004
convention ("IMO standards").11
While we applaud the regulation of ballast water discharges for the first time via numeric
standards, nearly 25 years after zebra mussels were found in the Great Lakes, these outdated
544
-------
IMO standards are far too low. They do not provide adequate protection for Lake Superior's
outstanding resources, given the sheer volume of ballast water discharges its harbors receive.
They do not establish a practicable standard consistent with available treatment technologies and
they do not establish a standard high enough to perform the role which standards historically
play, namely, that of driving the development of improved technologies.
These standards would allow an unacceptably large number of AIS to be introduced into the
waters of Lake Superior. In 2005, for example, discharges to just two U.S. ports in Lake Superior
(the ports at Duluth-Superior and Two Harbors, MN) totaled over 27.4 million cubic meters of
ballast water.12 This enormous volume of ballast water, even if discharged in compliance with
the proposed IMO standard, would allow billions of organisms to be discharged alive into the
Duluth-Superior and Two Harbors porst (Table 1).
Table 1. Potential number of organisms that could be introduced into Lake Superior by ballast
water discharges assuming 27.4 million cubic meters at proposed standards.
SEE ORIGINAL COMMENT FOR TABLE
Thus billions of live organisms, including hundreds of millions of the largest organisms, could be
discharged each year into Lake Superior at these two ports alone under the IMO standards. The
fact that these ports are on our doorstep is particularly alarming for Minnesotans. This is
unacceptable propagule pressure on the Minnesota waters of Lake Superior. The National
Academies of Science concluded in 2011 that, "It is abundantly clear that reducing propagule
pressure will reduce the probability of invasions, when controlling for all other variables."13
11 See http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-
Control-and-Management-of-Ships%27-Ballast-Water-and-Sediments-(BWM).aspx.
12
S. Bailey, M. Rup, C. Wiley, M. Minton, W. Miller, G. Ruiz, H.MacIsaac. Looking at Lakers: Domestic shipping
as a vector for introduction or spread of aquatic nonindigenous species in the Great Lakes. Slides from a paper
presentation at the 2008 meeting of the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography.
13
National Academy of Sciences, Assessing the Relationship between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in
Ballast Water, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2011.
Response: With respect to the VGP's use of the IMO Regulation D-2 standards, their
stringency, and "driving" of technology, please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and
responses to comments in sections 9.1, 9.1.2, and 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
With respect to protection of Lake Superior, EPA believes that the combination of the TBEL
and WQBEL requirements in today's VGP protect the water quality of that lake and will
substantially reduce the risk of invasion such that the permit provides adequate protection for
Lake Superior's resources. Please see the response to comments sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.4,
10.1, 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: T. Aylsworth
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0579-A1
545
-------
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
1
No
Comment: Please protect the Great Lakes from new invasive species. Stop invasive species'
"free ride" in ships by strengthening the 2013 Vessel General Permit for ballast water discharges:
• Set a goal of zero invasive species in vessel ballast water discharges.
• Establish discharge standards that are at least as strict as the most stringent standards
established by the states.
• Apply stronger regulations to "laker" vessels that travel within the Great Lakes basin and
increase the risk of spreading invaders.
• Require compliance on the date the new permit goes into effect stopping invasive species
before they enter is critical to the health of the Great Lakes. We have waited far too long
for these basic, common sense protections.
The great lakes are being destroyed and politics is getting in the way. Once the lakes are over run
with invasive species there will be no turning back the clock to fix what has been destroyed. The
future of the great lakes is extremely important not only to the environment but to the people.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
T. Aylsworth
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0579-A1
2
No
Comment: Please protect the Great Lakes from new invasive species. Stop invasive species'
"free ride" in ships by strengthening the 2013 Vessel General Permit for ballast water discharges:
• Set a goal of zero invasive species in vessel ballast water discharges.
• Establish discharge standards that are at least as strict as the most stringent standards
established by the states.
• Apply stronger regulations to "laker" vessels that travel within the Great Lakes basin and
increase the risk of spreading invaders.
• Require compliance on the date the new permit goes into effect Stopping invasive species
before they enter is critical to the health of the Great Lakes. We have waited far too long
for these basic, common sense protections.
The great lakes are being destroyed and politics is getting in the way. Once the lakes are over run
with invasive species there will be no turning back the clock to fix what has been destroyed. The
future of the great lakes is extremely important not only to the environment but to the people.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document.
546
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
C. Scholz
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0580-A1
3
No
Comment: Please stop invasive species' "free ride" into the Great Lakes by incorporating the
following into the 2013 Vessel General Permit:
• Set a goal of zero invasive species in vessel ballast water discharges.
• Establish discharge standards that are at least as strict as the highest standards established
by the states.
• Apply stronger regulations to "laker" vessels that travel only within the Great Lakes basin
but increase the risk of spreading invaders.
• Require compliance on the date the new permit goes into effect stopping invasive species
before they enter is critical to the health of the Great Lakes. We have waited far too long
for these basic, common sense protections.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
M. Covello
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0581-A1
2
No
Comment: Please stop invasive species' "free ride" in ships by strengthening the 2013 Vessel
General Permit for ballast water discharges:
• Set a goal of zero invasive species in vessel ballast water discharges.
• Establish discharge standards that are at least as strict as the most stringent standards
established by the states.
• Apply stronger regulations to "laker" vessels that travel within the Great Lakes basin and
increase the risk of spreading invaders.
• Require compliance on the date the new permit goes into effect.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 24
Late Comment? No
547
-------
Comment: Section 2.2.3.5. Ballast Water Numeric Discharge T.imitations:
It is our recommendation that the Note as included in this section be modified to state that such
improvements will be implemented only during future VGP issuance periods and describing a
grand-fathering clause for operators who install systems under the current regulatory regime. As
these systems are very expensive and it is unlikely that future technologies will provide
significant enough benefit to warrant removal of an installed system, a clause should be strongly
considered that systems installed will be considered satisfactory for their lifecycle onboard the
vessel unless replaced or a 20-year lifespan of the system has been realized.
Response: EPA does not agree with this comment. If significant developments in ballast water
treatment technology were to occur during the life of today's VGP, EPA believes that it is
appropriate to allow for potential modification of the permit so as to reflect new technologies
that would help further reduce the presence of ANS in ballast water discharges. EPA also notes,
however, that while the CWA does not authorize a general grandfathering of installed treatment
equipment, in determining what constitutes BAT, EPA would consider the economic
achievability issues associated with vessels that have previously installed treatment equipment,
along with the other relevant BAT factors, in determining what constitutes BAT for the next
iteration of the VGP or modification of the existing VGP. See also responses to comments in
section 9.1.12 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Y. Ruben
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0618-A1
1
No
Comment: I am writing to urge you to protect the Great Lakes from new invasive species, and
to strengthen the 2013 Vessel General Permit for ballast water discharges:
• There should be NO — as in zero - invasive species in ballast water discharges.
Discharge standards should be at least as strict as the most stringent standards established
by the states.
• Also, we need stronger regulations to "laker" vessels.
Compliance should be required starting from the very date the new permit goes into effect.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Pamela Parker, Vessel Discharges, Division of Water
Quality Management, Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (MEDEP)
Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0628-A2
3
No
548
-------
Comment: 2.2.3.5 Ballast Water Numeric Discharge T.imitations
The discharge limits appear to be consistent with the limits outlined in Phase I of the current U.S.
Coast Guard proposal, currently under OMB review. Language in the proposed permit suggests
that EPA, when warranted, will make this numeric limit more stringent in the future, based on
technological advances. MEDEP supports this ongoing review of best available technology,
including more stringent and far ranging standards in the future when attainable (for example,
further reductions in # of organisms by size class, addition of a virus standard, etc).
Response: Commenter's support for ongoing review of best available technology is noted, and
the final VGP (in § 2.2.3.5, Note) retains such a provision.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
26
No
Comment: e. Beyond IMP Standard
The Science Advisory Board noted that current testing methods do not provide the resolution
required to conclude that 10X standard can be met, but that standards may have the potential to
meet a standard 10XIMO with reasonable/feasible modifications to the existing ballast water
management systems. We take exception to that view. As manufacturers, our challenge is to
produce a treatment system that meets the discharge limits on a consistent basis under an
astonishing range of water qualities, while at the same time, ensuring that the equipment is
operable 24 hours a day. Time is incredibly precious in the shipping industry and delays in port
are very costly. An assessment of feasibility must be expanded to examine more practical aspects
such as ensuring the overall operability of the system and validity of the results. Therefore, we
recommend that a 10X standard should not be considered at this time. This is consistent with the
results of EPA's own sponsored studies (e.g., EPA Science Advisory Board Study and National
Academy of Science Report 2011), that there is no evidence to support verifiable standards in
excess of the IMO standard.
Response: The final VGP reflects the IMO Regulation D-2 standard as a technology-based
numeric ballast water discharge limit. EPA generally agrees that there is insufficient data to
support adoption of a more stringent technology based limit. Please see the response essay in
section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section 9.1.2 and 9.1.9 of this comment response
document.. With respect to commenter's assertion that it disagrees with the SAB as to whether
systems might potentially meet 10X IMO with reasonable/feasible modifications, EPA notes
that it did not include 10X IMO as discharge standard in today's VGP, and further response to
this comment is thus unnecessary. EPA does note, however, it will, as stated in final VGP §
2.2.3.5, continue to explore new technologies with industry and States, and when warranted,
will make the numeric limit more stringent in the future.
549
-------
Commenter Name:
Tim Sizemore, Manager Waterway Regulatory Programs,
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0631-A2
5
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: AEP urges that towing vessels be exempt from the numeric ballast water discharge
limitations of the draft VGP, together with other enumerated classes of vessels such as barges.
Like barges, tugboats and towboats have unique operational and design characteristics that make
the installation of ballast water treatment technology impractical. A substantial majority of U.S.
towing vessels operate exclusively in fresh water, for which few, if any, ballast water treatment
systems have been developed. In addition, towing vessels have very small ballast water
capacities compared to other classes of commercial vessels, ranging from 20,000 to 70,000
gallons. Flow rates for ballast water discharged from towing vessels are also very low, ranging
from 20 to 250 gallons per minute (which would require the installation of additional pumps to
accommodate current ballast water treatment systems).
Additionally, AEP River Operations is not aware of any ballast water treatment systems in the
market today that have been designed, tested, or approved for installation on towing vessels. The
installation of ballast water treatment systems on towing vessels is also complicated by the
limited size of tugboats and towboats. Many towing vessels are less than 125 feet long, with
small engine rooms averaging between 900 and 1300 square feet. In a towing vessel engine
room, virtually all available space has been dedicated to machinery or walkways. Keeping these
areas clear and leaving enough room for the engineer to maintain the vessel's equipment is
critical to the safe operation of the vessel.
It is important that towing vessels be exempted from the numeric discharge limitations for ballast
water (and not simply from the requirement to install a treatment system) because many towing
vessels are not able to use the alternative ballast water management measures provided as
options under the draft permit. Like USEPA, AEP River Operations is not aware of any onshore
treatment facilities currently operating in the United States capable of meeting the ballast water
standards of the VGP. In addition, using water from a public drinking water supply for ballast is
economically and operationally infeasible for some towing vessels that routinely carry ballast
water to maintain trim as fuel is burned during a voyage. As an example, a towboat pushing
loaded barges northbound on the Mississippi River may take on 3,000 to 5,000 gallons of ballast
water a day to compensate for fuel burn. It is operationally impracticable to make the frequent
stops that would be required to use only public drinking water for ballast. It is likewise infeasible
for these towing vessels to stop using ballast water. Other concerns will be the availability of
getting potable water to vessels mid-stream. Potable water supply sources are limited along
waterways and will thus impose undue delay times for vessels waiting for potable water via
boat/barge supplier. This will increase the risk of vessel navigation in certain areas due to
prevailing circumstances such as high water, traffic, current sets, and wind while the boat/tow is
holding up midstream waiting for supply. Further, we believe it is inappropriate public policy to
550
-------
require that ballast be achieved by the diversion of drinking water away from its intended public
use. Therefore, AEP River Operations urges USEPA to exempt towing vessels from the
requirements of section 2.2.3.5 during the term of the 2013 permit.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.1 and responses to comments in section
9.1.2 of this comment response document.
9.1.2 BPT, BCT or BAT Levels of Control
Response Essay:
§ 1: IMP Regulation D-2 Numeric Standards as BAT
A number of commenters urged that adoption of the IMO Ballast Water Convention's
Regulation D-2 standards was inconsistent with CWA requirements for BAT as the D-2
standards were insufficiently stringent. Some of these commenters expressed the view that
technology was available that could meet more stringent standards, while others argued that
more stringent standards were appropriate as the CWA's technology based limits were intended
to be "technology forcing."
EPA does not agree that there are technologies available that can meet standards more stringent
than those in IMO Regulation D-2. In evaluating ballast water treatment system capabilities, as
explained in sections 4.4.3.5 and 4.4.3.5.1 of the Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet, EPA carefully
considered the performance of treatment systems for which reliable data was available,
including considering a 2011 report by EPA's Science Advisory Board on the efficacy of ballast
water treatment systems. That information indicates that while safe, reliable and effective
treatment systems for reducing living organisms in ballast water discharges are available to
meet the IMO Regulation D-2 numeric limits, reliable data are not available to support a
conclusion that more stringent standards are achievable. See e.g., 2011 SAB report.
With respect to "technology forcing" concerns, EPA agrees that the CWA reflects a technology-
forcing approach (e.g., mandated progression from standards based on BPT to ones based on
BAT), but notes that under the Act, the BAT standard is to reflect the best technology available.
In addition, EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to base BAT limits on the potential or
hypothetical performance of technologies for which reliable data to support such performance is
not available.
Besides the comments discussed above, EPA also received a number of comments expressing
the view that the IMO Regulation D-2 standards were the most stringent standards that could be
met and should be included in the VGP as BAT. In response to such comments and sections 9.1
and 9.1.1 of this comment response document, as explained in sections 4.4.3.5 and 4.4.3.5.1 of
the Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet, EPA notes that it has included standards consistent with IMO
Regulation D-2 as representing BAT in today's VGP.
§ 2: Information and Studies Relevant to Ballast Water BAT Determination
Some of the commenters urging establishment of more stringent standards argued that EPA had
551
-------
improperly conflated the ability to measure performance from ballast water treatment systems
(e.g., detection limits) with the actual ability of those systems to eliminate invasive species in
ballast water effluent. EPA does not agree with this comment, as the "actual ability to eliminate
invasive species" cannot be assessed absent reliable data (e.g., based upon adequate testing
protocols and detection limits) as to actual system performance. Absent such credible data, the
ability of systems to remove living organisms from ships' ballast water becomes a matter of
conjecture. In light of this, EPA does not believe it appropriate to assume that results claimed to
be achieved by equipment manufacturers (unless based on reliable data), provide an adequate
basis for setting BAT limits for the discharge of ships' ballast water. Similarly, EPA does not
believe it is appropriate to assume, in the absence of reliable data relevant to shipboard
conditions, that results achievable by land-based treatment technologies (e.g., drinking water
treatment facilities) are transferable to the shipboard environment. This is especially true where
, as here, the actual performance achieved will be affected by factors in the shipboard
environment such as vibration, fluctuating voltages, exposure to the marine environment,
shipboard space and size limitations, and limited availability of spares and trained technicians.
See, e.g., SAB Report at § 5.3. In addition, unlike fixed shore-based treatment systems, due to
the mobility of vessels, ballast water can be taken onboard from a wide variety of waterbodies
(fresh, brackish, saltwater, varying turbidity, varying organisms) which further provides
complications in treatment.
In a related vein, some commenters expressed the view that because of the limitations in testing
methods, the results of treatment system testing could not be used to support a conclusion that
higher standards cannot be met. In establishing BAT limits, EPA believes it is appropriate to set
the limits based on reliable data as to what degree of treatment systems do achieve, not on what
they potentially or hypothetically might achieve. EPA further notes that there is no basis either
in science or the CWA's BAT factors to simply assume systems can or potentially can achieve a
higher level of treatment than is supported by reliable data. In this regard, we further note our
agreement with the conclusion of EPA's SAB in its 2011 report on the efficacy of ballast water
treatment systems that: "based on the available testing data, it is clear that while five types of
BWMS are able to reach IMO D-2/Phase 1, none of the systems evaluated by the Panel
performed at 100 times or 1000 times the Phase 1 standard" (SAB Report at pg. 4), and that"
current testing methods do not provide the resolution required to conclude that lOx standards
can be met" (SAB Report at pg. 32).
Some of the commenters expressing support for more stringent ballast water technology-based
treatment limits expressed the view that EPA needed to consider and address methods for
interpreting test results as recommended by Dr. Raymond Vaughn of the New York State
Attorney General's office, or use of the "summed Poisson method," as such methods could be
used to support the conclusion that more stringent standards could be met by existing and
available ballast water treatment systems. What commenters allude to in this section is that Dr.
Vaughn argues samples from multiple trials can be combined to evaluate ballast treatment
systems or monitoring of individual ships using the summed Poisson method, among other
things. For example, Dr. Vaughn argues that six trials consisting of five m3 sample volumes is
equivalent to a single trial of thirty m3 in terms of statistical power. He further states that given
this, previous tests conducted using the IMO testing protocols (commonly called the "G8
Guidelines") demonstrate that current treatment systems can obtain efficacies of at least an
552
-------
order of magnitude greater than (i.e., 10X) the IMO D-2 standard. Dr. Vaughn's comments
were discussed by the SAB, and although the summed Poisson approach is, in theory, a
reasonable potential approach to analyzing ballast water discharges, it is applicable only if
reliable robust data are available and the test facilities are able to take and analyze numerous
samples. Thus, if testing facilities are appropriately designed, facilities have sufficient staff and
laboratory equipment to analyze the large number and volume of samples over a large number
of tests, and facilities have validated sampling, analysis, and quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) procedures in place, EPA agrees that the results could potentially be combined to gain
additional power to evaluate the systems for ability to achieve more stringent discharge
standards. However, for purposes of our analysis in finalizing the VGP, there are several
reasons EPA does not believe Dr. Vaughn's approach would enable the Agency to set a
technology-based effluent limit more stringent than the IMO based on the currently available
data characterizing existing treatment system performance.
First, most, if not all, of the data collected during initial BWMS testing lack the appropriate
QA/QC documentation that is now recognized to be a fundamental requirement of BWMS
testing. Without this documentation, it is challenging to assess the reliability of the data. Indeed,
the SAB report addresses this concern: "Existing information about ballast water treatment is
limited in many respects, including significant limitations in data quality..." (EPA SAB, 2011,
p. 6). Furthermore, Dr. Vaughn assumes that these facilities are analyzing the entire volume
collected from the discharge rather than a portion of it via subsamples (e.g., if 5 cubic meters
are collected from the discharge, in order to constitute a 5 cubic meter sample volume, the
entire volume must be analyzed, rather than a portion of the total volume through subsampling).
It is EPA's understanding that facilities have historically subsampled a portion of the total
volumes collected. For his analyses, Dr. Vaughn assumes a 5 cubic meter sample volume;
however, many of the testing facilities collect much smaller sample volumes of 1-3 cubic
meters. Hence, the data collected at testing facilities to date generally would not provide the
statistical power implied by Dr. Vaughn's analysis. EPA also notes that the data sets considered
by the SAB (including those referenced by Dr. Vaughn) are included in the docket for today's
permit issuance.
There are other numerous complicating factors that Dr. Vaughn's approach does not
contemplate. First, any actual counts of organisms are likely "undercounts" due to recovery
error, which includes organisms' death and loss during sampling. Other factors that need to be
considered to evaluate the quality of the test include whether measures were taken to control for
aggregation of organisms in the discharge, whether the results can be duplicated under a variety
of environmental conditions, and how land based test results from a new system run under ideal
conditions might compare to performance onboard a ship. Miller et al. (2011) describes and
quantifies some of these errors in the context of analyzing ballast water discharges. Some of
these complicating factors will be better addressed when results from testing using EPA's 2010
ETV protocols begin to become available. However, the data sets upon which EPA made its
BAT determinations for this permit issuance did not include testing using these more rigorous
methods and QA/QC approaches. Hence, considering these complications and that the loss of
precision become more pronounced the lower the concentration being measured, EPA believes
the existing data sets are sufficient to demonstrate that systems can treat to the IMO D-2 limit,
but that the notable limitations in existing data quality and sampling prevent the Agency from
553
-------
assessing whether greater reductions beyond IMO D-2 standard are possible.
Second, as noted by Frazier et al. (2013) if standard sampling methods are used, verifying
whether a ballast discharge complies with more stringent standards will be challenging due to
the inherent stochasticity of sampling (and may be further complicated by the tendency of
organisms to be patchily distributed in ballast water discharges (i.e., aggregated)). EPA agrees.
EPA notes that in order to address these issues, Dr. Vaughn asserts that aggregation of
organisms in ballast discharge can be controlled for using a variety of techniques including
taking several samples throughout the discharge, diverting a small volume of the entire
discharge for sampling, or using a specially designed sampling chamber within the ballast tank.
The first option would negate the use of the Poisson distribution; that is, the sample would not
be representative of the entire volume of interest (here, a tank); thus, the statistical analyses
would be invalid. Regarding a sampling chamber, EPA is unaware of any ship or testing facility
which has a separately constructed sampling tank, and the Agency believes that requiring such
tanks or inner chambers to be installed on board vessels would need a great deal of verification
to ensure that it functions appropriately. If applied on more than a handful of vessels, as implied
by the comments to the SAB, such a requirement would also be expensive for vessel
owner/operators and would be a major retrofit of existing vessels. Furthermore, of all landbased
or shipboard data collected to date, none has been collected via such an approach. Additionally,
EPA notes that some existing land based testing facilities and shipboard trials have used a
multiple sample approach or taken samples throughout the discharge. EPA notes that such
approaches are recommended in the 2010 EPA ETV protocol. However, such approaches were
not typically used for the previous data collected for evaluating ballast water treatment systems.
Hence, given these limitations, the stochastic (random) error would be higher, and thus
precludes EPA's ability to analyze these data, with any degree of reasonable certainty, to verify
the ability of treatment systems to perform better than the IMO D-2 standards.
EPA does believe that the commenter and Dr. Vaughn are correct that if testing facilities had
conducted more tests, and the facilities were properly equipped, staffed, and had all the
appropriate procedures in place (as discussed above), it could have been possible to use the
summed Poison method to analyze system performance to determine whether a more stringent
standard than the IMO D-2 standard could be met by a given system. Tests utilizing the ETV
protocol, or some other appropriately refined advanced testing approach, would provide greater
precision, statistical power, and consequently, confidence in the results. As more tests of
systems are conducted, it is worth considering using techniques, such as the summed Poisson
method, that aggregate the results for system designs that are fundamentally similar or the same
across all test replicates to achieve higher precision in assessing organism concentrations in the
discharge However, although conceptually possible, as discussed above data of the quality
required (e.g., using the improved methods of the ETV protocol) have not yet been collected,
and therefore, it is currently not possible for EPA to analyze such systems using these methods
today.
Finally, the hurdles regarding the practicability of the summed Poisson approach are great. This
concern was voiced in the SAB report: "According to Table C-l, to meet a standard ten-fold
more stringent than the IMO D-2/ Phase 1 standard would require anywhere from 120-600 m3
of whole-water sample volumes, which is impracticable at this point - test facilities in the U.S.
554
-------
typically analyze ~5 nr of water per test..(EPA SAB, 2011, p. C-4). For further discussion of
possible statistical approaches and limitations, EPA directs the commenter to Miller, et. al.'s
paper "Enumerating Sparse Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water: Why Counting to 10 is Not So
Easy" (2011) (referenced by the commenter) and Frazier et al.'s "Counting at low
concentrations: the statistical challenges of verifying ballast water discharge standards" (2013),
both of which discuss the challenges of evaluating ballast water treatment systems to achieve
treatment limits better than IMO Regulation D-2. In conclusion, EPA notes that approaches
such as Dr. Vaughn's may hold promise for future evaluation of ballast water performance data.
However given the current limitations on the quality of existing data sets, among other things,
EPA believes that applying such approaches to existing data does not yield the ability to
accurately analyze whether systems can achieve a numeric concentration more stringent than
that finalized in today's permit (i.e., the IMO D-2 standard).
EPA believes that, for these reasons, the analysis provided by Dr. Vaughn does not demonstrate
that any system, including the one named by the commenter, is able to reliably achieve a
discharge limit significantly more stringent than the IMO limit. EPA notes that Dr. Vaughn's
claim that a single system can achieve limits at or near 100 times more stringent than the IMO
is in direct contradiction to both the SAB report (2011) and the Wisconsin report discussed in
this analysis. Furthermore, even if Dr. Vaughn were correct regarding the performance of this
system, EPA would not set a BAT limit based on the performance of a single system, because
there would be no way such systems would be, in fact, be "available" for the many thousands of
vessels needing treatment systems. A single system manufacturer, in addition to having a
monopoly, could not produce sufficient systems to equip the large number and variety of
vessels that trade in U.S. waters. Furthermore, that system may not be appropriate for all vessel
types, discharge rates, and voyage patterns. Finally, EPA notes that the manufacturer of this
system have not yet accepted offers to retest the system at a U.S. based test facilities using the
ETV protocol. Once additional higher quality data are available, EPA can conduct additional
analyses. In short, although EPA believes that the system discussed by Dr. Vaughn is
promising, EPA does not believe that it warrants establishing a technology based limit more
stringent than the IMO D-2 standard.
Finally, EPA recognizes the commenter's frustration that the SAB did not respond to Dr.
Vaughn's comments directly. EPA notes that the SAB's process for considering and addressing
comments is beyond the scope of this permit issuance. However, the Agency also notes that the
SAB committee was presented with Dr. Vaughn's ideas on multiple occasions, the committee
members were aware of his arguments (and he participated in at least one conference call of
committee members), and the committee considered and discussed statistical analyses of ballast
water discharges (e.g., see records of Dr. Vaughn's oral testimonies available at:
http://vosemite.epa. gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/43F52C99B03B839C852578220062DE8D/$File/Va
ugW-t-NYS-t-oral-t-corrirrients-t-to-t-SAB-t-Mtg-t-3-t-ll-4-10.pdf and
http://vosemite.epa. gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/CA3BF8C962E7613585257850007DF53C/$File/N
YS+DEC+comments+for+March+15+teleconference.pdf). EPA further notes that the
committee membership included several of the foremost world experts on sampling and
analyzing ballast water discharges, including Ted Lemieux, Dr. Lisa Drake, Dr. Mario
Tamburri, Dr. Nick Welschmeyer, and Dr. David Lodge. Additionally, the committee included
Dr. Loveday Conquest, who is a recognized expert on the statistics of environmental monitoring
555
-------
and analyses for both small and large scale studies. Despite being presented with Dr. Vaughn's
analysis, these researchers, who are well aware of the cutting edge of the science when it comes
to ballast water sampling and analysis (and who are, in fact, driving the cutting edge), believed
(as does EPA) that the existing data sets did not allow one to make a determination that existing
ballast water treatment systems can achieve limits more stringent than the IMO D-2 limits.
Short background and qualifications of these panel members, as of 2010, can be found at
http://vosemite.epa. gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/9E6C799DF254393A8525762C004E60FF/$File/
Biosketches%20for%20EPEC%20Augmented%20for%20Ballast%20Water%2004-08-
2010.pdf.
A number of commenters supporting more stringent standards also expressed concern with
EPA's reliance on the 2011 SAB report on ballast water treatment system efficacy, expressing
the view that it was an incomplete assessment that evaluated only nine treatment systems, failed
to address a full range of potential discharge limits, and/or failed to adequately consider land-
based treatment. EPA did consider, among other things, the content of the SAB report in
establishing BAT limits for ballast water; therefore the Agency explains below why EPA
believes the SAB report is a credible and reasonable source of information to be considered in
establishing today's technology-based effluent limitations.
With respect to comments asserting the SAB evaluated only nine treatment systems, we note
that while the SAB concluded only nine systems had reliable performance data, it actually
considered 51 systems in preparing its report:
"For this assessment, 51 individual BWMS were identified from prior reports (Albert et al.
2010; CSLC 2010; Lloyds Register 2010) to show the breadth and diversity of treatment
approaches. However, it is important to note that of the 51 BWMS listed, a large proportion are
at early conceptual/development stages (only approximately 15 to 20 have been tested onboard
an active vessel) and a few have recently been discounted because of logistic or performance
challenges. The Panel received information packages on 15 individual BWMS, but just nine
BWMS were considered to have reliable data for an assessment of performance."
SAB report at pg 36 (emphasis added).
See also. July 12, 2011, SAB letter transmitting report to Administrator at pg 1 ("Panel
reviewed a "Background and Issues Paper" prepared by OW and USCG (June 2010) as well as
information on 51 existing or developmental ballast water management systems").
EPA commissioned the SAB to obtain expert advice on the capabilities of ballast water
treatment systems, and considered the resulting SAB report along with other information in the
record on treatment system performance in reaching the agency's conclusion that the IMO
Regulation D-2 standard represents BAT. EPA does not agree with comments suggesting the
report considered only nine systems, since as shown above, the SAB notes it considered 51
systems, and those 51 systems considered reflected a full range of shipboard treatment systems
for which information was available. EPA agrees with the SAB determination to limit its
specific assessment of system performance to those nine systems for which reliable data was
available, as a scientifically/ technically valid assessment of a treatment system's performance
in achieving numeric effluent limits can only result from data that is, in fact, reliable. EPA
556
-------
further notes that the methodology used by the SAB in determining if "reliable" data existed for
a system (see SAB report at § 4.3) took into account, among other things, the validity of test
methods, availability of shipboard and land-based test results, and supporting data, all of which
are relevant and necessary considerations in determining the credibility of data on treatment
system performance. For additional discussion regarding California's analysis of data compared
to the analysis conducted by the SAB, please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-
2011-0141-0491-A1, excerpt 9 and EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2, excerpt 6.
EPA does not agree with comments generally expressing concern that the SAB report failed to
address a range of discharge limits. Besides the IMO Regulation D-2 limits, the report
considered lOx, lOOx, lOOOx IMO D-2 standards as well as a "no living" organism standard.
See e.g., SAB report at pp 2 and 31. This is a diverse array of potential standards and we further
note that the SAB concluded that reliable data to evaluate system performance beyond the
Regulation D-2 limits was not available:
"...current methods (and associated detection limits) prevent testing of BWMS to any
standard more stringent than D-2/Phase 1 and make it impracticable for verifying a standard
100 or 1000 times more stringent. New or improved methods will be required to increase
detection limits sufficiently to statistically evaluate a standard lOx more stringent than IMO
D-2/Phase 1; such methods may be available in the near future." SAB Report at pg 3
(emphasis added).
For additional discussion regarding the SAB's evaluation of standards other than those that
existed in other regulatory contexts, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0487-A1, excerpt 1 for additional discussion.
Some comments pointed to the SAB Report in support of the need to include numeric limits
specific to protists and viruses. EPA agrees that these organisms can pose risks to human health
and the environment. See e.g., SAB report at pp 65 and 77. EPA will consider including
numeric technology-based limits specific to protists and viruses, as recommended by the SAB,
in the next iteration of the VGP as appropriate, if there is new information to inform
development of either technology-based effluent limits. EPA is unable to do so now, as this will
first necessitate the identification of suitable standardized test organisms and/or surrogate
parameters to determine treatment system performance at removing or eliminating viruses and
protists and which also can be used in establishing technology-based discharge limitations.
(EPA notes that the commenter urging such limits in today's permit did not address testing
problems.) Once the ability to test for these organisms is realized, in order to impose numeric
technology-based standards, EPA would need to see that treatment systems are capable of
removing these organisms. See generally, SAB Report at pp. 8, 60, 77, and 95. (Further, it is
infeasible for EPA to calculate numeric water quality-based limits for protists and viruses, as
the Agency would need to be able to better estimate or quantify the risk posed by these
organisms to human health and the environment in a ballast water context. See also sections
10.1 and 10.1.1 of this comment response document) EPA believes that, at this time, there is not
sufficient data for establishing such a limit.
With respect to SAB consideration of land-based treatment alternatives, to the extent such
557
-------
comments are related to substantive concerns that the VGP should mandate use of land-based
ballast water treatment systems (or otherwise set the technology-based limitations based on use
of land-based treatment facilities), please also see section 9.1.18 of this comment response
document for an explanation of why the VGP does not contain such a mandate. EPA further
notes that this matter was not within the scope of the charge given to the SAB (see, SAB Report
at § 2.1), but was nonetheless a matter discussed at some length in the SAB report (see SAB
report at § 6.4.1, 6.4.2, and Appendix B), and was a contentious issue within the panel that did
not yield itself to an overall consensus (see SAB report at pp 86 - 88).
For further discussion of data and information issues, please see section 9.1.8 of this comment
response document. For discussion of issues related to California discharge standards, please
see section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
§ 3: Technology Based Ballast Water Limits for Vessels on Great Lakes and Other Vessel
Types
EPA also received a number of comments questioning the appropriate technology-based limits
for certain types of vessels. Some of these comments expressed the view that treatment systems
were available for "Lakers" and that the SAB panel did not conclude systems were unavailable
for Lakers. Other commenters expressed the view that treatment systems were not available for
Lakers or expressed concern with the proposed VGP's distinction between Lakers that operate
beyond the Welland Canal vs. those that do not. While the SAB report did not reach a specific
conclusion on the availability of treatment systems for Lakers, the report does note that such
vessels are subject to a number of significant limitations affecting the availability of treatment
systems for these vessels. See, SAB Report at pg. 40. In addition, as explained in the final VGP
Fact Sheet, EPA has concluded that treatment systems suitable for use on existing Lakers are
not available; with respect to "new" Lakers (i.e., built after January 1, 2009), EPA concluded
that treatment systems were available for such new Lakers and they thus are subject to the final
VGP's technology-based numeric limits for ballast water. See final VGP Fact Sheet at §
4.4.3.5.6.3. Although not subject to the VGP's technology-based numeric standards for ballast
water discharges, existing Lakers remain subject to technology-based BMP requirements for
such discharges.
With respect to concerns over the distinction between Lakers that operate beyond the Welland
Canal vs. those that do not, this distinction has been eliminated from the final VGP. Refer to
final VGP Fact Sheet § 4.4.3.4 and section 9.1.1 of this comment response document for further
discussion.
For further discussion of Laker issues, see, Fact Sheet at §§ 4.4.3.4 and 4.4.3.5.6.3 and section
9.1.4 and 9.1.6 of this comment response document.
Some comments received expressed the view that due to limitations in testing regimes, systems
had not been tested under conditions reflective of the Great Lakes and that systems thus were
not available that would work in the Great Lakes. EPA notes that although ambient water
salinity (e.g., ability to treat freshwater) and temperature (e.g., ability to work effectively in cold
water) are factors affecting the performance of ballast treatment systems, EPA agrees with the
U.S. Coast Guard that treatment systems using processes (e.g., filtration, U.V.) that will
558
-------
function in such an environment are available. See, 77 Fed. Reg. 17272 at col. 1 (March 23,
2012).
In addition to comments regarding Great Lakes vessels, EPA also received comments
expressing the view that treatment systems were not available for Towboats/Tugs/Linehaul
vessels or unmanned barges and that such craft should be exempted from ballast water
discharge limits or given lengthier implementation schedules. With respect to barges, EPA
notes that, as explained in the Final VGP Fact Sheet § 4.4.3.5.6.2, treatment systems are not
available for unmanned unpowered barges and they thus are not subject to the VGP's ballast
water numeric technology based limits. Please also see section 9.1.3 of this comment response
document. With respect to towboats, tugs, and line-haul vessels, EPA notes that, as explained in
the Final VGP Fact Sheet §§ 4.4.3.5.6.1 and 4.4.3.5.6.4 and in sections 9.1.1 and 2 of this
comment response document, vessels engaged in short-distance voyages, and inland and
seagoing vessels less than 1,600 GRT also are not subject to the VGP's ballast water numeric
technology based limits. With respect to short-distance voyages, please also see section 9.1.5 of
this comment response document. EPA believes that these exclusions are sufficient to address
those towboats, tugs, and line-haul vessels for which treatment technology is unavailable, and
therefore declines to create a wholesale exemption applicable to all towboats, tugs, and line-
haul vessels as a general matter.
§ 4: Timeframe for Achieving Ballast Water Technology Based Limits
EPA also received a number of comments related to the implementation schedule. Some of
these comments argued that no schedules are allowable for compliance with the Act's
technology based requirements, so that the VGP's use of an implementation schedule was
impermissible. Others expressed a preference for immediate compliance so as to expedite
putting environmental protections in place, use of a risk-based approach in establishing
schedules, or expressed the view that the implementation schedule was too long. Some of the
latter expressed the view that it was inappropriate to use drydocking intervals in the schedule as
drydocking was not necessary to enable installation of treatment systems. Those comments
pointed to the Coast Guard's economic analysis for its ballast water rulemaking and the
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Ballast Water Treatment Advisory to support the assertion
that drydocking is not required to install treatment systems.
In contrast, other commenters expressed concern that the implementation schedule was too
short, especially for "new build" vessels. Comments also were received requesting that once
installed, treatment systems should be "grandfathered."
With respect to assertions that the Final VGP contains compliance schedules for ballast water
technology based requirements which are not allowed by the Act, EPA notes that the final VGP
does not contain such impermissible schedules. Rather, as explained in § 4.4.3.5.5 of the final
VGP Fact Sheet, the compliance dates specified in the VGP reflect EPA's judgment of when
technology capable of meeting the numeric concentration-based effluent limits will become
available and economically achievable (i.e., when it becomes BAT), not a schedule for installing
technology that is already available. The compliance dates specified in the final VGP for the
numeric ballast water limits are based upon and are part of the Agency's determination of when
treatment technology will be "available" and "economically achievable" within the meaning of
559
-------
BAT, and are based upon the relevant factors specified in § 304 of the Act and implementing
regulations (40 CFR 125.3(a)(2)(v)(B), 125.3(c)(2), and 125.3)d)(3)) for determining what
constitutes BAT. EPA thus does not agree with commenters' assertions that the compliance
dates specified in the VGP for the numeric technology based ballast water standards are an
impermissible compliance schedule or somehow contravene the dates specified in § 301 of the
Act. Moreover, EPA notes that with respect to ballast water, technology-based control measures
which EPA determined are already available and economically achievable, such as best
management practices and ballast water exchange, the final VGP does in fact require immediate
compliance. See e.g., Final VGP §§ 2.2.3.3, 2.2.3.4, and 2.2.3.6; Final VGP Fact Sheet §§
4.4.3.3 and 4.4.3.5.6.
With respect to comments expressing a preference for immediate compliance with the VGP's
numeric technology based ballast water limits or concern that the VGP's implementation
schedule for such limits was too long, EPA notes that, as explained above, the schedule
contained in the VGP is consistent with the Act's requirements for determining what constitutes
BAT and reflects EPA's judgment of when treatment technologies will become available and
economically achievable. As explained in § 4.4.3.5.5 of the final VGP Fact Sheet (and in the
draft Fact Sheet, it is not feasible to require immediate compliance nor to accelerate the
schedule beyond that specified in the Final VGP. EPA notes that many commenters expressing
this view did so without articulating how EPA could impose a stricter schedule consistent with
the requirements of the CWA. With respect to comments suggesting that the schedule be based
on a risk-based approach (e.g., requiring vessels perceived as presenting a higher risk of
invasion to install systems on an expedited schedule), EPA notes that, as explained above, the
schedule contained in the final VGP is based upon the Agency's determination of what
constitutes BAT; under the CWA, factors for determining what constitutes BAT are
technology-based, not risk-based. See e.g., CWA § 304(b)(2)(B). In addition, it is not feasible
to assess the risk of a given ship given the large variety of factors that go into determining risk
of invasion (see NAS study) and the lack of uniformity in vessel voyages day to day. Lastly,
where EPA did determine additional measures were necessary to protect vulnerable
waterbodies, it included in the VGP additional measure to protect such waters from the risk of
ballast water discharges (e.g., exchange plus treatment for vessels entering the Great Lakes; no
discharge of unmanaged ballast water into Appendix G waters).
With respect to comments expressing concern that the VGP implementation schedule is tied to
drydocking, EPA notes that as explained in § 4.4.3.5.5 of the final VGP Fact Sheet, other
factors besides drydocking were considered in establishing the schedule in the final VGP
(manufacturing capacity, retrofitting, existing schedule in Coast Guard regulations). EPA
acknowledges language in the Coast Guard's economic analysis for its ballast water rulemaking
(see, March 2012 Coast Guard Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water
Discharged in U.S. Waters, Final Rule: Regulatory Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis at pg 46) indicating that various types of treatment systems considered do not require
drydocking. We further note however, that the Coast Guard did not conclude that drydocking
would never be required: "not all BWMS will need to be installed in drydock or even while the
vessel is out of service" (emphasis added). 77 Fed. Reg. 17271, col 3 (March 23, 2012). We
also acknowledge language in the May 2011 ABS Ballast Water Treatment Advisory (at pg 27)
stating that "Most systems will require some out of service time for the ship in order to
560
-------
complete the installation but none of those currently on the market is likely to require
drydocking" (emphasis added). Again, this does not conclude that drydocking would never be
required. We further note that the SAB Report notes that with respect to either installation of
shipboard treatment systems or ship modifications to allow rapid discharge to a reception
facility, the process is "almost exclusively undertaken while the vessel is out of service, which
occurs infrequently; dry dockings, by marine vessel classification society requirement, must be
no less than once every five years (ABS SVR 7/2/1-11)." SAB Report, pg 86. EPA has revised
the language in the final VGP Fact Sheet to reflect that many vessels will need time out of
service, such as during drydocking, to install treatment systems.
EPA thus does not agree with suggestions that drydocking intervals are somehow irrelevant. In
addition, for existing vessels, industry has historically been planning for installation at
drydocking (See, IMO Convention Regulation B-3), and even if dry docking is not necessary, it
is performed at mandatory intervals and under circumstances ensuring the ability to safely and
adequately install treatment systems. Moreover, EPA notes that ballast discharges from vessels
are also subject to regulation by the US Coast Guard, and that the Coast Guard ballast water
discharge standards in its final rulemaking are similar to that in the final VGP. That Coast
Guard rulemaking contains a schedule for compliance with such standards that utilizes
drydocking intervals to establish compliance dates and which reflects Coast Guard treatment
equipment approval requirements. 77 Fed. Reg. 17254 (March 23, 2012). Given the regulation
of vessel ballast water discharges by both the Coast Guard and EPA, EPA believes that to the
extent allowed by the CWA and implementing regulations (see e.g., 40 CFR 125.3(c)(2)(ii)) it
is appropriate in EPA's establishment of its own implementation schedule to carefully consider
the Coast Guard schedule and, where legally permissible under the CWA, to harmonize EPA's
schedule with the Coast Guard's. See also, CWA § 101(f). As explained in § 4.4.3.5.5 of the
Final VGP Fact Sheet, EPA believes that the schedule contained in the final VGP is fully
consistent with the CWA.
With respect to comments expressing concern that the implementation schedule was too short,
EPA notes that the schedule in the final VGP is consistent with the schedule that is already a
legal requirement under the Coast Guard March 2012 final ballast water rulemaking (77 Fed.
Reg. 17254); thus it is reasonable for the Agency to conclude both that technology will be
available on that schedule, and that its use will be economically achievable, as the VGP
compliance costs will already be borne by vessels through compliance with the USCG rule.
With respect to particular concerns raised regarding new vessels, EPA has extended the date
used to define new vessels, which addresses commenters' concerns, as discussed in final VGP
Fact Sheet § 4.4.3.5.5(a). With respect to particular concerns raised regarding existing vessels,
see discussion in final VGP Fact Sheet § 4.4.3.5.5(b).
With respect to comments seeking "grandfathering" of installed treatment equipment, EPA
notes that, consistent with the CWA, the final VGP contains ballast water technology based
numeric effluent limits that, as required by the CWA, are based on EPA's determination that
these limits reflect BAT. Although the CWA does not authorize a general grandfathering of
installed treatment equipment, in determining what constitutes BAT for the next iteration of the
VGP, EPA would consider the economic achievability issues associated with vessels that have
previously installed treatment equipment, along with the other relevant BAT factors, in
561
-------
determining what constitutes BAT for the next iteration of the VGP.
§ 5: Type Approval and Testing Protocol Issues
Some commenters raised issues related to the type-approval of ballast water treatment
equipment, some of which expressed the view that use of the ETV testing protocols should not
be a barrier to progress in installing treatment equipment or urging that EPA be consistent with
the Coast Guard on approval requirements.
As a general matter, EPA notes that, unlike the statutes under which the Coast Guard operates,
the CWA does not establish type-approval requirements, and that with respect to ballast water
treatment systems, the Coast Guard has put in place its own type-approval requirements. 46
CFR Part 162, Subpart 162.060. To the extent type-approval issues are addressed in the final
VGP, EPA notes that the relevant provision (VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.1 ) is fully consistent with what
the Coast Guard already requires. To the extent comments related to type-approval suggest EPA
establish its own or additional type-approval requirements, such comments are outside the
scope of the VGP. EPA further notes that to the extent Coast Guard equipment approval
requirements affect the availability of treatment technologies, this was considered by EPA as
explained in § 4.4.3.5.5 of the final VGP Fact Sheet. In addition, with respect to use of the ETV
protocols, legal requirements relating to their use are already established in the Coast Guard
type-approval regulations (e.g., 46 CFR 162.060-5(d) and 162.060-26), not the VGP.
Lastly, some commenters were concerned that provisions of § 2.2.3.5.1.1 of the draft VGP
would have required vessels utilizing a ballast water treatment system to use a system shown to
be effective by testing in accordance with the EPA-ETV protocol only. In response to
comments expressing concern that limiting systems to just those tested under the ETV protocols
would mean that no systems are available or would become available in the foreseeable future,
that provision has been modified in § 2.2.3.5.1.1 of today's final VGP, and now provides that
systems used must be shown to be effective by testing conducted "by an independent third party
laboratory, test facility or test organization." Revised § 2.2.3.5.1.1 is fully consistent with the
approval processes established by the U.S. Coast Guard in their March 2012 ballast water
rulemaking (77 FR 17254), and specifically allows for use of not only systems that are type-
approved by the U.S. Coast Guard under 46 CFR Part 162, Subpart 162.060, but also those
which have been type-approved by foreign Administrations and have received "Alternative
Management System" designation by the U.S. Coast Guard under 33 CFR 151.2026.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Douglas W. Craven, Director, Natural Resource
Department, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Natural
Resource Department
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0433-A1
4
No
Comment: The draft permit BAT compliance timeframe is too long. It is LTBB NRD's
understanding that EPA is intentionally allowing over two years from the time the permit is
562
-------
proposed (November 2011) to the time the new standards would go into effect (2013) so vessel
owners will have more time to conform with new treatment requirements than they would
normally receive. However, Part 2.2.3.5.2 of the draft permit states that current operating vessels
will not be required to comply with the new permit until the vessel's first drydocking after
January 1, 2014, and certain vessels not until 2016. Additionally, allowing vessels to wait until
they schedule a drydock could postpone implementation/compliance up to an additional five
years; federal regulations require drydock inspections every three to five years. The requirements
found in the draft permit are inconsistent with the statements made by EPA and other parties of
the 2011 court settlement. Every year that vessels are allowed to navigate between water bodies
without proper ballast water treatment systems greatly increases the risk of new invasive species
introduction. LTBB NRD requests that the EPA change the draft permit to require vessels to
comply with the new permit within the first year that the permit is active (2013).
v US Coast Guard, Title 46: shipping Subpart 189.50. GPO Access, The Electronic Code of Federal Regulations
(eCFR), http://eefr.gpoaceess.gov /cgilt/text/textidx?c-ecfr&sid-5e2bgef6fbc6572e3144fee6d84f90aa&rgn-
div6&view-text&node=46:7.0.1.4.23.10&idno=46
Response: With respect to concerns about the schedule for implementing the BAT ballast
water numeric discharge standards, please see § 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this
comment response document. EPA does not agree with commenter's assertion that the schedule
contained in the VGP is inconsistent with the settlement agreement, the substantive provisions
of which primarily address the content of the draft, not final VGP, nor does commenter point to
language in that agreement to support its assertion. EPA further notes that this concern is
outside of the scope of the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
3
No
Comment: I. EPA does not appear to have adequately considered whether test methods can be
developed to verify that technology is available that can comply with standards more stringent
than the IMO D-2 standard.
Our first major area of concern is with EPA's contemplated Best Available Technology (BAT)
determination that numeric technology-based effluent limitations (TBELs) for invasive species in
ballast water should be based on the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) proposed D-2
standards. We do not believe that EPA possesses a sound factual basis for this determination, in
the EPA Science Advisory Board report (SAB Report) or otherwise. The crux of this issue, as we
see it, is twofold. First, EPA seems to be conflating the ability to measure performance from
ballast water treatment systems (e.g., detection limits) with the actual ability of those systems to
eliminate invasive species in ballast water effluent. Second, EPA seems to have rejected without
sufficient analysis the statistical method offered by Dr. Raymond Vaughn of the New York State
Attorney General's Office for testing ballast water treatment system compliance with standards
563
-------
that are orders of magnitude more stringent than the IMO D-2 standards (i.e., lOx or lOOx more
stringent). The SAB Report does not directly address Dr. Vaughn's proposed method, although it
does - in Appendix C of its report - dismiss (without analysis) testing to more stringent
standards on the ground that it would be "impracticable at this point," because "test facilities in
the U.S. typically analyze ~5 of water per test" rather than larger volumes that would be required
to test to standards more stringent than IMO. (SAB Report at C-4) This "typical" behavior does
not appear to be sufficient justification for assuming that existing ballast water treatment
technologies cannot be tested for compliance with the more stringent standards. Even if it is true
that ballast water test facilities are not currently configured to test more than five cubic meters of
water at a time, the "summed Poisson method" described by Whitman Miller, et al. (2011) - a
paper relied on by EPA - describes an approach for sampling ballast water from the same source
in batches, then summing the results in order to reach the appropriate level of statistical
confidence that a particular concentration standard is being met.
Although Whitman Miller, et al. applies this method to test for compliance to the IMO D-2
standards, as Dr. Vaughn points out, there are no limitations inherent to the method that would
prevent it from being applied to test ballast water for compliance with more stringent standards.
In New York's comments to the SAB, Dr. Vaughn notes that
New York has stated that the minimum total sample volume needed to demonstrate
compliance at 95% confidence with a lOOx IMO standard is 30 for organisms >50 |im and 30
ml for organisms 10-50 [j,m. New York recognizes that larger volumes may be preferable [for
testing compliance with a lOOx IMO standard] but finds that these are the minimum sample
volumes needed under a Poisson distribution. The SAB report neither disagrees nor clearly
acknowledges these minimum sample volumes [for engaging in such testing]...
(New York Comments to SAB, March 15, 2011.) In February 2011, the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, using the same methods described by Dr. Vaughn,
found that the performance of at least one treatment system, made by Ecochlor, was "at or near
the confidence level needed to demonstrate compliance" with New York's Clean Water Act
Section 401 water quality based requirements that vessels meet standards equivalent to lOOx
IMO. Nothing in the SAB Report directly addresses the validity of New York's determination,
which appears to us to be soundly reasoned. Accordingly, in the absence of a more persuasive
explanation from EPA, it is our view that any BAT determination finding that existing ballast
water treatment technologies cannot out-perform the IMO D-2 standards would be arbitrary and
capricious. See, e.g., Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State FarmMut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (holding that an agency decision that "entirely failed to consider an
important aspect of the problem" was arbitrary and capricious). For further information
regarding this area of concern, we refer you to the comments of New York and California to the
SAB, which elaborate on these concerns and raise additional, important questions about the
soundness of the SAB Report.
Response: With respect to concerns about use of the IMO Regulation D-2 standard, please see
§ 1 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
With respect to concerns about the information and studies used for determining BAT for
564
-------
ballast water discharges, including consideration of the Vaughn analysis, please see § 2 of the
response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Comment: A. Technology-Based Effluent I .imitations
First, additional TBELs must be incorporated into the VGP. Because US EPA has not yet
promulgated national effluent guidelines for ballast water discharge pursuant to Section 304 of
the Clean Water Act, the Agency's own regulations require it to use "best professional
judgment" to incorporate, as a "minimum level of control that must be imposed in a permit
issued under the Act," effluent limitations for invasive species based on Best Available
Technology ("BAT"). 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(a)(2)(v); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A). BAT is a
stringent treatment standard that has been held to represent "a commitment of the maximum
resources economically possible to the ultimate goal of eliminating all polluting discharges,"
EPA v. Nat'I Crushed Stone Ass'n, 449 U.S. 64, 74 (1980), including requiring the elimination of
discharges of all pollutants" if "such elimination is technologically and economically
achievable," 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A).
EPA did not incorporate numeric effluent limitations for invasive species into the current VGP.
Instead, the only "technology limitations" that EPA has required in the current VGP are Best
Management Practices ("BMPs"): ballast water exchange1 for oceangoing vessels and saltwater
flushing for oceangoing vessels that declare No Ballast on Board (or "NOBOB") status.14 VGP §
2.2.3. These practices represented the status quo at the time, as vessels were already required to
perform them under existing Coast Guard and St. Lawrence Seaway regulations. See 33 C.F.R.
§§ 151.2025(b)(1) & (2), 151.2035 (ballast water exchange requirements); id. pt. 401 (saltwater
flushing requirements).
More importantly, ballast water exchange has limited effectiveness in preventing the introduction
and spread of invasive species. According to a 2008 study, "live freshwater tolerant zooplankton
and other organisms have been found in ships that reportedly exchanged ballast and these include
species not previously reported from the Great Lakes."15 An EPA study of BWE found that "a 95
percent exchange of the original water resulted in flushing of only 25 to 90 percent of the
organisms studied."16 This was due to the inability of BWE to remove water remaining in the
crevices of the ballast tank, as well as sediment layers in the ballast tank, both of which contain
organisms.17 Another problem with BWE is that residual freshwater left in ballast tanks does not
necessarily allow the ballast water to reach a high enough salinity to eliminate invasive species
in the water. Species from low-salinity environments have exhibited a range of tolerance to high
salinity exposure, making it difficult to generalize about their ability to survive the "salinity
shock" which occurs during BWE.18
Commenter Name:
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
13
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
565
-------
Nor is saltwater flushing any more effective for NOBOB vessels than ballast water exchange is
for vessels with ballast on board. According to a 2007 NOAA study, saltwater flushing "provides
some level of protection against some adult and larval life stages, but probably not against
resting eggs and spores of zooplankton and phytoplankton."19 The effectiveness of saltwater
flushing varies with the organisms present in the ballast tank. Saltwater flushing is more
effective in eliminating organisms from environments similar to the Great Lakes, which have
very low salinity. However, the mortality rate drops for those native to estuaries, where salt
levels are higher.20 The effectiveness of saltwater flushing also depends on the organism's age;
in the larval stage, a freshwater mussel would be vulnerable to saltwater, but an adult could
retract into its shell and possibly survive until dumped into a Great Lakes harbor.21
EPA refused to include any numeric effluent limitations in the current VGP on the ground that
they were not "feasible," because ballast water treatment technologies more protective than
ballast water exchange and saltwater flushing were not yet commercially available. (VGP §
4.4.3) At the same time, EPA stated that numeric effluent limitations based on ballast water
treatment technology may be incorporated into future versions of the VGP. Id.
The time is now to revise the VGP to include those numeric TBELs. It can no longer be disputed
that ballast water treatment technology is commercially available: a broad range of technologies
are now in the latter stages of development, or even in commercial use, which are capable of
meeting ballast water discharge standards at least as strict as those adopted by the International
Maritime Organization ("IMO"). As of October 2010, 18 ballast water treatment systems have
received final approval from IMO, with additional systems also moving through the IMO
99
approval process.
Further, in selecting an "available" technology for BAT purposes, EPA is not limited to those
that are contemporaneously in use by the regulated industry. Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 858
F.2d 261, 264 (5th Cir. 1988); Am. Paper Inst. v. Train, 543 F.2d 328, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
Data from a "relevant pilot plant," or from just one operational source, could supply the requisite
support for the availability of a BAT standard. Ass'n ofPac. Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 816
(9th Cir. 1980); Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027, 1058 (3d Cir. 1975).
13
Ballast water exchange is the process of exchanging freshwater or estuarine ballast with highly saline ocean water
prior to entering regulated waters. In theory, ballast water exchange reduces the introduction of invasive species by
purging or killing them with highly saline ocean water, and replacing the ballast tanks with water containing
organisms that cannot survive if released into regulated waters.
14
A NOBOB ("No Ballast on Board") ship is one that has pumped out its ballast tanks as much as possible before
entering regulated waters. However, various considerations preclude the evacuation of all the water in a ballast tank.
As a result, NOBOBs are rarely completely dry, or completely free of residual sediment. (Thomas Johengen et al.,
Assessment of Transoceanic NOBOB Vessels and Low-Salinity Ballast Water as Vectors for Non-indigenous Species
Introductions to the Great Lakes 1-2, 2-8 ("NOBOB Final Report"), at http://www. glerl.noaa. gov/
res/proiects/nobob/ products/ NOBOBFinalReport.pdf (last modified May 20, 2005). Total ballast residuals have
been found to range from a negligible amount up to 200 tonnes, and average 62 tonnes. (Id. at 2-7, 6-2). As a
NOBOB moves from port to port in regulated waters, it may take on new water as ballast to maintain trim and
stability during operations, which then mixes with residual ballast water, sediment, and any associated non-
indigenous organisms, and is later discharged elsewhere. Flushing ballast tanks with highly saline water before
NOBOBs enter regulated waters is designed to prevent the introduction of invasive species by exposing them to a
lethal "salinity shock."
566
-------
15 See Anthony Ricciardi & Hugh J. Maclsaac, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Ballast Water Exchange Policy in the
Great Lakes, 18 Ecological Applications 1321, 1322 (2008).
EPA, Aquatic Nuisance Species in Ballast Water Discharges: Issues and Options, at 10 (2001).
17 Id.
j o
NOBOB Final Report, at 6-9, 6-10.
19
Gregory M. Ruiz et al. and David F. Reid, Current State of Understanding about the Effectiveness of Ballast
Water Exchange (BWE) in Reducing Aquatic Non-indigenous Species (ANS) Introductions to the Great Lakes Basin
and Chesapeake Bay, USA: Synthesis and Analysis of Existing Information 4, NOAA Technical Memorandum
GLERL-142125 (2007), available at httv://vermanent.access.evo.eov/lvs93114/tm-142.vdf.
20
See John Flesher, EPA Plan for Stopping Lake Invaders Debated, Associated Press, July 11, 2008 (quoting David
Reid, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory).
21 Id.
22 International Maritime Organization, Lists of Ballast Water Management Systems, which received Type
Approval Certification, Basic and Final Approval as of October 2010, at
httv://www.imo.ore/OurWork/Environment/BallastWaterManaeement/Documents/table%20uvdated%20in%20Qcto
ber%202010.vdf(last visited Dec. 8, 2010).
Response: EPA notes that commenter's stated concerns with the first VGP are beyond the
scope of today's VGP and further notes the Agency does not agree with commenter's
characterization of the first VGP as reflecting status quo for ballast water discharges; the first
VGP, in fact, contains ballast-water requirements that did not previously exist. Commenter is
referred to the Fact Sheet and other information in the docket for the first VGP for additional
information.
While EPA agrees that the effectiveness of ballast water exchange and saltwater flushing are
variable, EPA does not agree with commenter's seeming dismissal of such practices as simply
being of limited effectiveness. In this regard, EPA notes use of ballast water exchange and
saltwater flushing is a mandatory practice for vessels entering the Great Lakes after taking on
ballast outside the EEZ, and that EPA is not aware of scientifically documented instances of
new introductions since 2006 into the Great Lakes. See, 2011 NAS study Assessing the
Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast Water at pg 123 and
Great Lakes Aquatic Non-indigenous Species Information System. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory. Ann Arbor, MI.
(http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/glansis/glansis.html). See also discussion of ballast
water exchange and saltwater flushing effectiveness in the response essay in section 10.1.2 of
this comment response document. 2012. EPA agrees with commenter's assertion that today's
VGP should contain numeric technology based effluent limits for ballast water and notes that
such limits are included in the final VGP.
EPA notes commenter's legal characterizations of BAT, and as explained in the Fact Sheet for
the VGP and elsewhere in this response to comments document, believes the technology-based
effluent limits for ballast water are fully compliant with the Act's BAT requirements. In
particular EPA believes that it has considered relevant treatment systems for which reliable data
are available (please see § 2 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response
document.) and that the technology based numeric standards for ballast water included in the
final VGP reflect BAT (please see § 2 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment
response document.)
567
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, New York Department
of Environmental Conservation
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0449-A1
2
No
Comment: Indeed, the treatment technology needed to address harmful organisms transported
in ballast water is well-established. Ballast water treatment systems employ disinfection
chemicals coupled with flocculation or filtration, technology familiar to anyone knowledgeable
in the basic mechanics of existing drinking water or waste water treatment facilities.
Long standing delays by the United States Coast Guard in promulgating regulations pursuant to a
specific statutory mandate are a serious source of concern for New York State. Past EPA
administrations also fought to exclude ballast water discharges from the scope of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), even though the Act clearly covers any discharge of any pollutant (including
biological pollution) from any point source to a water of the United States, prior inaction on the
federal level, in the face of massive damage to the ecology of the nation's waters caused by
invasive species, caused states such as California, Michigan, and New York to act in order to
ensure that appropriate control measures were developed and installed as soon as practicable.
We believe that the aforementioned development of promising and cost-effective control
technologies present an opportune moment for EPA to develop a strong, cost-effective and
environmentally protective, national approach to controlling aquatic invasive species. In
conjunction with a strong national standard, EPA can and should fulfill its mandate under the
CWA to drive the development and field implementation of improved ballast water treatment
systems through specific standards and timeframes contained in this and future VGPs.
Response: EPA notes commenter's assertion that treatment technology is well established, and
has considered relevant treatment systems for which reliable data are available in establishing
the final VGP's technology based ballast water discharge limits. Please see § 2 of the response
essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document. Consistent with commenter's
request, today's final VGP contains ballast water discharge standards that are national in scope.
With respect to commenter's discussion of "cost-effective" technologies, EPA notes that cost-
effectiveness is not a factor for determining BAT, which is to be based on, among other things,
"the cost of achieving . . . effluent reduction." CWA § 304(b)(2)(B). With respect to asserted
past delays by the Coast Guard and EPA in addressing ballast water discharges, EPA notes that
such assertions are beyond the scope of today's VGP and further notes today's VGP contains
extensive ballast-water related provisions.
Commenter Name: William Creal, Chief, Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0450-A3
568
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: Time frames for regulated vessels to come into compliance with ballast water
discharge limitations in the draft next VGP.
Michigan recognizes the need for the draft next VGP to provide existing vessel owners a
sufficient period of time to select and install appropriate ballast water management systems on
their vessels. Inclusion of effective dates of January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2016, respectively,
for the interim and final BWDLs in the draft next VGP seem reasonable and fair for the shipping
industry. The draft next VGP should also include appropriate language to clarify that no
extensions will be made to the BWDL effective dates, unless an entity covered under the permit
makes a request for an extension to the USEPA and can provide sufficient justification for such
request. Any such extension request shall state and demonstrate that: (1) there is a shortage in
supply of the technology necessary to meet the BWDLs set forth in the permit or other factor
related to the availability and installation of technology beyond the vessel owner's/operator's
control that delays the technology being available and installed in time to comply with the
BWDLs; (2) the unavailability of supply is the only reason the effective dates cannot be met; and
(3) the vessel has exhausted all other options to comply with the BWDLs. Any extension request
must be made no later than six months prior to the effective date of the BWDLs, and the
extension request shall indicate when the vessel will come into compliance with the BWDLs.
Response: For discussions regarding extensions and extension requests, please see sections
9.1.1 and 9.1.2 of this comment response document. Additionally, the VGP contains a reopener
clause allowing the permit to be re-opened and modified during the term of the permit,
consistent with the Federal regulations at 40 CFR sections 122.62, 122.63, 122.64, and 124.5.
Among other things, under 40 CFR 122.62 permit modification may be necessary if new
information, not available at the time of permit issuance, is received that would have justified
the application of different permit conditions at the time of issuance. While EPA believes that
the VGP's technology-based ballast water implementation schedule is appropriate, given the
large number of vessels subject to the ballast water numeric effluent limits, it is possible that a
situation may arise in which treatment technology for a certain vessel, or specified group of
vessels, may not be available within the timeframe specified in part 2.2.3.5.2, Table 6 of the
VGP, such that this information (not available at the time of permit issuance) would have
justified the imposition of a different implementation date had it been known at the time of
permit issuance. As a result, it may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis to adjust the
implementation schedule to reflect BAT, as it applies to a vessel or group of vessels. EPA
agrees that the reasons given by the commenter constitute reasonable factors to consider in
determining whether to alter the implementation schedule for any vessel or vessels.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief, Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0450-A1
4
No
569
-------
Comment: Ballast water management systems should be installed on regulated vessels to
control aquatic invasive species as quickly as possible.
During the August 31,2011, meeting, the USEPA staff indicated that the draft next VGP would
likely require regulated vessels to install ballast water treatment systems during a vessel's next
scheduled dry docking event. Rather than linking ballast water effluent limitation compliance
time frames for all vessels to the next scheduled dry docking event, Michigan believes the
USEPA should consider establishing compliance time frames based on vessel size class in the
draft next VGP. High risk (for invasion) vessels that discharge large volumes of foreign ballast
water to the Great Lakes should be required to install ballast water management systems and
comply with a protective set of numeric concentration-based effluent limitations for live
organisms in ballast water before their next scheduled dry docking event.
Response: With respect to the schedule for implementing the BAT ballast water numeric
discharge standards and installing treatment technology, please see § 4 of the response essay in
section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Andreas Nordseth, Chairman, Consultative Shipping Group
(CSG)
Commenter Affiliation: Consultative Shipping Group (CSG)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0478-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: Absent U.S. ratification of the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention (the
Convention), the CSG supports a nationally consistent standard, which concurs with the IMO
and therefore allows for the industry to comply with commercially-available technology.
The CSG welcomes the EPA's proposal to adopt the D-2 Ballast Water Performance Standard
contained in the Convention. The CSG has followed with interest studies by both the EPA
Science Advisory Board (SAB) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which the EPA
cites in its draft VGP. What has become clear is that as of today, the D-2 standard is the most
stringent that can be achieved by the best available technology. The CSG encourages the EPA to
convey this reality to the States when seeking their amendments to the VGP.
The CSG countries trust that the United States Federal Government will be able to harmonize its
commitments under international agreements with its domestic legislative activity on matters
affecting international shipping.
Response: With respect to support for the IMO Regulation D-2 standard, please see § 1 of the
response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document. With respect to concerns
about State "amendments" to the VGP, EPA reads this comment as referring to additional State
conditions resulting from the CWA § 401 certification process. EPA notes the State certification
process is established by the CWA itself; EPA has, however, coordinated with the States in
effort to facilitate the 401 certification process. Please see section 12 of this comment response
570
-------
document for further discussion of 401 certification and the VGP. With respect to
"commitments" under international agreements, EPA notes that with respect to ballast water,
the US is not a signatory to the IMO International Convention for the Control and Management
of Ships' Ballast Water And Sediments, 2004, nor has that treaty entered into force
internationally. With respect to non-ballast water related international agreements to which the
US is a Party (e.g., the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL), Annexes I, II, III, V, and VI), EPA notes that the non-ballast water related
provisions of the final VGP are consistent with such commitments as implemented by relevant
U.S. domestic law (e.g., the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships.).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2
5
No
Comment: 5. The treatment technology needed to address harmful organisms transported in
ballast water is well established.
Canada generally agrees with this statement, being aware of 19 BWTS that have been type-
approved in accordance with the requirements of the IMO convention. Canada is further
encouraged that the SAB "acknowledges the significant achievement of several existing [BWTSj
to effectively and reliably remove living organisms from ballast water under the challenging
conditions found on active vessels."8 Treatment technology suitable for use on the Great Lakes is
established as well, but on a slower pace. Only two type-approved treatment systems have
demonstrated efficacy and safety under cold, freshwater conditions. Canada is supporting
research to ensure that available BWTS are appropriate for use on the Great Lakes.
g
EPA Science Advisory Board (2011) Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems, p. 4.
Response: EPA notes this comment is part of Canada's Technical Review of October 20, 2011,
Letter from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (see the full letter EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2
for context), rather than being a direct comment on the VGP itself. Commenter is referred to
EPA's responses to the issues raised in the October 20, 2011, New York DEC letter as set out
elsewhere in this response to comments document. With respect to the availability of treatment
technology, please also see § 2 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response
document.
Commenter Name: Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Commenter Affiliation: Government of Canada
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2
571
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Late Comment? No
Comment: lOOx IMP discharge standard implemented by June 1. 2016
Canada believes this requirement is unachievable because compliant systems do not exist today,
and the testing protocols that would be needed for system development and evaluation do not yet
exist:
• Regarding System Compliance: The SAB study concluded unequivocally that "no current
[BWTS] types can meet a lOOx or lOOOx discharge standard.4 This statement refers to
approaches to treatment, and not to any specific BTWS. The SAB further concluded that
"reaching [lOOx or lOOOx IMO] would require wholly new treatment systems."5
• Regarding Testing Protocols: Development and approval of wholly new BWTS that can
achieve a lOOx IMO standard cannot be undertaken without the ability to test whether
systems are performing to this standard. As noted above, the SAB has determined that
current methods prevent testing of BWTS to any standard more stringent than IMO and
make it impracticable for verifying a standard 100 or 1000 times more stringent.
lOx IMO voluntary discharge standard by June 1. 2014
Canada does not understand the rationale for this voluntary target, being unaware of a study that
quantifies the incremental environmental protection it provides over the IMO standard (i.e., the
decreased risk of species invasion). Canada agrees with the US National Research Council
(NRC) recommendation that "a benchmark discharge standard should be established that clearly
reduces concentrations of coastal organisms below current levels resulting from ballast water
exchange (such as the [IMO] standard).'9 The fastest way to implement the NRC's
recommendation and increase environmental protection is installation of available and approved
IMO standard BWTS. Further, as current methods preclude testing of BWTS to any standard
more stringent than the IMO standard, ships are not currently able to demonstrate compliance
with this voluntary discharge standard.
Grandfather until 2026 vessels deploying 10 times IMO systems prior to 2016
Canada also believes that it is important to recognize the significant investment in durable
equipment that a BWTS purchase represents. Given the high costs involved, however, a
requirement for vessels to replace functioning BWTS with systems that operate at a higher
standard must be accompanied by a demonstrable and significant increase in environmental
protection. Absent this evidence, as ballast water treatment systems have been designed to last
for the life of vessels, a ten year grandfathering approach is not sufficient, as vessel lifetimes on
the Great Lakes can be many times longer than ten years.
4
EPA Science Advisory Board (2011) Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems, p. 37.
EPA Science Advisory Board (2011) Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems, p. 5.
9
National Research Council (2011) Assessing the relationship between propagule pressure and invasion risk in
ballast water, p. 7.
Response: EPA notes this comment is part of Canada's Technical Review of October 20, 2011,
Letter from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to the
572
-------
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (see the full letter EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2
for context), rather than being a direct comment on the VGP itself. Commenter is referred to
EPA's responses to the issues raised in the October 20, 2011, New York DEC letter as set out
elsewhere in this response to comments document. With respect to ballast water technology
based numeric limits and the availability of treatment technology, please see § 1 and 2 of the
response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document; with respect to
grandfathering issues, please see § 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment
response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tom Perlich, President, Ecochlor, Inc.
Ecochlor, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0480-A1
5
No
Comment: Fact Sheet Part 4.4.3.5.7 - Data Sources and Request for Comment on the Status of
Ballast Water Treatment Technologies.
The EPA has requested comment on the SAB's conclusions regarding the ability of BWTS's to
meet more stringent biological discharge standards. In the report, the SAB concluded that several
of the BWTS's evaluated "may have the potential to meet [a more stringent standard] with
reasonable/feasible modifications to the system" (SAB, 2011, pg. 32). Additionally, the SAB
concluded that "...no current BWMS types can meet a lOOx or lOOOx discharge standard" (SAB
2011, pg. 37).
Noteworthy, is that the SAB also concluded that.. .current testing methods do not provide the
resolution required to conclude that lOx standards can be met (EPA SAB, 2011, p. 32). This
conclusion is contradictory to the above conclusions and implies that current scientific methods
cannot verify a more stringent standard; not that BWTS's cannot achieve a higher standard.
Ecochlor appreciates the work conducted by the SAB and understands the difficulty the SAB had
in comparing BWTS testing data collected with a variety of non-standardized testing methods,
quality assurance protocols, and reporting formats. However, the conclusion that no current
systems can meet a higher standard, in Ecochlor's case, is not true and has caused delays in ship
owners' decisions to purchase and install BWTS's. Based on the questions Ecochlor has received
from industry, the SAB's conclusions have generated uncertainty, fear and skepticism about
treatment system capabilities. Ship owners are attempting to determine the best treatment
technology that will not only meet IMO D-2 standards, but also the impending, higher discharge
standards. Clearly, the scientific methods cannot yet quantify the effectiveness of superior
technologies at a high enough resolution to verify meeting a much higher discharge standard
(lOOx or lOOOx). However, for the SAB to conclude that modifications to existing technologies
are needed is not supported.
In response to the EPA's request for testing data from BWTS manufacturer's for use during the
SAB evaluation, Ecochlor provided all data that was available at the time. Ecochlor would like to
573
-------
note that the SAB conclusions did not consider the data from shipboard testing of Ecochlor's
technology, as this testing was still in progress. Shipboard testing was conducted by a team of
independent scientists (GoConsult) in the San Francisco Bay on the M/V Moku Pahu, under the
direction of the German Federal Maritime and Hydro graphic Agency (BSH). The data and
GoConsult report clearly demonstrates the ability of the Ecochlor® BWTS to statistically exceed
the IMO standard by lOx.
Therefore, in Ecochlor's opinion, the limitations to exceed the IMO standard by more than lOx
falls on the scientific testing methods and the practical limitations of testing a BWTS,
particularly when considering testing onboard a commercially operated vessel, rather than on the
limitations of Ecochlor's treatment technology. The SAB is correct in concluding that changes
and improvements are needed. However, these changes are for technologies that currently cannot
statistically meet a higher discharge standard (lOx) and also in the science to quantify the
performance of highly effective technologies.
Ecochlor thanks the EPA for consideration of the above comments and suggestions, and
appreciates the efforts of the reviewers. If there are any questions regarding this submission,
please contact me by using the information provided below.
Response: With respect to information and studies (including the SAB report) used for
determining BAT for ballast water discharges, please see § 2 of the response essay in section
9.1.2 of this comment response document. With respect to commenter's assertion that new data
and a report clearly demonstrates the ability of the Ecochlor® BWTS to statistically exceed the
IMO standard by lOx, EPA notes that these results, published in March 2011, appear promising
and highlight the potential of this treatment system to perform better than IMO D-2 limits.
However, EPA notes that though these data may be promising, they are three additional single
cubic meter samples, taken in a shipboard setting. As discussed in the ETV protocols (EPA,
2010), Miller et al. (2011), and Frazier et al. (2013), larger volumes of water would be needed
to "clearly demonstrate" that systems are able to perform better than the IMO standard. As
discussed above in § 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response
document., as additional data are collected, particularly new land-based testing utilizing the
ETV protocols or similarly robust sampling regime, EPA may be able to use the summed
Poisson method or other appropriate approach to determine with sufficient confidence that this
system is likely to regularly outperform the IMO D-2 limit. As discussed in the essay above,
EPA does not believe that the quality of existing data allows the Agency to reasonably conclude
that any system, including the one cited here, can be expected to significantly outperform IMO
at this time. This being said, EPA notes that these data reaffirm that many systems are available
which are able to achieve limits at least as stringent as the IMO D-2 limit.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Late Comment? No
574
-------
Comment: Section 2.2.3.5.1.1 at page 27 states that "BWTS must be used prior to any
discharge of ballast water to waters of the US". Clarifying language is needed here to address the
variations in BWTS where treatment may occur at uptake, in tank or at discharge or some
combination of these three. CSA recommends amending the text to read "BWTS must be used at
uptake, in tank or at discharge according to the treatment system manufacturer's instructions and
in no case shall untreated ballast water be discharged to waters of the US subject to exemptions
included in the VGP e.g.. safety exemption."
Response: EPA has revised § 2.2.3.5.1.1 of the final VGP to address use of the system at
uptake, in tank or at discharge, and that provision now provides the treatment system must be
used prior to any discharge of ballast water to waters of the U.S, "either at uptake, in tank, or
during discharge according to the treatment system manufacturer's instructions." EPA added a
reference to manufacturer's instructions to be clear that it is the design of the system that will
naturally determine when treatment occurs. With respect to the suggested text beginning with
the words "in no case...", EPA declines to make the requested change as the suggestion is
confusing and issues related to ballast water discharge limits and safety exemptions are already
clearly expressed in the final VGP. See e.g., final VGP § 2.2.3.5.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 25
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question 5. Whether the controls in this permit represent the BPT, BCT or BAT
levels of control.
If commenters believe that the proposed controls do not, or that, other controls would better
represent the BPT, BCT or BAT levels of control, explicitly provide data and information about
the applicability of such controls to all types of commercial vessels in all weather/operating
situations, and the costs and non-water quality environmental impacts, including energy impacts,
of such options.
CSA wishes to make the point that existence of a piece of equipment or product that represents
itself as meeting more stringent standards does not constitute BPT, BCT or BAT. It is only when
the equipment or product actually tests in real world operating conditions that it can even be
considered to meet one of these levels of control. A perfect example can be found with
environmentally acceptable lubricants (EALs) where many are marketed to meet a certain set of
requirements but later are deemed by equipment manufacturers to void equipment warranties due
to performance and/or maintenance issues.
Response: With respect BPT, BCT, or BAT levels of control and the tests and information
relied on in determining these levels of control, please see § 2 of the response essay in section
575
-------
9.1.2 of this comment response document.. With respect to concerns about environmentally
acceptable lubricants (EALs), please see 6.2 of this comment response document. As discussed
in those comments, if the use of an EAL is not approved for a given piece of existing
equipment, its use would not be technically feasible. However, for new build vessel operators,
equipment can be selected for which EALs are available for many applications. EPA further
notes the permit does not require use of any EALs in cases which would void equipment
warranties.
Commenter Name: Dr. Andrew Cohen, Director, Center for Research on
Aquatic Bioinvasions et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Center for Research on Aquatic Bioinvasions et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0487-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: We submit these comments on the EPA's proposed ballast water discharge
standards, and its reliance on the report of the Science Advisory Board Panel on Ballast Water
(hereinafter "SAB Panel") in developing those standards.
In the fact sheet issued with the Vessel General Permit, under the heading "Finding that the
Ballast Water Limits in this Permit Represent the BPT and BAT Level of Control." the EPA
wrote:
"The numeric limitations in today's permit represent the most stringent standards that ballast
water management systems currently safely, effectively, credibly, and reliably meet (US
EPA SAB, 2011)." (Fact Sheet, p. 77) and:
"Based upon the data available, no current ballast water treatment technologies were
considered likely to meet standards more stringent than IMO D-2/Phase 1 (US EPA SAB,
2011)." (Fact Sheet, p. 79)
These two references to the SAB Panel report appear to be the only support provided in the four
documents released by the EPA (the 12/8/11 Federal Register notice, the Proposed 2013 VGP,
the Fact Sheet, and the Economic and Benefits Analysis) for the conclusion that the proposed
ballast water discharge standards represent the best that can be achieved by available technology.
However, the SAB Panel did not reach that conclusion, and the two quoted statements misstate
the SAB Panel's findings, whether the statements are taken to apply to available treatment
technologies generally, or to shipboard treatment technologies only.
The SAB Panel never actually addressed the question of what is the best treatment that available
technology can achieve, because the EPA Office of Water instructed the Panel to focus on the
much narrower question of whether shipboard treatment systems could meet certain specific sets
of standards (EPA Charge Questions, listed in the SAB Panel report on pp. 9-10). When
members of the Panel tried to broaden the inquiry to assess the capability of treatment
technologies other than shipboard treatment systems, or to consider treatment levels other than
576
-------
the specific sets of standards referenced by the EPA's Charge Questions, the Office of Water's
representative argued against it. Although the SAB Report does discuss an alternative treatment
approach (onshore treatment, specifically treatment in plants designed to treat ballast water,
located at or near each US port, with pipe connections to each berth to receive ballast water
discharges from vessels), the analysis and discussion in the final report were substantially
constrained by the Office of Water's insistence on a narrower approach.
Two issues are of greatest concern:
(1) The four documents released bv the EPA fail to explain why the EPA concluded that treating
ballast water onshore using methods and technologies that have long and successfully been
employed for the treatment of drinking water is either unavailable or economically
unachievable.
The first quote above (from the Fact Sheet, p. 77) refers to "ballast water management systems."
Although the Fact Sheet doesn't define this term, the SAB Panel Report (p. 13) defined it as
commercially developed shipboard treatment systems. However, as discussed below, these
quotes do not accurately state the SAB Panel's findings even with regard to shipboard treatment;
they do not apply to onshore treatment at all.
Rather, the SAB Panel found that onshore treatment plants, being subject to fewer physical
restrictions, can use "more effective technologies and processes" and "show promise to achieve
more stringent ballast water treatment standards than shipboard" systems (SAB Panel Report, pp.
80-82). The Panel concluded that onshore treatment is technically feasible and "likely to be more
reliable and more readily adaptable than shipboard treatment" (SAB Panel Report, Executive
Summary, p. 7), and that it requires fewer treatment plants and less treatment capacity than
shipboard treatment (SAB Panel Report, p. 81). In addition, based on existing economic studies
it is "at least as economically feasible as shipboard treatment," and the cost of monitoring and
enforcement is also likely to be less (SAB Panel Report, Executive Summary, p. 7).
In the four documents released by the EPA, onshore ballast water treatment is discussed or
mentioned in ten places (Permit at pp. 34 and 65-66; Fact Sheet at pp. 70, 71, 76 and 102-104;
Economic and Benefits Analysis at pp. 11, 55, 60 and 63). Most of these simply state that vessels
could use onshore treatment to meet the proposed discharge standards, and that some vessels
might choose to do so. The most substantive discussion of onshore treatment is on pp. 102-104
of the Fact Sheet, which includes a few sentences listing some challenges to implementing
onshore treatment. Whether or not these challenges are significant, their mere listing does not
constitute an analysis of the issue or a demonstration that onshore treatment is not an available
technology.
The stakes at issue could not be higher. The SAB Panel Report notes that the standards proposed
by the EPA would reduce the concentrations of organisms in the two largest size classes (10-50
micrometers, and larger than 50 micrometers) by about 30 times and 500 times, respectively,
from the average concentrations in untreated ballast water discharges, and would require no
reduction at all in the concentrations of smaller protists (smaller than 10 micrometers), total
bacteria or viruses (SAB Panel Report, p. 82). In contrast, technologies that the water industry
577
-------
refers to as "conventional water treatment" (gravity filtration followed by a single, conventional
disinfection process such as chlorination or UV treatment), which have been utilized by
treatment plants around the world for many decades and could be applied to onshore treatment of
ballast water discharges, are capable of reducing the concentration of organisms in the two
largest size classes, smaller protists, bacteria and viruses by at least 30,000 times (SAB Panel
Report, p. 83). Optimized systems may do considerably better: the EPA requires drinking water
treatment systems to be capable of reducing the concentration of smaller protists by up to
100,000 times and viruses by up to 1,000,000 times, depending on the quality of the source water
(SAB Panel Report, p. 83).
(2) The documents released bv the EPA fail to consider the full potential of existing shipboard
treatment systems to treat ballast water.
As noted, the EPA Charge Questions, and the verbal explanations by the EPA's Office of Water,
directed the SAB Panel to consider only those sets of standards referenced by the charge
questions, as follows:
(a) The IMO D-2/Coast Guard Phase 1 standards, which specify numeric concentration
limits for two organism size classes (10-50 micrometers, and larger than 50 micrometers)
and 3 types of pathogens and pathogen indicators.
(b) lOx D-2, lOOx D-2 and lOOOx D-2, which specify numeric concentration limits for the
two organism size classes that are 10, 100 and 1000 times more stringent than the IMO
D-2 concentration limits, respectively (SAB Panel Report, p. 15).
(c) The Coast Guard Phase 2 standards, which specify numeric concentration limits for the
two organism size classes that are 1000 times more stringent than the IMO D-2
concentration limits, concentration limits for the 3 types of pathogens and pathogen
indicators that are somewhat more stringent than the IMO D-2 limits, and concentration
limits for total bacteria and total viruses.
(d) The California Interim standards, which are identical to the Coast Guard Phase 2
standards except that the standard for the largest organism size class (larger than 50
micrometers) is discharge with "no detectable living organisms."
(e) The California Final standards, which specify discharge with "no detectable living
organisms" for both organism size classes and for total bacteria and viruses.
(f) Discharge of "no living organisms".
In addition, the list referenced by the EPA Charge Questions includes some state standards that
are minor variants of the above.
The SAB Panel primarily assessed shipboard treatment systems in terms of the standards listed in
(a) and (b) above, finding that there were systems that could or likely could meet the IMO D-
2/Phase 1 standards; systems that with reasonable/feasible modifications may have the potential
578
-------
to meet lOx D-2; and no systems that could meet or were likely to meet lOOx D-2 or more
stringent standards, even with reasonable/feasible modifications (SAB Panel Report, pp. 31-35,
37 and 42-49). The SAB Panel also noted that no systems met the total bacteria limit of the Coast
Guard Phase 2/California Interim standards (SAB Panel Report, p. 37).
Consistent with the EPA's instructions, the SAB Panel did not consider whether shipboard
treatment systems could meet discharge limits other than the specified sets of limits referenced
by the Charge Questions. For example, the Panel did not consider whether any shipboard
treatment systems could meet discharge limits for the two organism size classes that are more
stringent than IMO D-2 but less stringent than lOx D-2 (such as 2x D-2 or 5x D-2). It did not
consider whether any systems could meet any limit for total bacteria that is less stringent than the
Coast Guard Phase 2/California Interim limit. And it did not consider whether any systems could
meet any discharge limit for protists smaller than 10 micrometers in size, which includes human
pathogens and other harmful species, even though the Panel recommended that discharge limits
be set for selected organisms in this size class (SAB Report, pp. 8, 65, 95-96) and some test data
are available.
Considerable test data are available on these systems' impacts on bacterial concentrations in
ballast discharges. According to studies cited by the SAB Panel Report, some shipboard
treatment systems consistently reduce bacterial concentrations, by up to 100 to 10,000 times,
while other systems are inconsistent in their effects and some actually increase bacterial
concentrations (because killing the larger organisms may provide food for bacteria, remove
consumers of bacteria, or both). Thus, although some shipboard treatment systems have the
ability to substantially reduce the discharge of bacteria, the EPA's proposed permit does not
require any reduction, and would even allow the use of treatment systems that increase the
discharge of bacteria.
Although no test data are available on the ability of shipboard treatment systems to reduce the
concentration of viruses in ballast discharges, many of these systems use common water
treatment processes (filtration plus UV, or filtration plus chlorination) whose impact on viruses
has been well studied in bench-scale tests and assessments of operating water or wastewater
treatment plants. While the filters used in shipboard systems are probably too coarse to remove
viruses significantly, both UV and chlorine treatment have been shown by numerous studies to
produce substantial inactivation of viruses. These data could be used to assess the ability of
shipboard treatment systems to reduce viral concentrations.
Finally, in tests of shipboard treatment systems the discharge concentrations of the three types of
pathogens and pathogen indicators consistently met the limits that the EPA proposes to include
in the VGP, but they also met the more stringent limits in the Coast Guard Phase 2/California
Interim standard. We note that these tests were not valid assessments of the ability of shipboard
treatment systems to remove or kill these pathogens and pathogen indicators, since the
concentrations in the input waters and control discharges also meet the standards in nearly all
cases (and in most cases were at non-detectable levels). For a minimally valid test, the
concentrations in both the intake waters and the control discharges should be detectable and
exceed the standard being assessed, but neither the IMO nor the EPA require this (SAB Panel
Report, pp. 62-63); thus equipment manufacturers have been able to satisfy test requirements by
579
-------
running tests that are known to be meaningless. In any case, the results from these tests cannot be
used to distinguish between standards, to conclude, for example, that shipboard treatment
systems can meet one standard (the EPA's proposed limits) and not another (the more stringent
Phase 2/California Interim limits), as the EPA claims.
We wish to make two additional points. First, in the 12/8/11 Federal Register notice the EPA
asks for comment on "whether the controls in this permit represent the BPT, BCT and BAT
levels of control. If commenters believe that the proposed controls do not, or that other controls
would better represent the BPT, BCT or BAT levels of control, explicitly provide data and
information about the applicability of such controls to all types of commercial vessels in all
weather/operating situations, and the costs and non-water quality environmental impacts,
including energy impacts, of such options." (§III.C.5) The EPA further asks for comment on "the
appropriateness of the technology-based ballast water controls proposed in this VGP, and
whether there are data sources which indicate that certain ballast water treatment systems
reliably exceed the limits established in this permit." (§III.C.16) During the SAB Panel meetings
and discussions, some members of the Panel attempted to develop and include in the Panel report
a more detailed assessment of onshore treatment, including its cost impacts, and an assessment of
the full capability of shipboard treatment as described in point 2 above. As discussed above,
these assessments would have further demonstrated that available technology can achieve levels
of treatment beyond what the EPA has proposed as controls. The EPA Office of Water, however,
consistently opposed including such information in the report. As a result, some relevant
information and analysis that could have been developed by the Panel was not, and some of what
was developed by Panel members was excluded or deleted from the final report. If there was less
information developed on these issues and less provided in the report than the EPA considers
sufficient, it is in large part because the EPA Office of Water opposed the development and
inclusion of such information. However, there is considerable material that was developed by
SAB Panel members—including additional information on the efficacy of onshore treatment, the
larger treatment capacity needed for shipboard vs. onshore treatment, and screening-level cost
estimates for US-wide implementation of each approach—that is contained in earlier drafts but
was deleted from the final report. As these drafts are part of the SAB record, they are available to
the EPA. Data on the capability of certain shipboard treatment systems to reduce the
concentrations of protists smaller than 10 micrometers and bacteria are contained in the source
documents used for the SAB Panel's analysis and cited in the report.
Second, we note that shipboard treatment and onshore treatment represent distinct approaches to
ballast water management that would each require different large investments in infrastructure. If
the less stringent discharge standards that can be met by shipboard treatment systems are adopted
and the shipping industry installs the required equipment (which the US Coast Guard estimated
would cost over $3 billion), it would probably not be economically practical to switch in 5 or 10
years to more stringent standards that would require the shipping industry to build the different,
expensive infrastructure needed for onshore treatment. Thus we are almost certain to be stuck for
a very long time with whichever approach is used as the BAT in setting discharge standards in
2013. It is thus of the utmost urgency that a fair and thorough comparison of the two approaches
be made at this time. The EPA has not yet done this.
580
-------
Should the EPA decide to address the concerns in this letter, we remain available to assist in
whatever way we can.
Response: EPA notes that the commenter was a participant on the SAB panel and did not
concur with the final draft report submitted to the chartered SAB for their quality review and
approval (See Page 6 of June 16, 2011 SAB Chartered SAB Quality Review of the Draft Ballast
Water Advisory Report from the Augmented Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
meeting minutes; available at http://vosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/MeetingCal/
7CE97A2660568A408525786900469A2A/$File/SAB+Ballast+Water+Qual+Review+Jun+16+
2011+Minutes+FINAL+w+ATTACHMENTS.pdf and SAB Report at pg iii, fn 1. EPA does not
agree with commenter's assertion that the VGP Fact Sheet mischaracterizes the SAB report
findings or assertions that the VGP's numeric technology-based limits do not reflect BAT. See,
please see § 1 and 2 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
With respect to issues related to treating ballast water onshore, please see section 9.1.18 of this
comment response document. EPA notes that shoreside treatment facilities for ballast water are
not available. As discussed in section 9.1.18 of this comment response document, EPA is
unaware of any onshore ballast water treatment facility in the United States for killing or
removing living organisms from ballast water.
Regarding whether EPA should have instructed the SAB to consider a wider variety of
discharge limits and that EPA did not "consider the full potential of existing shipboard
treatment systems to treat ballast water," as noted by the commenter, EPA asked the committee
to consider more than eight different regulatory limits. These limits varied widely in terms of
both concentrations and fundamental approach (e.g., no detectable living organisms versus a
numeric limit). Although the SAB did not consider an infinite number of limits, the SAB panel
did consider more than 8 different regulatory standards. EPA notes that, due to limitations in the
testing methods and protocols used to generate existing data on ballast water treatment system
efficacy, there is a lack of precision in quantifying the ability of such systems to achieve limits
more stringent than the IMO D-2 standards. Hence, EPA does not believe that consideration of
additional limits beyond the 8 + already considered by EPA and the SAB would produce results
that differed from the SAB's conclusion that available methodologies to test IMO Regulation D-
2 compliance are presently at or near analytic detection limits, and that new or improved
methodologies will be needed to increase detection limits (SAB Report at pg 29). Additionally,
the limits EPA requested the SAB to consider were the limits in discussion by various
regulatory bodies or commenters (e.g., U.S. Coast Guard rulemaking and EIS, California,
Minnesota, IMO). EPA did not specifically request advice on limits in between these 8+ limits,
because, as discussed above, of the lack of precision with currently available data and we thus
do not believe SAB consideration of additional limits lying within the range of those considered
(e.g., 2x IMO) would have resulted in any different conclusions. Finally, EPA notes that the
SAB could have opined on limits other than these 8+ if they thought such advice had merit
(e.g., the SAB discussed the framework of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
(HACCP) as a management approach - discussion the committee thought deserved merit but
for which EPA did not provide a charge). For purposes of EPA's BAT analysis, as discussed in
the Fact Sheet and this response to comments document, based on the advice of the SAB and
EPA's independent evaluation, the Agency found that treatment systems that exceed the IMO
581
-------
D-2 limits are not available in the context of BAT.
Regarding whether EPA should have established numeric limits for virus-like particles, EPA
notes that the commenter states that "no test data are available on the ability of shipboard
treatment systems to reduce the concentration of viruses in ballast discharges." While EPA
agrees that many of the processes used in ballast water treatment systems will inactivate
viruses, the Agency cannot extrapolate to set a BAT based limit when there is not any reliable
data on the performance of ballast water treatment systems with respect to inactivation or
removal of viruses.
Regarding whether EPA should have established numeric treatment limits for protists and
bacteria, as noted by the commenter, EPA has established limits for some bacteria and pathogen
indicators. EPA does not believe that there are sufficient data available to establish numeric
limits for protists or other bacteria. However, EPA notes that the Agency is requiring
monitoring of total heterotrophic bacteria to better understand how bacterial communities
respond to various ballast water treatment systems. Additionally, as discussed by the
commenter in the context of viruses, EPA expects that many of the treatment systems in use
today will remove protists and may reduce bacteria, but that relationship remains generally
unquantified.
Finally, EPA notes that information the commenter identified as struck from the draft SAB
report was removed by the chartered SAB during a quality review of the draft SAB report
before finalizing that report (see June 16, 2011 SAB Chartered SAB Quality Review of the
Draft Ballast Water Advisory Report from the Augmented Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee meeting minutes). While true that EPA's Office of Water drafted the charge to focus
the limited time and resources of the SAB on the status of shipboard treatment systems (see
EPA SAB 2011) EPA's Office of Water played no decision making role in drafting, reviewing,
editing, or cutting any elements of the SAB report.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: A. EPA's Obligations in Selecting BAT when Setting TBELs
Because EPA has not yet promulgated national effluent guidelines for ballast water discharges
pursuant to Section 304 of the Clean Water Act, the Agency's own regulations require it to use
"best professional judgment" to incorporate, as a "minimum level of control that must be
imposed in a permit issued under the Act," effluent limitations for invasive species based on Best
Available Technology ("BAT"). 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(a)(2)(v); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A).
BAT is a stringent treatment standard that has been held to represent "a commitment of the
maximum resources economically possible to the ultimate goal of eliminating all polluting
discharges," EPA v. Nat'l Crushed Stone Ass'n, 449 U.S. 64, 74 (1980), including requiring the
582
-------
elimination of discharges of all pollutants" if "such elimination is technologically and
economically achievable," 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A).44
TBELs established pursuant to the BAT standard are intended to be techno logy-forcing, i.e., to
"result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all
pollutants." 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A); see also NRDC v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104, 123 (D.C. Cir.
1987) (stating that "the most salient characteristic of this [CWA] statutory scheme, articulated
time and again by its architects and embedded in the statutory language, is that it is technology-
forcing"). Courts have thus recognized that Congress intended for EPA to look to the best
operating facilities in the relevant class in determining technological availability. NRDC v. EPA,
863 D.2d 1420, 1426 (9th Cir. 1988); Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d 445, 448 (4th Cir. 1985)
(stating that "[i]n setting BAT, EPA uses not the average plant, but the optimally operating plant,
the pilot plant which acts as a beacon to show what is possible").
In determining BAT, EPA may deem a technology available if it is used at only one facility in
the industry class. Ass'n ofPac. Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 816 (9th Cir. 1980) (quoting the
House Report accompanying the 1983 amendments, which stated that "[i]t will be sufficient for
the purposes of setting the level of control under available technology, that there be one
operating facility which demonstrates that the level can be achieved"); FMC Corp. v. Train, 539
F.2d 973, 983-84 (4th Cir. 1976); Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027, 1058 (3d Cir.
1975).
EPA may also conclude that a technology is available if it is only in use in another industry class,
so long as it shows that that technology is transferable to the industry class for which it is
establishing BAT. Kennecott, 780 F.2d at 453 (giving the rationale for allowing BAT to be based
on technology in use outside the industry class that "[pjrogress would be slowed if EPA were
invariably limited to treatment schemes already in force at the plants which are the subject of the
rulemaking."); see also Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA, 760 F.2d 549, 562 (4th Cir. 1985). In order
to determine technological availability based on a technology's use outside the industry class,
however, EPA must also determine that the technology is transferable to the industry and make a
reasonable prediction that, if used in the industry, the technology will achieve effluent standards.
Tanner's Council of America, Inc. v. Train, 540 F.2d 1188, 1192 (4th Cir. 1976).
Finally, EPA may determine that a technology is available even if it is not in use in any industry.
Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 858 F.2d 261, 265 (5th Cir. 1988) (stating that under BAT, "a
process is deemed 'available' even if it is not in use at all"); FMC Corp., 539 F.2d at 983-84
(finding EPA justified in setting BAT for chemical oxygen demand based on performance data
from a single pilot plant).
44
Technology-based effluent limitations are a necessary minimum requirement for a permit "regardless of a
discharge's effect on water quality." Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 661 F.2d 340, 344 (5th Cir. 1981); see also PUD
No. 7,511 U.S. at 704 (state water quality standards are "supplementary" to required individual technology-based
limitations) (citing EPA v. Calif, ex. rel. Water Res. Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200, 205 n.12 (1976)); Hooker Chems. &
Plastics Corp. v. Train, 537 F.2d 620, 623 (2d Cir. 1976) (CWA "predicate^] pollution control on the application of
control technology on the plants themselves rather than on the measurement of water quality.").
583
-------
Response: EPA notes the commenter's legal citations and characterizations as to the basis for
making BAT determinations. As explained in the final VGP Fact Sheet, EPA believes that the
numeric technology based ballast water discharge limits are fully consistent with the applicable
factors for determining BAT. Please see §§ 1 and 2 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this
comment response document.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Late Comment? No
Comment: IV. EPA's Selection of BAT was Flawed
A. Technology Capable of Achieving IMO Standards is Not BAT
Our first major area of concern is with EPA's contemplated Best Available Technology (BAT)
determination that numeric technology-based effluent limitations (TBELs) for invasive species in
ballast water should be based on the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) proposed D-2
standards. We do not believe that EPA possesses a sound factual basis for this determination, in
the EPA Science Advisory Board report (SAB Report) or otherwise.
1. The EPA Science Advisory Board's (SAB's) assessment of ballast water management
systems (BWMSs) was flawed.
a) The SAB analyzed data from only a fraction of commercially available BWMSs.
The SAB panel concluded that "none of the assessed BWMS can meet a standard that is 100 or
1000 times more stringent" than the U.S. Coast Guard's proposed Phase 1 standard, which is
comparable to the IMO D-2 standard.57 The key word in this conclusion is the word "assessed."
The panel reviewed only a small subset of treatment technologies (in data packages provided by
EPA to the panel58) and did not review other information that might have been obtained
independently, including whole categories of treatment systems under development: For this
assessment, 51 individual BWMS were identified from prior reports (Albert et al. 2010; CSLC
2010; Lloyds Register 2010) to show the breadth and diversity of treatment approaches.
However, it is important to note that of the 51 BWMS listed, a large proportion are at early
conceptual/development stages (only approximately 15 to 20 have been tested onboard an active
vessel) and a few have recently been discounted because of logistic or performance challenges.
The Panel received information packages on 15 individual BWMS, but just nine BWMS were
considered to have reliable data for an assessment of performance.59
As a result, the Panel's analysis ignored at least 42 BWMS and numerous different approaches to
treating ballast water. In contrast to the Panel, the California State Lands Commission has
reviewed 60 BWMS and determined 18 systems had sufficient data to test for potential
compliance with California's more stringent ballast water quality standards.60 As a result of the
limited scope of the panel's review, its conclusion about the inability of BWMS to meet a
standard that is 100 or 1000 times more stringent than the Phase 1 standard deserves little
584
-------
credence, as does its conclusion that "wholly new systems need to be developed to meet
proposed standards that are 100 or 1000 times more stringent than Phase l."61 The panel's failure
to gather data resulted in a failure to produce a comprehensive evaluation ballast water treatment
technology.
b) The SAB's criteria for determining whether a BWMS can meet standards more stringent than
the IMO standards were unduly restrictive.
In adopting the conclusions of the SAB panel, EPA appears to be committing two fundamental
errors as it assessed whether ballast water treatment systems are capable of meeting discharge
standards more stringent than the IMO standards. First, EPA seems to be conflating the ability to
measure performance from ballast water treatment systems (e.g., detection limits) with the actual
ability of those systems to eliminate invasive species in ballast water effluent. Second, EPA
seems to have rejected without sufficient analysis the statistical method offered by Dr. Raymond
Vaughan of the New York State Attorney General's Office for testing ballast water treatment
system compliance with standards that are orders of magnitude more stringent than the IMO D-2
standards (i.e., lOx or lOOx more stringent). The SAB Report does not directly address Dr.
Vaughan's proposed method, although it does - in Appendix C of its report - dismiss (without
analysis) testing to more stringent standards on the ground that it would be "impracticable at this
point," because "test facilities in the U.S. typically analyze ~5 m3 of water per test" rather than
larger volumes that would be required to test to standards more stringent than IMO.62 This
purported "typical" behavior of current testing facilities is not sufficient justification for
assuming that existing ballast water treatment technologies cannot be tested for compliance with
the more stringent standards. Even if it is true that ballast water test facilities are not currently
configured to test more than five cubic meters of water at a time, the "summed Poisson method"
described by Miller, et al. (2011) - a paper relied on by EPA - describes an approach for
sampling ballast water from the same source in batches, then summing the results in order to
reach the appropriate level of statistical confidence that a particular concentration standard is
being met.63
Although Miller et al. applies this method to test for compliance to the IMO D-2 standards, as
Dr. Vaughan points out, there are no limitations inherent in the method that would prevent it
from being applied to test ballast water for compliance with more stringent standards. In New
York's comments to the SAB, Dr. Vaughan notes that New York has stated that the minimum
total sample volume needed to demonstrate compliance at 95% confidence with a lOOx IMO
standard is 30 m3 for organisms >50 [j,m and 30 ml for organisms 10-50 [j,m. New York
recognizes that larger volumes may be preferable [for testing compliance with a lOOx IMO
standard] but finds that these are the minimum sample volumes needed under a Poisson
distribution. The SAB report neither disagrees nor clearly acknowledges these minimum sample
volumes [for engaging in such testing].64 In February 2011, the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, using the same methods described by Dr. Vaughan, found that the
performance of at least one treatment system, made by Ecochlor, was "at or near the confidence
level needed to demonstrate compliance" with New York's Clean Water Act Section 401 water
quality based requirements that vessels meet standards equivalent to lOOx IMO.65 The New York
DEC has since referred to an additional ten treatment systems that have demonstrated the
"potential" to comply with discharge standards that are lOOx more stringent than IMO.66
585
-------
Nothing in the SAB Report directly addresses the validity of New York's determination, which
appears to us to be soundly reasoned. In selecting an "available" technology for BAT purposes,
EPA is not limited to those that are contemporaneously in use by the regulated industry.6 Data
from a "relevant pilot plant," or from just one operational source, could supply the requisite
support for the availability of a BAT standard.6 Accordingly, in the absence of a more
persuasive explanation from EPA, any BAT determination finding that existing ballast water
treatment technologies cannot out-perform the IMO D-2 standards would be arbitrary and
capricious.69 Although EPA claims that it does not have adequate data showing that ballast water
treatment systems are capable of meeting these more stringent standards, EPA has not done a
sufficient analysis of whether testing methods are available that would allow for confirmation
that existing technologies can out-perform the IMO D-2 standards. Based on the information
developed by New York State and submitted to the SAB panel, EPA should instead determine
that BAT for ballast water treatment systems requires establishment of a TBEL at least lOOx
more stringent than the IMO D-2 standards.
57
Letter from Dr. Deborah L. Swackhammer, Chair, Science Advisory Board, and Dr. Judith L. Meyer, Chair, SAB
Ballast Water Advisory Panel, to Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 2
(Jul. 12, 2011).
58 SAB Report at 30.
59 Id. at 36.
60 California State Lands Commission, "2011 Update: Ballast Water Treatment Systems For Use In California
Waters," at 33, available at http://www.slc.ca.gov/spec pub/mfd/ballast water/Documents/201 ITechUpdateFinal
lSep2011.pdf (last visited Feb. 5, 2012).
61 Letter from Dr. Deborah L. Swackhammer, Chair, Science Advisory Board, and Dr. Judith L. Meyer, Chair, SAB
Ballast Water Advisory Panel, to Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 2
(Jul. 12, 2011).
62 SAB Report at C-4.
63 A. Whitman Miller, et al., "Enumerating Sparse Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water: Why Counting to 10 Is Not
So Easy," 45 Envtl. Sci. & Tech. 3539, 3539-3546 (2011).
64 New York Comments to SAB, March 15, 2011.
65 Letter from James M. Tierney, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Water Resources, New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (Feb. 7, 2011).
66 Letter from Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, to
Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Oct. 20, 2011).
67 Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 858 F.2d 261, 264 (5th Cir. 1988); Am. Paper Inst. v. Train, 543 F.2d 328, 353
(D.C. Cir. 1976).
68 Ass'n ofPac. Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 816 (9th Cir. 1980); Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027,
1058 (3d Cir. 1975).
69
See, e.g., Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)
(holding that an agency decision that "entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem" was arbitrary
and capricious); NRDC v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104, 111 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ("[A]n agency rule is arbitrary and capricious if
the agency relies upon improper factors, ignores important arguments or evidence, fails to articulate a reasoned basis
for the rule, or produces an explanation that is 'so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or
the product of agency expertise.").
Response: With respect to concerns about use of the IMO Regulation D-2 standard, including
concerns regarding comments filed by the State of New York on the SAB report, Please see § 1
of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
586
-------
With respect to concerns about the information and studies used for determining BAT for
ballast water discharges, please see § 2 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment
response document. Regarding claims the SAB "Panel's analysis ignored at least 42 BWMS
and numerous different approaches to treating ballast water," EPA notes that the SAB
considered 51 systems, but found there was reliable data for only 9 of these. With respect to the
SAB report in§ 2 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.;
EPA also notes the SAB considered a variety of treatment approaches (see Table 4-1 of SAB
Report), nor did commenter identify a treatment approach that the SAB should have, but did
not, consider. With respect to the California State Lands Commission finding that "18 systems
had sufficient data to test for potential compliance with California's more stringent ballast water
quality standards," EPA notes that the California report was intended to identify systems with
the potential to meet the California standards and does not state the criteria or process for
determining how data was deemed sufficient for that purpose. EPA further notes that: 1) The
SAB report (§§ 3 and 4.2) explains how it determined data were reliable and may have had a
higher threshold for determining that data were reliable than the California State Lands
Commission report, and 2) the SAB only considered data that vendors agreed to make
publically available (California agreed if requested to not release data it considered for public
review). Moreover, as discussed in the VGP fact sheet and elsewhere in this response to
comment document, California considered whether systems have the potential to meet their
limits (which means these systems may not meet their limits on 50% or more of replicates).
EPA also notes that the California reports were considered by and cited to by the SAB panel,
yet the lack of availability of reliable data hampered the SAB's ability to consider the
performance of additional systems. As part of its BAT analysis, the Agency also considered the
California report, its summary of systems, and its conclusions. EPA found that, though this
report is a good compilation of summary data of ballast water treatment systems, the analytical
approach {potential to meet a standard) is insufficient for evaluating availability of technology
and for establishing a numeric limit in the context of a Clean Water Act BAT standard.
Finally, EPA notes that the California Standards discussed by the commenter were not
"developed in a Clean Water Act context or upon consideration of the CWA's BAT factors, but
rather, are limits established under separate and independent California State Law. Please see
section 10.1.1 of this comment response document for further discussion.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Late Comment? No
Comment: V. EPA's Phased Compliance Schedule is Flawed
As a general rule, the CWA requires that dischargers comply immediately with all TBELs-based
on BAT, in furtherance of the statute's goal that all discharges of pollution ultimately be
587
-------
eliminated.91 Under EPA regulations, EPA may not use compliance schedules to extend this
statutory deadline.92
In the draft VGP, EPA attempts to circumvent this prohibition on compliance schedules for
TBELs on invasive species in ballast water based on a novel theory of phased BAT compliance:
i.e., that ballast water treatment systems are not yet "available" within the meaning of the statute
- despite the fact that many systems are in fact commercially available today - but that they will
become "available" for statutory compliance purposes according to the schedule that has already
been proposed by the IMO and the U.S. Coast Guard for compliance with IMO D-2 standards.93
This proposed schedule contemplates that the smallest category of vessels (less than 1500 cubic
meters) and the largest category of vessels (greater than 5000 cubic meters) will be required to
install ballast water treatment systems by the time of their first drydocking after 2016, and that
the middle category of vessels (between 1500 and 5000 cubic meters) will be required to install
ballast water treatment systems by the time of their first drydocking after 2014.9 EPA states in
the Fact Sheet that it "has determined that it is not possible for all vessels equipped with ballast
water tanks to install ballast water treatment systems by December 19, 2013, due to worldwide
limitations in drydock capacity and ballast water treatment capacity to manufacture sufficient
numbers of systems for all vessels to install within a two year period."95
EPA's purported "determination" that a more rapid implementation schedule than that proposed
by the IMO and the Coast Guard is not "economically achievable" does not appear to be based
on an independent analysis that is well supported within the permit record. As noted above, BAT
is a stringent treatment standard that has been held to represent "a commitment of the maximum
resources economically possible to the ultimate goal of eliminating all polluting discharges."96
In establishing the BAT implementation schedule for the draft VGP, EPA does not appear to
have made its own findings as to how quickly vessels could install ballast water treatment
systems if they devoted "the maximum resources economically possible" to that goal. Rather,
EPA seems to have simply taken the industry's word for it that a more rapid implementation
schedule would not be achievable, stating in the Fact Sheet that it "did consider accelerating" its
compliance schedule for ballast water TBELs in the draft VGP but "decided against doing so,
based on concerns that altering the anticipated [IMO compliance] schedule at this late a date
could disrupt the industry's prior planning and perhaps even result in further delays."97 Such
uncritical deference to the shipping industry's "prior planning" is not consistent with the CWA's
mandate that, after 1989, BAT be implemented immediately to reduce and ultimately eliminate
pollution as rapidly as is economically possible. Nor is EPA's sole reliance on two PowerPoint
presentations from the same industry-sponsored conference in the Netherlands - one from a
shipping industry consultant and the other from the Marine Director of the German Shipowners'
Association - to conclude that "additional challenges associated with retrofitting the large
number of vessels that will need to install treatment technologies" justify adoption of the IMO's
implementation schedule.98 It is also worth noting that EPA did not even attempt to analyze any
more rapid implementation scenarios in its Economic and Benefits Analysis for the draft VGP;
instead, "EPA assumed that no additional vessels will install a [ballast water treatment system] to
comply specifically with the VGP discharge standards."99
588
-------
In particular, the draft VGP's allowance for vessels to comply with IMO ballast water discharge
standards only after their first drydocking after a given compliance deadline is a significant and
unjustified delay. As EPA notes in the Fact Sheet, most vessels typically drydock on a three to
five year cycle. 00 Thus, EPA has proposed to allow vessels an additional three to five year
period before having to comply with IMO ballast water discharge standards, based on the
assumption that any shipboard ballast water management system would have to be installed
during the vessel's scheduled drydocking.101
There does not appear to be adequate support for this assumption in the permit record, however.
On the contrary, when the Coast Guard evaluated this issue in 2009, it stated in its Preliminary
Regulatory Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis that "[n]one of the proposed
systems" for ballast water treatment analyzed by the Coast Guard "requires the vessel to be
drydocked."102 The same document states that "[ojnce the regulatory regime is articulated and
actual production and installation have begun, we [i.e., the Coast Guard] consider it relatively
easy to install a treatment system."103 Moreover, the American Bureau of Shipping has found
that, although "most systems will require some out of service time for the ship in order to
complete the installation[,]... none of those currently on the market is likely to require
drydocking."104
Additionally, Hyde Marine, one of the leading ballast water treatment technology suppliers,
asserts in its vendor literature that the Hyde GUARDIAN system has the advantages of "small
space and ease of installation.. .Interface with the existing ballast system is simple and many
installations are completed without requiring drydock and even while the vessel is in commercial
operation."105 Another manufacturer, Marenco Technology Group Inc., also states that its ballast
water treatment system requires "[n]o vessel down time to install and minimal modification."106
EPA must evaluate these and other ballast water treatment systems, prior to finalizing the draft
VGP, to determine whether any systems can be installed on vessels without drydocking. If there
are in fact available ballast water treatment systems whose installation does not require
drydocking, then EPA must revise its BAT determination and compliance schedule accordingly.
More broadly, EPA should not allow for unjustified delays in requiring compliance with the
TBELs that it has established for invasive species in ballast water discharges. Before finalizing
the draft VGP, EPA must evaluate whether its proposed implementation schedule for ballast
water TBELs is consistent with the CWA's mandate that, after 1989, BAT be implemented
immediately to reduce and ultimately eliminate pollution as rapidly as is economically possible.
Specifically, EPA must make a finding that its BAT implementation schedule represents "a
commitment of the maximum resources economically possible" to reducing or eliminating
invasive species in ballast water, rather than (as it seems to have done here) a schedule that will
minimize burdens on the shipping industry. If EPA is unable to make such a finding based on
independent analysis, then EPA should compress the implementation timeline and require that
technology-based effluent limitations be met on the date that the new permit goes into effect.
Q1
See 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b) (requiring compliance with BAT effluent limitations no later than March 31, 1989).
92
See 40 C.F.R. § 122.47 ("Any schedules of compliance under this section shall require compliance as soon as
possible, but not later than the applicable statutory deadline under the CWA.").
93 Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 81, 106-108.
94 Draft VGP § 2.2.3.5.2.
589
-------
Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 81.
96 EPA v. Nat'I Crushed Stone Ass'n, 449 U.S. 64, 74 (1980).
97 Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 106.
98
PowerPoint presentation by Henrik Bacher, Elomatic Consulting & Engineering, "How to Choose and Integrate
Best System that Fulfills Your Requirements," 4th Ballast Water Management Summit, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands (2011), Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0037; PowerPoint presentation by Capt. Wolfgang
Hintzsche, Marine Director, German Shipowners' Association, "Addressing Retrofit and Operational Challenges of
BWT-Systems," 4th Ballast Water Management Summit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2011), Docket No.
EPAHQ- OW-2011-0141-0127.
99
Economic and Benefits Analysis at 68.
100 Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 107.
101 See Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 107 ("EPA expects that most existing vessels will need to enter a drydock to install
a ballast water management system...").
102
U.S. Coast Guard Office of Standards Evaluation and Development, Preliminary Regulatory Analysis and Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (June 2008), Doc. No. USCG-2001-10486-0140.1, at 49.
103 rj t rn
Id. at 59.
104
American Bureau of Shipping, "Eagle - Ballast Water Treatment Advisory," 27 (2010).
105 Hyde GUARDIAN Ballast Water Treatment System, at 2, available at
http://www.hvdemarine.com/ballast water/documents/HvdeMarine225Brochure.pdf (last visited Feb. 6, 2012).
106 Marenco Technology Group, Why Choose Marenco, available at http://www.marencogroup.com/about.html.
Response: With respect to concerns about the schedule for implementing the BAT ballast
water numeric discharge standards, Please see § 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this
comment response document. As explained in § 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this
comment response document, EPA appropriately considered a variety of factors relevant to
determining whether and when treatment systems were economically achievable. EPA
disagrees with commenter's suggestion that the Agency should have rejected information
simply because it came from the shipping industry. EPA independently evaluated this
information in determining BAT standards for ballast water as well the schedule for
implementing those standards. EPA's determinations regarding BAT are fully consistent with
the statute and caselaw. Additionally, regarding the assertion that "EPA assumed that no
additional vessels will install a [ballast water treatment system] to comply specifically with the
VGP discharge standards," the final VGP will require installation for certain vessels not
required to install it under the U.S. Coast Guard's finalized implementation schedule. EPA has
incorporated discussion and relevant costs in the final economic analysis.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Late Comment? No
Comment: IX. EPA's Failure to Determine BAT for Lakers Violates the Clean Water Act
EPA has decided not to subject vessels built before January 1, 2009, operating exclusively within
the Great Lakes to the numeric discharge limitations in § 2.2.3.5 of the VGP.145 EPA justifies
590
-------
this decision on the "challenges of installing ballast water treatment systems appropriate for
these vessels."146
Curiously, these "challenges" failed to spur EPA to consider one of the treatment alternatives it
acknowledged, but summarily dismissed, in selecting the BAT for oceangoing vessels: onshore
treatment. For all the reasons stated above with respect to oceangoing vessels, EPA must
evaluate this method in its BAT determination for lakers and require the most stringent effluent
limitation achievable.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the SAB panel did not exhaustively examine the issue of
ballast water treatment in lakers, and thus did not conclude anything about a "lack of currently
available ballast water treatment systems appropriate for these vessels."147 A number of existing
shipboard treatment systems could potentially be applicable on lakers (e.g., deoxygenation,
filtration/UV treatment),148 and even if in some cases adequate hold times were not available
(e.g. on shorter voyages) for a particular technology, differential requirements could potentially
be adopted. The SAB panel did not evaluate in any detail whether any of these treatment systems
are available to lakers; the SAB panel simply listed (in a single paragraph, without any
supporting citations) several "limitations" that may prevent lakers from utilizing shipboard
ballast water treatment systems.149 As the SAB panel did not analyze this issue, EPA must do its
own independent analysis of whether these ballast water treatment systems are in fact available
for lakers.
In addition, EPA notes in the Fact Sheet that shipboard testing of a ballast water treatment
system was conducted in August 2011, on a laker vessel by the Great Ships Initiative.150 As data
from a "relevant pilot plant," or from just one operational source, could supply the requisite
support for the availability of a BAT standard,1 1 EPA must consider the findings of this research
as soon as they become available - as well as any other research or data on the ability of lakers to
implement ballast water treatment systems collected before the draft VGP is finalized - and
modify its BAT determination accordingly.
Although laker vessels do not play a primary role in introducing invasive species into the Great
Lakes, these vessels take up and discharge billions of gallons of ballast water every year as they
travel from port to port within the Great Lakes, thus playing a significant role in spreading
invasive species after they have been introduced.152 Roughly 90% of the commercial shipping
operations in the Great Lakes area are domestic, and lakers account for over 95% of the volume
of ballast water transferred.153 Thus, although lakers may not introduce non-indigenous species
to the Great Lakes ecosystem as a whole, they transport invasive species to portions of the
ecosystem where they were not found, dispersing them wider and faster that those species could
have spread on their own.154
Lakers are especially suited to transport invasive species for two reasons. First, they move the
water over relatively short distances and thus do not keep it in their ballast tanks for a long time,
leading to a high survival rate for the organisms inside.1 5 Secondly, empirical evidence shows
that 30% of the ballast water for lakers is loaded in Detroit, Nanticoke (Ontario), Indiana Harbor
and Cleveland, while most of it (56%) is discharged in Superior, Duluth, Two Harbors, Stoneport
591
-------
and Calcite ports. 156 This leads to a conclusion that a lot of ballast water transfer goes upstream,
transporting invasive species at a rate far greater than they could achieve on their own.15
A report by the Canadian government shows that lakers could serve as a vector for primary
introduction of non-indigenous species to ports on the Great Lakes by moving ballast water
sourced from ports on the St. Lawrence River, if taxa native to ports on the St. Lawrence River
are non-indigenous to the Great Lakes, or if ports on the St. Lawrence River serve as sites for the
primary introduction and establishment of taxa that are non-indigenous to both regions.158
Just as importantly, while only 1% of lakers transport water from St. Lawrence River ports to
Great Lakes, the absolute volume is equivalent to the contribution by coastal and transoceanic
vessels combined.159
145 Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 111.
146 Id.
147 Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 111.
148
See, e.g., Tamburri, M.N. & Ruiz, G.M, 2005, Evaluations of a Ballast Water Treatment to Stop Invasive
Species and Tank Corrosion. Paper No. 2005-D09; Albert, R., R. Everett, J. Lishman, and D. Smith, 2010,
Availability and Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Technology: Background and Issue Paper, U.S. EPA and U.S.
Coast Guard, Washington, D.C.
149 SAB Report at 40.
150 Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 111.
151 Ass'n ofPac. Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 816 (9th Cir. 1980); Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027,
1058 (3d Cir. 1975).
152
See Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Comments Received on the Draft Section 401
Water Quality Certification (Dec. 8, 2008), available at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wb-swas-
401certresponse_258951_7.pdf (Response to Comment 2); Rup et al., Domestic Ballast Operations on the Great
Lakes: Potential Importance of Lakers as a Vector for Introduction and Spread of Non-indigenous Species, Can. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 67(2): 256-268 (2010).
153 Id.
|54 Id.
See id. (With many intra-regional transits taking less than 24 hours, and typical inter-regional sailing times of 3-
4 days, plankton survival in ballast tanks of lakers is expected to be very high).
156 Id.
151 Id.
158
S.A. Bailey, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Report on Domestic Ballast Water Study - Phase 2 (Fiscal Year
2008-2009) at 7, available at http://www.piersvstem.com/posted/443/Appendix3FisheriesandOceansCanadaRoleof
DomesticBallasfWaterStudvPhase2.355926.pdf.
159 Id.
Response: With respect to concerns about Lakers, please see § 3 of the response essay in
section 9.1.2 of this comment response document as well as sections 9.1.4 and 9.1.5 of this
comment response document. With respect to the commenter's apparent dismissal of the SAB
report's discussion of characteristics of Laker vessels as limiting the availability treatment
systems, EPA notes that commenter does not suggest that the characteristics described in the
SAB report are incorrect. As discussed in § 4.4.3.5.6.3 of the final VGP Fact Sheet, EPA
considered such characteristics, as well as the availability of ballast water treatment systems
designed to operate in the Great Lakes cold, freshwater environment in making its BAT
592
-------
determination for Lakers. Regarding commenter's discussion that EPA must consider data from
a prototype ballast water treatment system on a Laker vessel as soon as they become available,
as of the writing of this comment, those data had not yet been released.
Comment: Part 2.2.3.5.2. Schedule for When Ballast Water Treatment becomes BAT (and
Therefore Required)
With respect to the installation schedule proposed by EPA, we re-iterate that we cannot meet this
time frame given the current state of technology development for the Great Lakes. The timeline
for new vessels to install BWTS is particularly troubling for Algoma. The requirement for new
vessels currently under construction to implement BWTS by the time of permit issuance on
December 18, 2013 is not possible to meet. To further illustrate this, according to a recent report
commissioned by the St Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.6
"It is not possible for owners of new vessels as defined by the EPA (constructed after January 1,
2012) to comply with the proposed implementation schedule which requires all new vessels to be
delivered with a BWMS which has been tested in accordance with the ETV Protocol. As noted
above, it will take a minimum of 20 months before a BWMS has completed testing in
accordance with the Protocol. Therefore, vessel owners who will be receiving new build ships
before 2015 will be unable to comply with the VGP2 because no BWMSs meeting the EPA's
own requirements will be available. Furthermore, since it will take approximately 30 months,
and more likely 36 months, from the effective date of the IFR before any BWMSs are Type
Approved by the Coast Guard, vessel owners will not voluntarily install systems until mid to late
2015 at the earliest."
Although EPA has stated that they will accept foreign administration type-approvals meeting
certain conditions, Algoma is not aware of any fresh-water type approved systems suitable for
our use. Further, without confirmation of compliance with U.S. approval requirements, we
cannot confidently invest in such systems.
This is a significant concern to Algoma, as we are currently investing $300M in new-vessel
construction. The construction of our new Equinox Class ships is well underway with the first of
the ships to be delivered in 2013. These ships will be state of the art and employ new hull forms,
energy efficient engines and advanced waste water management systems. They are also designed
to have sufficient space for BWMS once suitable systems become available. We point out that
these new vessels have been designed as Lakers to operate only in the Great Lakes (i.e. not
beyond Anticosti Island as defined above). Therefore, an alternative risk management approach
should be considered for these vessels, as discussed above. At the very least a reasonable
Commenter Name:
Algis Vanagas, Senior Vice-President Technical, Algoma
Central Corporation
Algoma Central Corporation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1
8
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
593
-------
installation schedule that includes adequate time to identify feasible systems that are USCG type-
approved for use in the Great Lakes and commercially available is required.
We note also that the requirement to implement treatment on existing vessels within the
prescribed schedule is also challenging. Given the issues noted above with regards to the lack of
type-approved and suitable systems, these timelines, particularly for those of our existing vessels
with ballast tank capacities between 1,500 and 5,000 cu. m. (which has the earlier timeline of
installation of BWTS by first dry dock after 2014), cannot reasonably be met.
6 Report to St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Regarding Ballast Water Type Approval Process and
Obstacles Associated with Installation of Non-Coast Guard Type Approved Ballast Water Management Systems, by
International Maritime Environmental & Safety Associates, Jan. 9, 2012.
Response: With respect to concerns about the schedule for implementing the BAT ballast
water numeric discharge standards, please see § 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 and the
response essay in section 9.1.1 of this comment response document. With respect to issues of
applicable treatment limits for existing and new Lakers, please see sections 9.1.4 and 9.1.6 of
this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Anonymous Public Comment
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: The five or so technologies available today combined with a lack of technology
standards do not provide an effective solution for smaller vessels. The treatment options are still
being developed primarily for large tankers and cruise ships which can exchange millions of
gallons of water at a time, not 70,000 gallons or less for a smaller commercial fishing vessel.
While we fully appreciate the threat of non-native invasive organisms, the risk of invasive
species being transported between the Pacific Northwest and the Bering Sea is mostly due to
large foreign tankers or freighters, not commercial fishing vessels that remain exclusively in
those waters and which use the continuous overflow method for ballast management.
Response: EPA has revised the final VGP in order to address concerns expressed about the
inability of smaller vessels to install ballast water treatment technologies. As explained in the
Final VGP Fact Sheet at § 4.4.3.5.6.4 and in section 9.1.1 of this comment response document,
inland and seagoing vessels less than 1,600 GRT are not subject to the VGP's ballast water
numeric technology based limits. See, final VGP § 2.2.3.5.3.4.
Commenter Name: Christian LaPense, Dann Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation: Dann Marine Towing
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
594
-------
Late Comment? No
Comment: Extend the BAT Schedule
If EPA chooses not to exempt towing vessels from ballast water numeric discharge limits, Dann
Marine towing requests it to extend the schedule for when ballast water treatment becomes Best
Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT). Contrary to the discussion in Section
4.4.3.5.5 of the Fact Sheet, domestic towing vessel owners and operators who are not subject to
International Maritime Organization (IMO) requirements have not been "engaging in the multi-
year planning necessary to implement the IMO standards on the IMO schedule" and are not "thus
[...] on track to have treatment technologies installed on that schedule." Further, the U.S. Coast
Guard's final rule for ballast water has not been published and, although it is an outgrowth of a
2009 proposed rule that would apply to towing vessels, its ultimate content is uncertain. Dann
Marine Towing cannot reasonably be expected to invest tens of thousands of dollars in the
identification, procurement, and installation of untested and uncertified ballast water treatment
technology that may not be required, either on existing vessels or vessels currently under
construction. Therefore, if towing vessels are not exempted from numeric discharge limitations
for ballast water, Dann Marine Towing requests that EPA extend the BAT schedule by five years
for towing vessels in consideration of the lack of imminently enforceable standards for ballast
water treatment, as well as the current unavailability of ballast water treatment systems, for this
vessel class.
Response: With respect to concerns about applicability of ballast water discharge standards to
towing vessels and smaller vessels, please see § 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 and
section 9.1.1 of this comment response document. With respect to the Coast Guard final rule
and commenter's request for a 5 year extension if towing vessels are not exempted, EPA further
notes that the Coast Guard final rule was promulgated in March 2012 (77 Fed. Reg. 17254) and
establishes an implementation schedule. The implementation schedule contained in the final
VGP is consistent with the Coast Guard implementation schedule and reflects a determination
by EPA that such schedule reflects BAT. Please see § 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of
this comment response document. Though EPA believes that the vast majority, if not all, towing
vessels are under 1600 GRT, for those vessels which could be greater than 1600 GRT, EPA
declines to extend such schedule by a 5 year period, as EPA has found that those larger vessels
are not within the class of vessels identified by commenter for which technology is not
available.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0497-A1
5
No
Comment: 2. The technology based effluent limitations for ballast water discharges should be
based on best available technologies.
595
-------
It is appropriate that "technology based effluent limitations" (TBELs) be based upon "best
available technologies" (BAT). The draft VGP indicates that the IMO 02 standard is achievable
by the current BAT. As will be discussed below, however, the data also shows that there are
existing "Type-Approved" systems capable of treating ballast water to a more stringent standard.
Since there is documented data that the IMO 02 standard is ineffective in dealing with significant
potential AIS transported in ballast tanks, EPA should adopt a more stringent technology-based
standard that can be met by existing systems.
The California State Lands Commission issued a Report: 2011 Update: Ballast Water Treatment
Systems for use in California Waters, September 1, 2011 (Enclosed) (CSLC Report) that
evaluated 60 treatment technologies. The CSLC Report found that there are at least 10 ballast
water treatment systems currently available that have demonstrated the "potential" to meet
California's statutory standard of no detectable living organisms in the discharge. Several of
these systems are presently able to meet a standard that is significantly greater than the IMO D2
standard.
DEC conducted its own evaluation of test data from seven of the ballast water treatment systems
that were deemed by the CSLC Report as 'potentially' able to meet California's "no detectable
living organisms" discharge standard. Of the seven systems evaluated by DEC, three systems
(Ecochlor, JFE Engineering and NK Company Ltd) have been found by DEC staff to be able to
meet at least a lOx IMO standard with a 99% confidence level, and two of the systems (Ecochlor
and NK Company Ltd) were shown to be capable of meeting a lOOx IMO standard with a 58%
confidence level given existing data that is available. Furthermore, all of these systems have
already received Type Approval7 for general installation (see Enclosure). This information shows
that several proven technologies are available to meet a standard at least one order of magnitude
more protective than the IMO D2 standard.
To address these concerns and to appropriately move the state of treatment technology forward,
New York respectfully requests that EPA work collaboratively with affected states and adopt the
following standards and requirements in the VGP:
• A lOOx IMO discharge standard implemented by June I, 2016, with provision for a
different compliance schedule if justified based on unavailability of technology;
• A voluntary discharge standard of lOx IMO by June 1,2014;
• Grandfather until 2024 those vessels deploying lOx IMO systems prior to June 1,2014;
• Continue to require ballast water ocean exchange and flushing nationally;
7
"Type-Approved" means that a credible nation has reviewed and approved a particular technology as being safe
for installation on a ship (e.g., that it achieves appropriate safety criteria). The United States does not currently have
a process for issuing type approvals. A reference is set forth in Enclosure A to the nation that Type-Approved each
of the three technologies focused on in that Enclosure.
Response: With respect to assertions that there are existing type approved systems capable of
meeting a more stringent limit than the IMO Regulation D-2 standard, Please see § 1 and 2 of
the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document. For reasons discussed
in that essay, EPA does not believe that the New York analysis is appropriate to use for
596
-------
establishing more stringent technology based limits in this permit term. As EPA disagrees with
the commenter's assertion that such systems are (or will be, in keeping with commenter's
schedule) available, EPA did not adopt the suggested standards. Please also see section 9.1.1 of
this comment response document. EPA does not agree with commenter's assertion that the D-2
standard is ineffective in dealing with AIS transported in ballast tanks, nor does commenter
provide the data referred to in that comment. With respect to grandfathering of treatment
technologies, please see § 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response
document. With respect to continuing to require ballast water exchange and flushing, see
discussion of ballast water exchange and saltwater flushing requirements as set out in § 4.4.3.6
of the final VGP fact Sheet. With respect to California ballast water standards, please see
section 9.1.1 and 9.1.9 in this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0497-A1
7
No
Comment: Require use of other reasonable and effective management practices to limit aquatic
invasive introductions prior to implementation of the lOOx IMO discharge standards.
These standards and requirements provide flexibility to the industry by authorizing vessels to
install any of the current technologies that demonstrated the ability to meet and exceed a lOx
IMO level of treatment. By grandfathering until 2024 those vessels that implement technology
early, technologies would be brought to market earlier, reduced in cost through mass production
and otherwise scaled up for implementation at an accelerated rate. Such an approach fosters the
more immediate installation of ballast water treatment technology to greatly abate the
introduction and spread of AIS. Considering the threats posed by AIS, the benefits of a stronger
national standard would be significant.
Ballast water treatment technologies are rapidly advancing to combat AIS transported in ballast
water. As more of these technologies become commercially available, the cost of retrofitting
treatment systems on a vessel will decrease.
While DEC supports EPA's efforts to review the status of ballast water treatment technology, the
report issued by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB Report) does not account for the current
capability of existing ballast water treatment technologies. This is in part due to the fact that only
nine data sets were reviewed in detail, one of which was for a system no longer available in the
commercial market. The SAB Report did not adequately address the need for a formal test
protocol that is more stringent than the IMO D2 standard. The SAB Report did not recognize the
documented progress already achieved by certain treatment systems and lacks a consistent and
straightforward statistical approach. The SAB Report draws overly broad conclusions for the
limited scope of the analysis that was undertaken. In combination, these issues prevent the SAB
597
-------
Report from being a valid assessment of the current, or future, capabilities of ballast water
treatment systems to surpass the IMO D2 standard.
The data supports the conclusion that there are commercially available systems which can
currently meet a lOx IMO standard, three of which are Type-Approved by major shipping
nations. Furthermore, two of the Type-Approved systems may already be capable of achieving a
lOOx IMO standard. For these reasons, the IMO 02 standard proposed in the VGP does not
appear to represent an appropriate TBEL for achieving BAT requirements.
Response: With respect to concerns about use of the IMO Regulation D-2 standard, Please see
§ 1 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
With respect to concerns about the information and studies used for determining BAT for
ballast water discharges, including the SAB study, statistical issues, and asserted limited scope
of SAB analysis, please see § 2 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response
document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
6
No
Comment: Extend the BAT Schedule
If EPA chooses not to exempt towing vessels from the numeric discharge limits for ballast water,
AWO urges the agency to extend the schedule for when ballast water treatment is determined to
be Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT). Contrary to the discussion in
Section 4.4.3.5.5 of the Fact Sheet, domestic towing vessel operators who are not subject to
International Maritime Organization requirements have not been "engaging in the multi-year
planning necessary to implement the IMO standards on the IMO schedule" and are not "thus [...]
on track to have treatment technologies installed on that schedule."28 Furthermore, the U.S.
Coast Guard's final rule on ballast water discharge standards has not been published and,
although it is an outgrowth of a 2009 proposed rule that would have applied to towing vessels, its
ultimate content is uncertain given the significant questions raised by commenters on the
proposed rule about the feasibility of installing ballast water treatment systems on such vessels.
(Indeed, AWO is aware that the Coast Guard had sufficiently serious questions about the ability
of towing vessels and barges to install ballast water treatment systems that the agency last year
commissioned a study, in which several AWO members participated, to understand the design
and operational limitations of these vessels.) AWO members cannot reasonably be expected to
invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the identification, procurement, and installation of
untested and uncertified ballast water treatment technology that may not be required, either on
existing vessels or vessels currently under construction. Therefore, if towing vessels are not
exempted from numeric discharge limitations for ballast water, AWO requests that EPA extend
the BAT schedule by five years for towing vessels in consideration of the lack of imminently
598
-------
enforceable standards for ballast water treatment, as well as the current unavailability of ballast
water treatment systems, for this vessel class.
28 Ibid., Part 4.4.3.5.5.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name: Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
Commenter Affiliation: The American Waterways Operators
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 22
Late Comment? No
Comment: Extend the BAT Schedule
If EPA chooses not to exempt towing vessels from the numeric discharge limits for ballast water,
AWO urges the agency to extend the schedule for when ballast water treatment is determined to
be Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT). Contrary to the discussion in
Section 4.4.3.5.5 of the Fact Sheet, domestic towing vessel operators who are not subject to
International Maritime Organization requirements have not been "engaging in the multi-year
planning necessary to implement the IMO standards on the IMO schedule" and are not "thus [...]
on track to have treatment technologies installed on that schedule."28 Furthermore, the U.S.
Coast Guard's final rule on ballast water discharge standards has not been published and,
although it is an outgrowth of a 2009 proposed rule that would have applied to towing vessels, its
ultimate content is uncertain given the significant questions raised by commenters on the
proposed rule about the feasibility of installing ballast water treatment systems on such vessels.
(Indeed, AWO is aware that the Coast Guard had sufficiently serious questions about the ability
of towing vessels and barges to install ballast water treatment systems that the agency last year
commissioned a study, in which several AWO members participated, to understand the design
and operational limitations of these vessels.) AWO members cannot reasonably be expected to
invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the identification, procurement, and installation of
untested and uncertified ballast water treatment technology that may not be required, either on
existing vessels or vessels currently under construction. Therefore, if towing vessels are not
exempted from numeric discharge limitations for ballast water, AWO requests that EPA extend
the BAT schedule by five years for towing vessels in consideration of the lack of imminently
enforceable standards for ballast water treatment, as well as the current unavailability of ballast
water treatment systems, for this vessel class.
28 Ibid., Part 4.4.3.5.5.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name: Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
599
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
4
No
Comment: 2. Availability of BWMS Approved by Both EPA and U.S. Coast Guard
Canada strongly supports the EPA's adoption of a BWMS installation timeline that is compatible
with that of the Convention, as this will support uniform implementation through the
simultaneous compliance of vessel owners with both international and U.S. requirements. While
timeline compatibility is important, the success of uniform implementation will also depend on
the timely commercial availability of approved BWMS acceptable to regulators around the
world. Canada understands that about 20 systems have received type approval under Convention
guidelines; none, however, are currently accepted by the U.S. To ensure uniform implementation
it is therefore critical that the U.S. rapidly identify acceptable treatment systems, as shipowners
and builders have indicated that they will not risk a large investment in installation of a BWMS
until it enjoys the approval of both EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard.
For these reasons, Canada would regret any permit requirement that existing BWMS undergo
lengthy retesting in accordance with the new U.S. Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) protocol.7 Such a requirement would pose two related problems. First, owing to the
concerns of shipowners described above, any retesting delay would set back the environmental
benefits of early ballast water treatment. Second, a lengthy retesting delay could jeopardize the
feasibility of installing treatment systems on the world fleet according to the international
timeline proposed in the U.S and adopted internationally. Lengthy delays would leave vessel
owners stuck between conflicting international and U.S. requirements, threatening the uniform
implementation of the Convention that is of benefit to all nations-including Canada and the U.S.
Thus, while Canada acknowledges the benefits of the detailed ETV protocol, these are
outweighed at present by the urgent need to identify the BW that will be acceptable for use in
U.S. waters. Canada would prefer that the EPA (and Coast Guard) base permit (and type-
approval) decisions for existing approved B n data collected for type approvals under the
Convention's guidelines. Canada would be pleased to partner with the U.S. in proposing
appropriate amendments to IMO guidelines for approval of future treatment systems.
Canada would prefer that the U.S. adopt a single position on ballasts; this not being the case,
Canada urges the EPA to work more closely with U.S. Coast Guard to ensure that the
requirements of both agencies, including for approval and type-approval, are consistent,
achievable within time provided,8 and are compatible with requirements and installation
timelines of the Convention. Canada regrets that the deadline for submitting these comments has
not allowed time for complete consideration of the interaction between the requirements of the
proposed permit and those of the long-anticipated final U.S. Coast Guard Standards for Living
Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters.
Canada noted references in the draft permit to requirements for non-type-approved systems.
Except for approved research and development activities, devices without type approvals will not
be accepted for use in Canadian waters.
600
-------
7
This new protocol is more detailed than the existing Convention guidelines for treatment system approval, and is
not yet complete. Canada understands that no systems have yet been tested under the final land-based portion of the
protocol, and that the ship-board portion of the protocol is still under development.
g
This concern is particularly pronounced for new ships as-despite the noted absence of BWMS accepted for use in
the U.S.-the draft permit already expects these vessels to have such systems onboard.
Response: EPA notes Canada's support for implementation timelines compatible with the IMO
Ballast Water Convention, but notes that the US is not a signatory to that Convention, nor has it
entered into force internationally. The timelines reflected in the final VGP, while largely
consistent with those in the Convention, are not identical, and are based upon EPA's
determination of BAT in accordance with the requirements of the CWA. Please see § 4 of the
response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document for further discussion of
schedule issues. With respect to comments on type approval and equipment testing protocols,
please see § 5 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document. EPA
notes Canada's statement that devices without type approvals will not be accepted for use in
Canadian waters, and further notes that this matter is outside the scope of the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
17
No
Comment: Treatment System Testing
The importance of a scientific basis for ballast water management cannot be overstated. Canada
believes strongly that performance of ballast water treatment systems must be objectively
testable, using recognized protocol in bench-top, land-based, and ship-based conditions. One
internationally accepted testing protocol has been developed for the Convention's D-2 standard,
and one is in development by the U.S. Environmental Technology Verification program.
There is no accepted testing protocol for detection of organisms in ballast water below the
Convention's D-2 thresholds. Indeed, such a protocol is not currently feasible, given the volumes
of water that would be required for statistical confidence. Canada requests that the U.S. impose
no numerical requirements more stringent than the Convention's requirements at this time. A
shipowner attempting in good faith to meet more stringent requirements today faces a real risk
that advancements in testing science will subsequently demonstrate non-compliance. In light of
the joint ballast water inspection program noted above, Canada invites the U.S. to discuss
bilterally its plans to ensure compliance with any numerical ballast water requirements.
Response: With respect to comments on equipment testing protocols, please see § 5 of the
response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document. With respect to Canada's
request that the U.S. impose no numerical requirements more stringent than the Convention's
requirements at this time, EPA notes that the technology based numeric limits for ballast water
discharges as set out in § 2.2.3.5 of the final VGP are consistent with the Convention's
601
-------
Regulation D-2 Standard. With respect to Canada's request to bilaterally discuss plans to ensure
compliance with numerical ballast water requirements, EPA notes that such a request is outside
the scope of the final VGP, but also note that there has been a long-standing history of
cooperation with Canada on ballast water related matters and we expect such cooperation would
continue in the future.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William R. Barr, Vice President Safety & Compliance,
Amherst Madison, Inc.
Amherst Madison, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0524-A1
2
No
Comment: Regarding ballast water, our company has some vessels that carry ballast water, but
we maintain it in a static state; neither add to nor discharge and would only discharge or intake
within the same COTP zone. Seven boats carry a combined total of approximately 65,000
gallons of ballast water or approximately 8,400 cubic feet of water. As you can see our
utilization is small. Ballast water treatment systems for inland towing vessel applications have
not yet been developed and installation of current sea going ballast water treatment systems
would be impracticable because of limited space and limited amounts of water to be discharged.
Since we maintain this water in a "static state," installation of a treatment system would be
impractical. Using public drinking water for ballast purposes poses a long-term structural
problem to the vessel, because public drinking water is treated with chlorine which is corrosive
to steel.
Towing vessels and barges need to be exempt from numeric discharge limitations for ballast
water as described in Part 2.2.3.5 of the proposed VGP.
Unmanned inland waterway barges generally do not carry ballast water to maintain trim, because
the water detracts from their overall tonnage that can be hauled; lost revenue. I am told on the
Illinois River near Chicago, occasionally empty barges have to be ballasted down to clear some
bridges as the travel to and from Chicago, but that water is taken on and discharged within the
same COTP zone above the fish barrier. Barge mounted ballast water treatment systems would
be impractical, due to the small amounts of bilge water accumulation and limited deck space to
house the ballast water discharge machinery.
Alternative ballast water management measures applied to inland waterway vessels will not work
and towing vessels need to be exempt from Part 2.2.3.5. We cannot meet the ballast water
management requirements that also include items listed in Parts 2.2.3.5.1.2, 2.2.3.5.1.3, and
2.2.3.5.1.4 in the proposed VGP. EPA acknowledges there are no known U. S. onshore treatment
facilities capable of meeting the standards of VGP 2.2.3.5.
Response: With respect to requests for exemptions of towing vessels and barges, please see § 3
of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document. With respect to
ballast water management requirements in VGP §§ 2.2.3.5.1.2 (onshore treatment), 2.2.3.5.1.3
602
-------
(use of public water supply), and 2.2.3.5.1.4 (no discharge), EPA notes that these were included
in the VGP as alternatives to treatment and discharge for those vessels that are otherwise
subject to the discharge limits in VGP § 2.2.3.5. As noted in the discussion in § 3 of the
response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document, EPA believes that existing
exemptions from VGP § 2.2.3.5 for unmanned unpowered barges, vessels engaged in short-
distance voyages, and inland and seagoing vessels less than 1,600 GRT are sufficient to address
the concerns related to towing vessels and barges.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
5
No
Comment: 3. Type Approval Of Ballast Water Treatment Systems
First and foremost, we greatly appreciate the clarity provided by the Draft 2013 VGP's assertion
that not discharging ballast water is a compliance option. This is an important point, as the option
of not discharging a particular substance (in this case, ballast water) is a logical interpretation of
the requirements a program whose very raison d'etre is to regulate discharges.
Response: The comment is noted and the final VGP continues to provide the no discharge
option.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
6
No
Comment: With respect to part 2.2.3.5 of the draft permit regarding the operation of ballast
water treatment systems, we are pleased to note that the EPA has followed the advice of the
National Academy of Science (in its report entitled Assessing the Relationship Between
Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast Water) and adopted standard specified in the
International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship's Ballast Water and
Sediments (the Ballast Water Convention).
However, the subsections which follow create some concern, as ballast water treatment systems
will have to undergo at least one level of U.S. federal government approval, despite the fact that
such approval processes have either not yet been used to test ballast water treatment technologies
(EPAETV protocol3) or are still being developed (USCG guidelines for ballast water treatment
systems approval4). As strong proponents of a shipping industry governed by an international
regulatory framework, we can only be alarmed at the Draft 2013 VGP's incorporation of
603
-------
regional requirements which cannot be immediately applied, and which discriminate against
ballast water treatment systems that have been approved by international authorities.
Furthermore, this additional approval requirement has the potential to create additional delays
with respect to installation. According to the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative,5 the
timeline for installing ballast water treatment technology will be three to five years even after a
national standard has been adopted and the approved technology becomes available. This is due
to the fact that the installation process comprises a number of steps, including:
• Vessel-specific evaluations;
• Ballast water treatment system selection;
• Design and installation plans;
• System purchase;
• Installation contractor selection; and
• Ballast water treatment system delivery and installation.
To make matters even worse, this requirement would be applicable to ships built after January 1,
2012, for a permit implementation date of December 19, 2013. This creates a logistical
nightmare for shipowners who are currently building ships, as they need to install technologies
that have not been approved in the U.S., and may eventually be denied approval if the domestic
protocols introduce new requirements.
We urge the EPA to include recognition of the international testing protocols in the 2012 VGP,
and join the Chamber of Shipping of America in recommending that any insufficiencies in these
protocols be addressed through the IMO.
3
http://www.epa.gov/etv/vt-wQP.html#bwtt.
4
At the May 18th, 2010 meeting of the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative in Montreal, it was mentioned that:
Even after IMO type approval, it will take the USCG 2.5-3 years to give final approval to a ballast water treatment
system. This is assuming it would take a year for shipboard testing, another year for making the final rule, and six
more months before the certification process was complete." http://www. greatlakesseawav.
com/en/pdf/Ballast Water Collaborative Meeting Report 05-18-10.pdf, p. 18.
http://www.greatlakes-seawav.com/en/pdf/Wisc DNR Report Dec 2010.pdf, p. 6.
Response: Commenter's support for the standard contained in the IMO Ballast Water
Management Convention is noted, and that standard is reflected in the final VGP. With respect
to concerns about type approval and testing protocol issues, please see § 5 of the response essay
in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document. With respect to commenter's concern with
"regional" requirements which "discriminate" against ballast water treatment systems that have
been approved by international authorities and the potential for approval requirements beyond
those used internationally to cause delays, we assume commenter is addressing the provisions
of § 2.2.3.5.1.1 of the draft VGP which would have required vessels utilizing a ballast water
treatment system to use a system shown to be effective by testing in accordance with the EPA-
ETV protocol. That provision has been modified in today's final VGP, and now provides that
systems used must be shown to be effective by testing conducted "by an independent third party
laboratory, test facility or test organization." This is consistent with approval requirements
established by the U.S. Coast Guard in their March 2012 ballast water rulemaking (77 FR
17254). Moreover, by providing for recognition of systems tested under the international
604
-------
protocols (the "G8 Guidelines") and which have received an "AMS" determination by the
USCG, the final VGP does allow for acceptance of systems tested under international protocols.
EPA believes that the provisions contained in the final VGP are sufficient to address
commenter's stated concerns. With respect to remedying deficiencies in testing protocols
through the IMP, EPA notes this issue is outside the scope of the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
15
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.1.1: Ballast Water Management using a Ballast Water Treatment System
We expect that the provisions included in this section will delay installation of ballast water
treatment systems on-board vessels, as approved systems have been tested according to the
Guidelines developed under the Ballast Water Convention.
Although we would have expected such systems to be recognized under the EPA Vessel General
Permit, it appears that no systems have been tested according to the ETV protocol so far, and that
the guidelines for shipboard testing are still under development. This creates tremendous
uncertainty because we are not clear as to when these guidelines will be ready. It also raises the
following questions: - Since the final version of the permit will become available in December
2012, is it feasible for all type-approved technologies to be re-tested within a year' time (before
the permit' implementation date)? - Upon implementation of the second version of the VGP, will
the EPA require ballast water treatment technologies to have been tested under both the
land-based and ship-based protocols?
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
21
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.2: Schedule for when Ballast Water Treatment Becomes BAT (and
Therefore Required)
As mentioned earlier, the adoption of the IMO standard contained in the Ballast Water
Convention provides much-needed certainty to both the regulated community and to technology
developers, and helps ensure progress in terms of development and approval of ballast water
treatment systems. However, we note that new vessels constructed after January 1, 2012, need to
605
-------
be compliant with this standard on delivery. We reiterate that there are currently no ballast water
treatments systems that have been type-approved by the U.S. federal government, and none of
the systems that are type approved by a foreign administration has undergone EPA-ETV
protocol. Moreover, the Draft 2013 VGP only becomes effective on December 19, 2013, which
effectively means that the EPA requires vessels constructed after January 1, 2012, to have ballast
water treatment systems on-board before the permit becomes effective, and before any systems
have received U.S. federal government approval.
Furthermore, there is no certainty that the soon to be released U.S. Coast Guard Final Rule on
ballast water will not include additional / different requirements. We cannot help but wonder
how shipowners and operators are supposed to comply with this requirement, and whether this
provision will have a net effect of discouraging new vessels from calling U.S. ports until such
approvals have been granted.
In response to the EPA's request at Part 4.4.3.5.1.1.3 of the Fact Sheet, we recommend that the
Agency reduce the monitoring frequency of vessels for which all type approval data has been
made available, even if such data was not obtained in accordance with the ETV protocol.
Response: With respect to concerns about the schedule for implementing the BAT ballast
water numeric discharge standards, please see § 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 and
section 9.1.1 of this comment response document. With respect to type-approval issues, please
see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1, excerpt 6. With respect to
reducing the monitoring frequency of vessels for which all type approval data has been made
available, even if not in accordance with the ETV protocol, EPA notes that as discussed in the
first paragraph of § 4.4.3.5.1.1.3 of the final VGP Fact Sheet, EPA has modified § 2.2.3.5.1.1.4
of the final VGP. That provision now provides for reduced monitoring frequency for vessels
with treatment systems that have high quality type approval data as described in that section of
the VGP, and is not limited to just data gathered in accordance with the ETV Protocol. With
respect to ballast water monitoring issues, please see section 9.1.10 of this comment response
document.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question #5: Do the controls in this permit represent Best Available Technology,
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology, and Best Practicable Control Technology
currently available or are other controls needed to meet these levels.
LCA Response: Except as otherwise noted in these comments, LCA supports the use of Best
Available Technology Economically Achievable as the most appropriate standard. As EPA notes
in the Draft VGP Fact Sheet, with regard to non-conventional pollutants, EPA must impose
limitations that reflect the "best available technology economically achievable." See Draft VGP
606
-------
Fact Sheet at 45. BAT is technology that is both (1) technologically available and (2)
economically achievable. See BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. v. EPA, 66 F.3d 784, 790 (6th Cir.
1995); NRDC v. EPA at 1426 (accepting EPA's determination that a particular technology was
not BAT, despite its technological feasibility). While EPA may treat technology that is not
presently in use by a given industry as available, there must be some indication in the
administrative record of the reasons for concluding that such technology will be feasible if
mandated. See Hooker Chem. & Plastics Corp. v. Train, 537 F.2d 620, 636 (2nd Cir. 1976)
(setting aside EPA promulgated ELGs because EPA failed to explain how the technology it
designated as BAT could be applied by the relevant industry).
In determining what is economically achievable, EPA must consider the impact on profitability
and loss of jobs. See BP Exploration & Oil at 796-98 (court upheld EPA's determination that an
available industry practice was not BAT due to unreasonably high costs); Waterkeeper Alliance,
Inc v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486, 515-18 (2nd Cir. 2005) (EPA acted reasonably in rejecting
technologies that although available would have resulted in 11% facility closures industry-wide).
In developing technology-based effluent limits based on BAT, EPA must consider (1) the age of
the equipment and facilities involved, (2) the process employed, (3) the engineering aspects of
the application of various types of control techniques, (4) process changes, (5) the cost of
achieving such effluent reduction, and (6) non-water quality environmental impact (including
energy requirements).
Response: EPA notes the information and legal citations provided by commenter. As discussed
in § 1 and 2 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document, EPA
believes the technology based limits for ballast water as contained in the final VGP are fully
consistent with applicable CWA requirements related to determining BAT.
Commenter Name: Tim Eder, Executive Director, Great Lakes Commission
Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Commission
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0528-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: Priority Research Needs: The Commission is on record supporting national policies
to encourage rapid development of ballast water treatment technologies that are protective of the
Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River. It is a priority of the Commission that specific technologies
be developed and approved to treat the unique cold, freshwater environment of the Great Lakes.
The Commission also supports ongoing research for strengthening the numeric treatment
requirement for the ballast water provision of the draft 2013 VGP consistent with the IMO
standard. The Commission, however, recognizes the challenges of developing an achievable
standard greater than the IMO and therefore supports the development of improved,
economically practical technology to increase the effectiveness of ballast water treatment, in
efforts to further reduce the risk of AIS release. This research and development must be coupled
with verifiable methodologies to test the effectiveness of treatment technology in meeting or
exceeding the 2013 VGP effluent limits which must include a certification process.
607
-------
Response: EPA notes commenter's support for ongoing research to strengthen numeric
treatment requirements and development of improved, economically practical technology to
increase the effectiveness of ballast water treatment coupled with verifiable methodologies to
test system performance. Though EPA notes that research and development activities are
beyond the scope of the VGP, the Agency notes that EPA, through its Office of Research and
Development, Office of Water, and the Great Lakes Program Office, is engaged in activities to
help support development of improved treatment technologies and testing methods for the Great
Lakes.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 27 Part 2.2.3.5.1.1 Ballast Water Management using a Ballast Water Treatment
System - This section, and subsequent sub-sections describe operation and maintenance of
Ballast Water Treatment Systems (BWTS) in accordance with manufacturers' requirements and
instructions. It must be understood that operational parameters such as pressure differential or
conductivity can be transient values as monitored by onboard equipment. Ship board conditions
may diverge from manufacturers' instructions on a short-term basis without compromising the
effectiveness of the ballast water treatment system. Ship-board engineers manage these treatment
systems in consideration of these operational parameters and adjust and maintain the system
accordingly. Simply because a pressure differential is outside of manufacturer's specifications is
not in and of itself indicative of compromise of the treatment system. The compliance
requirement must reflect this sort of operational flexibility. Ultimately it is the discharge effluent
monitoring that will measure the effectiveness of the ballast water treatment system and
determine whether the system is compliant or not.
This is not to say that operational parameters can and should be ignored, but rather that the
requirements of real-world sea-going operations demand greater flexibility. We recommend the
following language:
Additionally, following installation of a BWTS, the master, chief engineer, owner, operator,
agent, or person in charge of the vessel must maintain and operate the BWTS in good working
order, taking into consideration the manufacturers' specifications and instructions. The BWTS
must be used prior to any discharge of ballast water to waters of the U.S.
Response: EPA declines to adopt the wording suggested by commenter as it relies upon the
vague term "good working order" without defining or describing the meaning of that term. EPA
thus believes the text in § 2.2.3.5.1.1 of the final VGP is preferable. EPA further notes that this
is a requirement that vessels are already required to follow, as the Coast Guard March 2012
final rulemaking for ballast water similarly requires that following treatment system installation,
the vessel operator must properly maintain the system "in accordance with all manufacturer
608
-------
specifications." 33 CFR 151.2025(a)(1).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
10
No
Comment: Compliance Schedule
Wisconsin DNR disagrees with EPA's proposal to phase in the requirement to comply with the
IMO standard because it poses an economic and environmental threat to Wisconsin. Allowing
vessels to wait until regularly scheduled drydocking (every five years or so) to install a treatment
system leaves the Great Lakes system vulnerable to new aquatic species introductions and
invasions for too long. (If a vessel is drydocked on December 31,2015, it will not have to comply
until it drydocks next, five years later, January, 2021.) Wisconsin DNR's inspectors have
observed that vessels drydock about every five years. However, vessels often get extensions until
the end of the next shipping season, or for another year.) EPA's proposed alternatives to
installing treatment systems are to use onshore treatment, use potable water sources (US and
Canada water only), or to not discharge while in waters subject to the permit, all of which, at this
point, appear to be infeasible options. Thus, Wisconsin DNR recommends that the compliance
schedule should be effective immediately.
Response: At the outset, EPA notes that vessel drydocking cycles are not limited to every five
years, but typically occur on a three to five year cycle. See final VGP Fact Sheet § 4.4.3.5.5(b).
With respect to commenter's request that compliance should be required immediately, please
see § 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document. With respect
to assertions that alternatives to treatment system installation appear infeasible, even if true for
vessels in Wisconsin waters, the lack of such alternatives would not mean that immediate
compliance with numeric discharge standards somehow becomes BAT.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
15
No
Comment: Ballast Water Treatment System (BWTS) Approval
Wisconsin DNR believes it is imperative during the type approval process of BWTSs to
specifically type approve for freshwater conditions, as well as for temperature variances.
Currently, IMO requires testing at different salinities, but it does not require testing in freshwater
conditions. Testing in freshwater conditions is critical to protect the Great Lakes.
609
-------
Response: US type-approval requirements are established by Coast Guard regulations in 46
CFR Part 162, Subpart 162.060, not by EPA's VGP. In any event, EPA agrees that type-
approval testing systems in freshwater conditions and under varying temperatures is important,
and notes that with respect to land-based testing, those regulations provide a system must be
tested in water conditions for which it will be approved. 46 CFR 162.060-26(d).
Commenter Name: Douglas B. Schneider, World Shipping Council (WSC)
Commenter Affiliation: World Shipping Council (WSC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: 1. Comments on Ballast Water Treatment Requirements
A. The Proposed Treatment Standard Represents Best Available Technology That is
Economically Achievable
Citing the year-long studies of the Science Advisory Board (SAB), the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), and other assessments of technology efficacy and availability, the draft VGP
proposes adoption of the D-2 treatment standard contained in the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) Ballast Water Management Convention. EPA's conclusion that the IMO D-
2 standard represents the best available technology that is economically achievable is supported
by sound science. The draft VGP also notes that the NAS report concluded that adoption of a
standard consistent with IMO D-2 is "clearly the first step forward" and represents a "significant
reduction in [organism] concentrations beyond ballast water exchange".
EPA included, on pages 82 and 83 of the VGP fact sheet, a discussion of the conclusions found
in the 2010 California State Lands Commission ballast water treatment report. EPA finds that the
data California reviewed for its report "do not have significant precision or resolution to detect
efficacy beyond those [IMO D-2] limits." EPA thus concludes that the California report cannot
be used to support the assertion that technologies are available to meet a treatment standard 100
or 1000 times more stringent than the IMO D-2 standard. With respect to California's "no
detectable living organism" standard, EPA notes that until better testing methods are developed,
there is no way to efficiently detect organisms in concentrations more stringent than the IMO D-
2 standard. EPA finds that, "in practice, the 'no detectable living organism standard' proposed by
California is no more stringent than the IMO standard at this time."
EPA's findings with respect to the availability of technology meeting the "no detectable living
organisms" standard and standards 100 or 1000 times IMO are fully supported by the SAB and
NAS report conclusions. Further, we are not aware of a single independent laboratory in the
world that has concluded, based on operational testing of treatment technologies, that any
technologies can reliably meet these more stringent treatment standards.
We encourage EPA to communicate the above discussed findings and conclusions regarding the
availability of treatment technology to U.S. states that have proposed treatment standards that
can neither be achieved by existing technology nor measured using existing scientifically
recognized tools. Adherence by states to the fiction that standards beyond IMO D-2 can be
610
-------
achieved today will not result in the adoption of technologies meeting those standards, because
such technologies do not exist. It would only create confusion in the market and unreasonably
threaten ships that do install technology with non-compliance.
Response: With respect to commenter's support for the IMO Regulation D-2 standard as
representing BAT, please see § 1 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment
response document. With respect to comments related to availability of technologies that can
achieve more stringent standards, please see § 2 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 and
sections 9.1.9 and 9.1.1 of this comment response document. With respect to communicating
findings regarding availability of treatment technologies to the States, this matter is outside the
scope of the VGP, but EPA further notes that copies of the draft VGP and accompanying draft
Fact Sheet were made available to the States.
Commenter Name: Douglas B. Schneider, World Shipping Council (WSC)
Commenter Affiliation: World Shipping Council (WSC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Late Comment? No
Comment: EPA VGP2 Internal Conflicts. New Vessels Constructed After January 1, 2012. The
VGP2 requires new vessels constructed after January 1, 2012, to have a BWMS installed upon
delivery. It is likely that the first vessels meeting this definition will be delivered on or about
September 2012, meaning they would have to choose a system and begin the installation not later
than June 2012.
The EPA correctly points out that numerous studies conducted by, among others, the Science
Advisory Board, the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative, the Coast Guard and Wisconsin
DNR have concluded that presently existing technologies can only treat ballast water to the IMO
standard (which is equivalent to the Coast Guard Phase 1 Standard and the standard adopted in
the VGP2). Therefore, EPA concludes, the IMO Standard is the appropriate Technology Based
Effluent Limit (TBEL) using the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
criteria. At 2.2.3.5.2 in the VGP2, in Table 6, EPA identifies when, for each size class vessel,
there should be adequate numbers of BWMSs available to meet the demands of that size class.
However, this ignores several commercial and practical realities.
1. While there is general agreement that technologies and systems exist to meet the IMO
standard, one could logically conclude that the EPA was correct in establishing the IMO
Standard as the TBEL standard. However, at 2.2.3.5.1.1, EPA further defines the
requirements for meeting the BAT standard as "utilizing a ballast water treatment system...
which has shown to be effective by testing in accordance with the EPA-ETV protocol for the
verification of ballast water treatment technology conducted by an independent third party
laboratory, test facility or test organization." Therefore, in order for a new vessel to be in
compliance with the VGP2, the vessel owner would have to conduct new land-based testing.
According to the timeline in Enclosure (1), that process will take approximately 600 days9
(1 year, 8 months). Even in the best case scenario, if the EPA waived the requirement for an
611
-------
accepted IL, and the testing was conducted at only one facility (salinity), the testing process
alone will take almost one year (330 days). Given that the first vessels required to have ETV-
compliant BWMS will need to start the installation in June 2012, clearly, no systems will be
available to meet that deadline.10
2. Even if the EPA chose to waive the requirement for BWMSs to undergo testing in
accordance with the ETV protocols and accepted foreign Administration type approval
certification, vessel owners would still face the problem of installing BWMSs which have not
been U.S. Type Approved. The substantial risks associated with this have been discussed
previously.
3. The new vessel requirements precede the effective date of the VGP2. Even if BWMSs were
available which had been type approved by the Coast Guard, vessel owners would have no
guarantee that the requirements in the Draft VGP2 will be finalized in the Final VGP2. For
example:
A new vessel owner with an expected delivery date of September 2012, wishing to be
environmentally proactive, decides to install a BWMS which has been type approved by a
foreign administration, with some of the land-based testing occurring at U.S. test facilities.
Furthermore, the BWMS has been installed on a ship which is enrolled in STEP. At significant
expense, but with the intent of complying with the VGP2, the BWMS is installed in accordance
with the VGP2 timeline and requirements. Two months after the vessel is delivered, EPA
releases the Final VGP2 which establishes a discharge standard ten times more stringent than
proposed, with the same timelines, leaving the vessel owner with a $1+ million piece of unusable
equipment.
Response: With respect to concerns as to new vessels, EPA notes that the final VGP has been
revised to define new build vessels as those constructed after December 1, 2013, and believe
that this change resolves the concerns expressed for new vessels. See discussion of new vessel
issue in § 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 and in the response essay in section 9.1.1 of
this comment response document. With respect to concerns that the draft VGP would have
required use of systems tested under the ETV protocol, please see § 5 of the response essay in
section 9.1.2 of this comment response document. With respect to risks associated with
installing a foreign approved treatment system that has not been type-approved by the Coast
Guard, EPA notes that it considered those types of risks in making the decision to change the
date that determines when a vessel is a "new build" for purposes of ballast water treatment
implementation schedule - see, Fact Sheet at § 4.4.3.5.5 and § 4 of the response essay in section
9.1.2 of this comment response document. Under this new approach, all vessels will have the
ability to choose a U.S. Coast Guard type-approved or AMS-designated system if they so
choose. (EPA notes that the type-approval process is outside the scope of the VGP, the US type-
approval is established and implemented by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR Part 162, Subpart
162.060. EPA further notes that the US Coast Guard has stated they intend to have the first
AMS determinations by March 2013) That being said, the decision of what treatment process
to use or specific brand of treatment system to install lies in the discretion of the vessel owner
as a business decision. With respect to the hypothetical posed in the paragraph numbered 3, as
previously noted EPA has revised today's VGP to define new vessels as those constructed after
612
-------
December 1, 2013; EPA further notes that the hypothetical postulation that the new VGP
would be ten times more stringent than the proposed VGP did not occur.
Commenter Name: Nick Schroeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes
Environmental Law Center
Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Environmental Law Center
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0535-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Late Comment? No
Comment: As most vessels typically drydock on a three to five year cycle, the draft VGP
allows vessels an additional three to five year period before having to comply with IMO ballast
water discharge standards. This timeline is based on the assumption that any shipboard ballast
water management system would have to be installed during the vessel's schedule drydocking.7
The draft VGP's allowance for vessels to comply with IMO ballast water discharge standards
according to the IMO implementation schedule, and only after their first drydocking, is an
unjustified delay. Both the U.S. Coast Guard and many vendors have stated that ballast water
treatment systems can be installed without drydocking. The EPA should not allow for these
delays, and should compress the implementation timeline. Furthermore, the EPA should require
that technology-based effluent limitations be met on the date that the new permit goes into effect.
7
See Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 107, "EPA expects that most existing vessels will need to enter a drydock to install a
ballast water management system..."
Response: With respect to concerns about the schedule for implementing the BAT ballast
water numeric discharge standards, please see § 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this
comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadians)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadians)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2
5
No
Comment: There are no BWTS type-approved for the fresh water of the Great Lakes.
The waters of the Great Lakes are known to be extremely unique in terms of salinity,
temperature, organism assemblage and other factors. This uniqueness affects the ability of
BWTS developed and tested elsewhere in the world to work effectively in the Great Lakes. To
elaborate:
• Salinity - The IMO G8 Guideline defines fresh water as that with a salinity of < 3 PSU.
The EPA ETV Protocol accepts testing in water of 1 PSU as representative of fresh
613
-------
water. However, the salinity of the water in the Great Lakes is near zero «0.1 PSU; water
at Duluth-Superior Harbour from tests done at the Great Ships Initiative in 2009-11 had a
salinity ranging from 0.05 to 0.1 \ Therefore, although the IMO has approved three
systems for use in fresh water, the salinity of the fresh water in which these systems were
tested may not be representative of the salinity of the Great Lakes and may adversely
affect the ability of the system to work effectively. Some manufacturers also claim that
their systems, while not tested in fresh water as part of their IMO type-approval, are
suitable for use in fresh water; however, the IMO requirement is to test in two levels of
salinity, separated by 10 PSU points. It follows then that a system could be tested in sea
water and brackish water and yet be represented as working in fresh water. Furthermore,
'suitable for use in fresh water' is not equivalent to suitable for use in the fresh water of
the Great Lakes. Discussions between CSA members and manufacturers of promising
systems have revealed that these claims cannot be justified without lake-specific testing
and in some cases it is clear that the systems will not work at all at this time. For
example, approximately 113 of the BWMS presently type-approved by foreign
administrations use electrolytically generated sodium hypochlorite (and other oxidants)
as a biocide for killing organisms. Many of these systems can operate at 100% efficiency
in brackish water and some are even able to operate effectively at3 PSU (the IMO
threshold for freshwater). However, none of these electrolytic generation systems are
capable of operating in the extremely low salinities of the Great lakes.
• Temperature - The IMO type approval process does not specify a temperature range in
which to test. The EPA's ETV protocol specifies testing in a range of 4 to 35°C. Test
temperatures therefore can be very different from winter ambient conditions in the Great
Lakes and may have an as of yet un-quantified effect on actual operations. For instance,
changes in water density due to temperature variations may have an effect on
effectiveness of filtration units. In addition, information to be discussed at the upcoming
IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in February 2012
suggests that an evaluation of the effect of temperature on ballast water management
system operation must be made.4 For example, shortly after receiving type-approval
from Geany in 2008, the SEDNA BWMS using Peraclean Ocean was withdrawn from
the market after studies revealed that unacceptably high levels of residual chemicals were
found in ballast water discharges when operating in very cold waters. In their study, de
Lafontaine, et al concluded that a 15-20 day hold time is required to ensure the residual
toxicity of the discharge meets acceptable national and international standards. Other
BWMS which use active substances have not undergone similar testing and study, so data
on the toxicity of other systems' discharges is not available.
• Organism Assemblage - Information published by various sources indicates that
taxonomic categories of organisms in the Great Lakes may differ in size, morphology and
other characteristics from their counterparts in brackish and saltwater systems. The Great
Ships Initiative (GSI) reported in April 2010 that a treatment system that technically
meets the IMO standard for the >50um size category in salt water may or may not deliver
the same performance relative to zooplankton generally in the natural freshwater context5
GSI also reported filter ineffectiveness in land-based trials likely due in part to
filamentous algal forms in Duluth-Superior Harbor water.6
614
-------
• Low UV Transmittance - The previously noted 20II GSI report also noted an issue with
very low ambient ultraviolet transmittance in the Duluth-Superior Harbor water due to
High Dissolved Organic Carbon Compounds which impeded the effectiveness of the
advanced oxidation system under trial.
The above-noted examples illustrate the critical need to test systems in the water in which they
will operate. This testing must support both the type-approval process and the compliance testing
process, which is anticipated to employ an instantaneous maximum protocol. To elaborate on
both of these points:
• Article 2.2.3.5.1.1 of the draft permit (Ballast Water Management using a Ballast Water
Treatment System) requires that a BWTS must be shown to be effective by testing in
accordance with the EPA-ETV protocol for the verification of ballast water treatment
technology conducted by an independent third party laboratory, test facility or test
organization. Article 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 of the draft permit goes on to state that the EPA will
accept monitoring from BWTS that are type-approved by a foreign flag administration.
However, the CSA asserts that both the IMO G and EPA ETV protocols do not
adequately account for GLSLS conditions, therefore it is imperative that these protocols
be modified and include testing in accordance with the USCG type-approval process at a
facility such as GSI to ensure that systems work effectively in the GLSLS. The potential
to accept BWTS which have been type-approved by a third party other than the USCG is
deemed a significant risk and a disincentive to ship owners to invest in the research,
development, and installation of BWTS technology.
• Article 2.2.3.5.1.1 of the draft permit also requires that, once the effluent limits become
applicable to a vessel, the BWTS must meet those limits as an instantaneous maximum.
The requirement to meet an ' instantaneous maximum' compliance test, for which the
BWTS may not have been tested or type-approved, is untenable and to our know ledge no
such test methodology has yet been developed.
3
Allegra Cangelosi, Principle Investigator, Great Ships Initiative, personal communication.
4
MEPe 6312116, Proposed Amendments to the Guidelines for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems
(G8), 15 December 2011.
A Great Lakes Relevancy Preamble to the GSI Report on Land-Based Testing Outcomes for the Siemens
SiCURETM Ballast Water Management System, Allegra Cangelosi, Great Ships Initiative, April 28, 20 10.
6 Final Report of the Land-Based, Freshwater Testing of the AlfaWall AB PureBallast® Ballast Water Treatment
System, Great Ships Initiative, March 17, 2011.
Response: EPA agrees that testing of systems in freshwater conditions and under varying
temperatures is important, and notes that, as commenter acknowledges, there are systems that
have been type approved for freshwater condition and further notes that there are types of
treatment systems (e.g. U.V.) that would be expected to work in freshwater. Testing under the
conditions specified in the G8 Guidelines or ETV Protocols, if properly conducted and with
sufficient QA/QC, provide a reasonable indication, for purposes of EPA's BAT determination,
that systems can function in a range of environmental conditions and commenter does not
provide evidence, data, or citations for their assertion that testing under such protocols "do not
615
-------
adequately account for GLSLS conditions." EPA further notes that the decision of what
treatment process to use or specific brand of treatment system to install lies in the discretion of
the vessel owner as a business decision; as such commenter can take into account the rigor of
testing and system compatibility with Great Lakes conditions in making that decision. With
respect to commenter's observation as to electrolytic systems, EPA further notes that such
systems can work in freshwater environments if provided with a source of ions (which is
technically feasible). See, preamble to Coast Guard final ballast water rulemaking, 77 Fed. Reg.
17272, col. 1 (March 23, 2012).
Commenter's assertions that the IMO G8 and EPA ETV Protocol need to be modified to
specifically account for Great Lakes conditions are outside the scope of the VGP, as the VGP
does not contain or establish type-approval procedures (and the permit no longer requires that
systems be tested in accordance with ETV protocols). EPA further notes that, for the US,
responsibility for development and implementation of type approval procedures, including
mandating use of EPA ETV ballast water protocols, is vested in the Coast Guard (see, 46 CFR
Part 162, Subpart 162.060), and that responsibility for the international G8 type approval
guidelines is vested in the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee.
With respect to commenter's concern that § 2.2.3.5.1.1 of the VGP expresses the technology
based numeric ballast water limit as an instantaneous maximum for which commenter believes
there are no test methodologies, EPA disagrees and notes that compliance with an instantaneous
maximum standard can be done by evaluation of grab samples in accordance with existing
protocols. See e.g., VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.1.4. Additionally, EPA notes that there are numerous
compliance measurements in development which will assist the Agency in evaluating whether
ballast water discharges are meeting the numeric limits in the VGP. EPA further notes that the
Coast Guard's ballast water discharge regulations require, unless otherwise expressly provided
for, compliance with the stated standards "at all times of discharge," which is, in substance, an
instantaneous maximum standard. 33 CFR 151.2025(a)(1).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadians)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadians)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2
8
No
Comment: iv. The requirement to install BWTS on new vessels bx the time of permit issuance is
not possible to meet.
As already discussed, the CSA is unaware of any system that is type-approved by any
administration and also successfully tested in the unique waters of the Great Lakes.
Consequently, the schedule presented at Article 2.2.3.5.1.4 for new vessels is unequivocally
impossible to realize. According to a recent report commissioned by the St Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation.10
616
-------
"It is not possible for owners of new vessels as defined by the EPA (constructed after January
1,2012) to comply with the proposed implementation schedule which requires all new vessels
to be delivered with a BWMS which has been tested in accordance with the ETV Protocol.
As noted above, it will take a minimum of 20 months before a BWMS has completed testing
in accordance with the Protocol. Therefore, vessel owners who will be receiving new build
ships before 2015 will be unable to comply with the VGP2 because no BWMSs meeting the
EPA's own requirements will be available. Furthermore, since it will take approximately 30
months, and more likely 36 months, from the effective date of the IFR before any BWMSs
are Type Approved by the Coast Guard, vessel owners will not voluntarily install systems
until mid to late 2015 at the earliest."
This is a significant concern to the CSA, as its member companies are currently investing $600M
in new-vessel construction. The construction of these new ships is well underway with the first
of the ships to be delivered in 2012. These ships will be state of the art and employ new hull
fonns, energy efficient engines, and advanced waste water management systems. They are also
designed to have sufficient space for BWMS once they are deemed commercially feasible. Under
the Draft 2013 VGP, these state of the art ships, which will have a significantly lower overall
environmental footprint than existing vessels, will not be compliant to operate in US water.
v. Implementation of BWMS for Existing Vessels.
The requirement to achieve the BAT schedule for existing CSA vessels is also challenging.
Given the issues noted above with regards to the lack of type-approved and suitable systems,
these timelines, particularly for existing vessels with ballast tank capacities between 1,500 and
5,000 cu. m. (which has the earlier timeline of installation of BWTS by first dry dock after
2014), cannot reasonably be met. The estimated time frame of two years and four months cited in
the above-noted report is only for the type approval process and does not assume that a supplier
will be prepared to commercially manufacture a system, or that a reasonable number of systems
are available in order to avoid a monopolistic supply. Moreover, it does not account for the
significant engineering reconfiguration required in current vessels that were never designed for
such a system. Likewise, the smaller vessels will present a similar challenge to installation with
even less options to accommodate BWTS. This is a particular challenge for tugs.
10 Report to SI. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Regarding Ballast Water Type Approval Process and
Obstacles Associated with Installation of Non-Coast Guard Type Approved Ballast Water Management Systems,
by International Maritime Environmental & Safety Associates, Jan. 9, 20 12.
Response: EPA does not agree with commenter's assertion that because a system has not been
tested in Great Lakes waters the VGP schedule is impossible to meet, as there are systems
which have been type approved for freshwater, as well as general types of systems that would
work with freshwater, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2,
Excerpt 5. With respect to commenter's concern for compliance dates for new vessels, EPA
notes that the final VGP has been revised to define new build vessels as those constructed after
December 1, 2013, and that the final VGP was revised to no longer mandate use of systems
tested under the ETV Protocols. Please see §§ 4 and 5 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of
this comment response document. With respect to existing vessels, EPA also notes there are
systems that have been type-approved and that the final VGP was revised to no longer mandate
617
-------
use of only those systems tested under the ETV Protocols. EPA further notes that the
compliance dates contained in the VGP are fully consistent with those already established by
Coast Guard regulations and thus are existing requirements for such vessels. See e.g., 33 CFR
151.2035(b). With respect to tugs, please see § 3 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 and the
response essay in section 9.1.1 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadians)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadians)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A3
6
No
Comment: 16. Issue: The appropriateness of the technology-based ballast water controls
proposed in this VGP, and whether there are data sources which indicate that certain ballast
water treatment systems reliably exceed the limits established in this permit. Whether the
numeric discharge limits can be applied to those vessel classes to which, under the proposed
VGP, such limits would not apply.
CSA Response: The CSA does not have the technical ability to fully comment on the current
ability to measure the efficacy of systems to a higher level required of the IMO 02 standard.
Notwithstanding, it is believed that the technology to achieve this level of monitoring is not yet
sufficiently developed.
Response: EPA appreciates commenter's input on this matter and notes that the final VGP, like
the proposal, continues to reflect the IMO Regulation D-2 standard as representing BAT.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadians)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadians)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A4
1
No
Comment: Comments by the Canadian Shipowners Association on the United States
Environmental Protection Agency Request for Comments on the Draft National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the
National Operation of a Vessel reference to: MV English River owned by Lafarge Canada, Inc.,
and managed/operated by V. Ships Canada Inc., as agents for Lafarge Canada Inc., supports the
CSA position in this matter and we have outlined our comments below:
618
-------
The challenge to achieve the BAT schedule for the MV English River is equally challenging.
However, given the issues noted in the document with regards to lack of type approved and
suitable systems, these timelines, particularly for the MV English River with its ballast tank
capacity between 1,500 and 5,000 cu. m. (which has the earlier timeline of installation of BWTS
by first dry dock after 2014), cannot reasonably be met. The estimated time frame of two years
and four months cited in the report is only for the type-approval process and does not assume
that a supplier will be prepared to commercially manufacture a system, or that a reasonable
number of systems are available in order to avoid a monopolistic supply. Moreover, it does not
account for the significant engineering reconfiguration required in current vessels that were
never designed for such a system. This could result in a significant cost, which is impossible to
quantify until such time as these systems are closer to being commercially feasible.
Response: EPA notes that there are a number of type-approved systems already on the market
(see, final VGP Fact Sheet § 4.4.3.5.1) and has responded elsewhere in this response to
comment document to the comments of the Canadian Ship Owners Association. EPA
appreciates the other information on the MV English River.
Commenter Name: Michael Lund, Chief Maritime Politics and Economics,
The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Commenter Affiliation: The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0548-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: In order to avoid regional and unilateral regulation constituting a hindrance for
world trade and to encourage early installation of Ballast Water Treatment (BWT) systems on
board ships, all BWT systems should be subject to a grandfathering scheme in terms of
compliance with any future more stringent ballast water discharge standards being imposed by
individual states, ports or regions worldwide and furthermore should the general acceptance of
certificates issued by another IMO member state under the Conventions Article 7 Survey and
Certification be adhered to.
Response: With respect to grandfathering, please see § 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2
of this comment response document. With respect to adherence to Article 7 of the IMO ballast
water Convention, EPA notes that this issue is outside the scope of the VGP, and further notes
that the US is not party to the IMO ballast water Convention, nor has it entered into force
internationally.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
League's Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
9
619
-------
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.3.2.1.1 For the EPA-ETV protocol methodology to be effective, it requires labs
for certification to be in existence and time for testing. Since there are no approved labs for
testing, compliance and implementation is stalled. It would make sense to provide a temporary
testing waiver to vessels meeting the IMO discharge standards until certification can be
documented to US standards.
Response: EPA does not agree that testing for compliance and implementation is "stalled."
There are a number of systems which have been type-approved (see final VGP Fact Sheet §
4.4.3.5.1) and the Coast Guard promulgated US type-approval regulations in March 23, 2012
(77 Fed. Reg. 17254). We further note that both the Coast Guard regulations (33 CFR 151.2026,
"Alternative Management Systems" (AMS)) and the final VGP (§ 2.2.3.5.1.1) allow for use of
foreign type-approved systems with adequate data. Lastly, EPA notes commenter is requesting
the temporary testing waiver "to vessels meeting the IMO standards;" in the absence of at least
some system testing it is not possible to determine if a vessel is capable of meeting such
standards. In light of this, EPA declines to make the requested change.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
League's Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
13
No
Comment: 2.3.2.3.5.1.1.5 EPA-ETV protocol should not be a barrier to those who have
installed IMO compliant treatment systems. They should qualify for waivers and work with
testing labs to ensure compliance in the future.
Response: As discussed in § 5 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response
document, EPA has modified § 2.2.3.5.1.1 of the VGP to allow for systems that have been
tested by methods other than the ETV Protocol, which has the effect of removing the "barrier"
with which commenter was concerned.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
League's Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
17
No
620
-------
Comment: 2.2.3.5.1.1 Ballast Water Management Using a Ballast Water Treatment System It is
important to have a backup system in place when installed technology fails. EPA should take the
lead in developing a system to reduce risk when shipboard treatment fails. For example, the
National Park Service (NPS) has been developing emergency treatment systems to ensure
treatment is available prior to ballast water release. These emergency treatment systems are
being developed with some support from U.S. EPA's Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funds,
but additional support is needed (see Izaak Walton League letter to EPA attached). At present, it
appears there is no allowance for skid mounted systems or a hybridized system on a permanent
or intermittent basis similar to the NPS emergency treatment process. We urge EPA to
implement and support emergency treatment systems.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0573-A2, excerpt 9.
Commenter Name: Matthew French, Port Engineer American River
Comment: The largest affect and impact to operations for ARTCO Linehaul vessels lies in the
details of the proposed new ballast water requirements. A typical voyage for an ARTCO linehaul
vessel operating on the Lower Mississippi River, and Upper Mississippi River (operating below
St. Louis) consists of the following ballast water practices:
• Depart St. Louis southbound full of fuel with approximately 18,500 gallons of ballast on
board.
• About two days later, roughly Memphis (LMR mile 730), the vessel crew adds another
18,500 gallons of ballast.
• Once the vessel arrives in New Orleans (LMR mile 115) and turns to go Northbound the
vessel crew will pump off about 22,000 gallons of ballast when they add fuel.
• Three days later at Rosedale (LMR mile 589), the vessel crew adds about 18,000 gallons
of ballast.
• Then roughly another three days later the vessel crew adds another 18,000 gallons of
ballast around New Madrid (LMR mile 889).
• Finally upon arrival to St. Louis (UMR mile 174) the vessel crew pumps off ballast after
fueling to get to a total ballast amount of 18,500 gallons ballast /fully fueled.
All of the linehaul vessels that ARTCO operates on the Inland River System were built prior to
1983, and were not designed with the thought of the additional space required onboard for
equipment used to treat ballast water. In most cases Ballast Water is simple pumped from the
river into a tank on the side of the vessel with a portable pump. The water used is always from
the main channel of the river due to the constraint of the vessels draft, in short; we ballast from
the water we operate in which is the navigable channel. Outfitting the vessels with treatment
plants and independent piping used for transporting this ballast water throughout the vessel and
overboard is impractical and unnecessary.
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Transportation Company (ARTCO)
American River Transportation Company (ARTCO)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0551-A1
1
No
621
-------
Costs associated with this proposal include: vessel down time (approximately 1 month - lost
revenue of $1,200,000), shipyard labor to install piping/gas free vessel for hotwork ($100,000
per vessel), cost of EPA/USCG approved ballast water treatment system (unknown
cost...estimated at $75,000/vessel), training personnel to operate and maintain this equipment
and file necessary reporting ($3,000/vessel).
Total Project cost for installing a ballast water treatment system per vessel: $l,378,000/vessel
These vessels were designed to operate on river systems only and do not have suitable freeboard
for offshore voyages, so they will always be limited to Inland River service. It is impractical for
vessels operating in Lower Mississippi River service to use public drinking water as ballast
water. This would require the vessel to either rely on a midstream ballast water service, or tie the
entire tow off in a fleeting area and transit to a dock that had a public water source. This would
cause excessive fleeting costs for the barges and delay for the vessel as almost every vessel
operating on the river would need to stop in roughly the same area to ballast with public water.
Because the need to take on ballast goes hand and hand with the fuel burn, it is not a one-time
per voyage occurrence. The cost associated with each ballast stop if public water sources are
used would be estimated at ($10,000 to fleet the barges, $1,000 for tankerman services to load
water on vessel/dock access, $l,000/hr (2hrs.) for vessel operating costs = total $13,000 / ballast
stop) Total for 1 round trip = $52,000, Annual total = $1,040,000 per vessel.
I can't imagine any impact on river ecosystems or water quality due to discharging this amount
of ballast water in a river system that has flow rates of over 14,000 Cubic Meters per Second
south of Cairo Illinois. I may be over simplifying things by saying that this water that is held in
storage tanks on the vessel and transported 200-800 miles up-river is going to end up at the same
place it was loaded at in a few days due to the flow of the river. River systems that are not
separated by any type of permanent or semi-permeable structure such as a lock and dam - should
be exempt from these regulations. An example of this is the navigable body of water from the
Mississippi Delta in Louisiana to Lock 27 on the Upper Mississippi and Lock 53 on the Ohio
River. This body of water contains no physical barriers and is a high flow river system that is
connected as one ecosystem and watershed.
Response: The final VGP has been modified from the proposal to provide that its technology
based numeric ballast water discharge limits do not apply to inland and certain seagoing vessels
less than 1600 gross registered tons or to unmanned, unpowered barges. EPA believes that these
exclusions are sufficient to address those line-haul vessels and barges for which treatment
technology is unavailable. Please see § 3 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 and section 2 of
this comment response document for further discussion.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A2
3
No
622
-------
Comment: 2. Uncertainty Regarding Type Approvals
In section 2.2.3.5.1.1, the EPA mandates the use of ballast water management systems (BWMS)
which have undergone testing in accordance with the EPA-ETV protocol for the verification of
ballast water treatment technology conducted by an independent third party. This presents
several problems for the shipping industry in general, and our ships in particular. This
requirement is at once too broad and too limiting. Therefore, we recommend that the EPA adopt
any and all requirements for type approval, installation and operation of BWMSs which are
contained in the Coast Guard Final Rule to ensure full harmonization between the two regimes
and provide certainty to the regulated shipping industry.
Response: EPA has modified § 2.2.3.5.1.1 of the VGP to allow for systems that have been
tested by methods other than the ETV Protocol and to ensure consistency with the Coast Guard
type approval process. Please see § 5 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment
response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A2
5
No
Comment: It is unclear from the language in the VGP 2013 and the associated Fact Sheet
whether or not the requirement for testing refers only to land-based testing (for which the EPA
ETV protocol has been approved and signed) or both land-based and shipboard testing (for
which an EPA-ETV protocol is still under development). EPA needs to clarify this ambiguity.
The EPA-ETV protocol for land-based testing was more than seven years in its development.
Even if the shipboard protocols took half as long, they would still not be finalized in time for
VGP 2013. Adopting the Coast Guard's regulations for BWMSs would render these points moot.
Assuming the EPA-ETV protocols refer only to land-based testing, the VGP 2013 is silent on
other critical aspects of BWMS performance and approval. Shipboard testing of any piece of
equipment is critical to ensuring that the equipment will work satisfactorily in a marine
environment. Subjecting equipment to rigorous physical testing, sometimes referred to as a
"shake, rattle and roll" test will also provide certainty that the equipment will stand up to long
hours of operation under physically demanding shipboard conditions. By adopting the Coast
Guard rules for type approval in the VGP 2013, the EPA will ensure that these critical aspects of
testing will be addressed and that systems will have a higher degree of probability that they will
perform as designed and originally tested.
3. Implementation Timeline
The implementation schedule proposed in VGP 2013 is impractical, particularly for new vessels
and we question the legality of a requirement which predates the implementation date of the
VGP 2013. While the VGP 2013 implementation schedule is similar to both the proposed Coast
623
-------
Guard rulemaking and the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention, both of those
documents were written under the assumption that the respective regulations would have come
into force several years ago, allowing for an orderly process of type approval and installation on
new and existing vessels. However, due to delays in the ratification of the BWM Convention and
publication of the Coast Guard's Final Rule, the implementation dates have come and gone and
therefore, without a type approval process to follow, the shipping industry has been unable to
install equipment which would meet those regulatory instruments.
Under a "Best Case" Scenario, the minimum time that will be required to complete all of the
steps in the USCG Type Approval process from the date the Coast Guard Final Rule becomes
effective is approximately 2 years, 4 months. This estimate assumes there are no logistical or
scheduling delays during any step of the process. Factoring in these inevitable delays, under the
"Most Likely" Scenario it will take between 32 - 36 months for the first applicant to receive
USCG Type Approval. This is consistent with information gathered from foreign
Administrations and system vendors. In the "Worst Case" Scenario the timeframe could
approach four years, although that scenario is unlikely and would represent the "perfect storm" of
delays and complications.
It is not possible for owners of new vessels as defined by the EPA (constructed after January 1,
2012) to comply with the proposed implementation schedule which requires all new vessels to be
delivered with a BWMS which has been tested in accordance with the ETV Protocol. As noted
above, it will take a minimum of 20 months before a BWMS has completed testing in
accordance with the Protocol. Therefore, vessel owners who will be receiving new build ships
before 2015 will be unable to comply with the VGP 2013 because no BWMSs meeting the
EPA's own requirements will be available. Furthermore, since it will take approximately 30
months, and more likely 36 months, from the effective date of the Coast Guard rulemaking
before any BWMSs are Type Approved by the Coast Guard, vessel owners will not voluntarily
install systems until mid to late 2015 at the earliest. Legal issues associated with establishing a
standard and timeline prior to finalization and implementation of the VGP2 aside, new vessel
owners face significant uncertainty when trying to decide how to comply with a retroactive
requirement.
This last point poses specific challenges to CSL International. We are presently undertaking a
massive fleet renovation which will include the construction of 7 new Panamax vessels. These
vessels are state of the art ships which will have all of the latest environmentally friendly
engines, unloading systems and these ships will have the smallest environmental footprint
possible, while still carrying even more cargo tonnage safely and efficiently. However, these
ships, which are destined to trade in U.S. ports, will be effectively banned from operating in the
U.S. if the current implementation schedule is not altered. The net result to the U.S. marine
environment will be the exclusion of the most environmentally friendly ships, and the continued
operation of older ships flying flags of convenience which will emit more greenhouse gases,
NOx, SOx and other air and water pollutants. This unintended consequence of an overly
aggressive timeline must be changed to allow newer, cleaner ships to operate in the U.S. We
therefore recommend the following implementation schedule.
SEE ORIGINAL COMMENT FOR TABLE
624
-------
That "wholly new" systems would need to be developed to meet a standard 100 or more times
more stringent than the BWDS proposed in VGP 2013 and significant time will be required to
develop even incremental improvements in technology.
Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, it is simply not a practical reality that BWMS
technology could advance to such a degree that it would require the reopening of a four or five
year permit Conversely, the threat of a reopener clause could actually discourage vessel owners
from installing systems if they believed that a BWMS installed to meet an existing standard
could quickly be rendered obsolete within a four or five year period as a result of the reopener
clause.
Response: With respect to land-based and ship-based testing issues raised by commenter, EPA
agrees that the ETV Protocols are for land-based testing. As discussed in the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554-A2, excerpt 3, EPA has modified the final VGP to
allow for testing by methods other than the ETV Protocol and to ensure consistency with the
Coast Guard type approval and alternate management system approval process (both of which
include land based and shipboard testing (see, 46 CFR 162.060-26 and 162.060-28; 33 CFR
151.2026(a) and IMO G8 type-approval testing guidelines). EPA believes these changes are
sufficient to address commenter's testing issue concerns. Please also see § 5 of the response
essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
With respect to implementation schedule concerns, EPA notes that with respect to commenter's
"new build" concerns, the definition of new build in the final VGP has been revised to define
new build vessels as those constructed after December 1, 2013, and that the final VGP also no
longer limits systems to those tested under the ETV Protocol. EPA considered commenter's
suggested schedule, as well as all other comments received on the implementation schedule,
and has determined that the schedule contained in the final VGP reflects BAT. Please see § 4 of
the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
With respect to commenter's concern as to the VGP's inclusion of a re-opener clause (see VGP
§ 1.9), EPA does not agree with commenter's assertion that inclusion of a re-opener clause will
discourage ballast water treatment technology installation as the VGP contains mandatory
ballast water management requirements that in themselves will foster or require installation of
treatment technology in order to comply with the VGP. EPA also notes that the reopener
reflects EPA's NPDES permit modification regulations (see 40 CFR 122.62) and in any event
believes that it is reasonable to provide the opportunity to re-open the permit in the event that
significant improvements to treatment technologies occur prior to its expiration.
In addition, although the issue is largely moot due to the change in the "new build" date in the
final permit, EPA does not agree with the commenter's characterization of the draft VGP's
January 2012 "new -build" date as "a requirement which predates the implementation date of
the VGP 2013." The January 2012 date, as the December 1, 2013, date in the final permit, is not
the date on which a vessel must comply with the newly issued numeric ballast water effluent
limits, but instead defines the class of vessels for which immediate compliance (i.e., on the date
of delivery after the permit becomes effective) has been determined to reflect BAT.
625
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: 2.2.3 Ballast Water
CSL International, Canada Steamship Lines, and its parent company, The CSL Group Inc.,
shares the EPA's concern over the threat posed by the transfer of ballast water throughout the
world. To that end, CSL companies have been leaders in attempting to find workable solutions to
stem this threat CSL has worked closely with Wilhelmsen on the development of a ballast water
management system which can meet the high pumping rates of our bulk carriers. Many of our
largest Panamax-sized self-unloading bulkers transfer ballast at rates of up to 5,000 tons per
hour. This is roughly the equivalent of emptying one Olympic sized swimming pool every half
hour. No systems have yet been tested at these high flow rates; however, CSL continues to
investigate alternatives as evidenced by our application to the Coast Guard's Shipboard
Technology Evaluation Program.
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A2
8
No
Response: EPA notes the information provided and appreciates CSL willingness to apply to
the Coast Guard's Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program to help validate the performance
of high flow treatment systems.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A2
12
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.1.1 Ballast Water Management using a Ballast Water Treatment System As
stated previously, we strongly believe the EPA should not establish a unique set of criteria for
acceptance of a ballast water management system and should adopt any and all requirements for
type approval, installation and operation of BWMSs which are contained in the Coast Guard
Final Rule to ensure full harmonization between the two regimes and provide certainty to the
regulated shipping industry. Any departures from this type approval regime will only serve to
delay vessel owners from installing ballast water management systems on board our vessels.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554-A2, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name: Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
626
-------
Commenter Affiliation: Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.2 Schedule for when Ballast Water Treatment Becomes BAT (and therefore
Required)
As stated previously, we applaud the EPA's decision to adopt the biological efficacy standards
found in the IMO BWM Convention and the Coast Guard's Proposed Phase 1 standard.
However, for the reasons stated in our previous discussion of the implementation timeline, we
request EPA adopt the following implementation schedule vice the one proposed.
SEE ORIGINAL COMMENT FOR TABLE
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554-A2, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0564-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: EPA must compress the compliance timeline.
The draft VGP's allowance for vessels to comply with IMO ballast water discharge standards
according to the IMO implementation schedule, and only after their first drydocking, is an
unjustified delay. As most vessels typically drydock on a three to five year cycle, the EPA
proposal allows vessels an additional three to five year period before having to comply with IMO
ballast water discharge standards, based on the assumption that any shipboard ballast water
management system would have to be installed during the vessel's scheduled drydocking. (See
Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 107 ("EPA expects that most existing vessels will need to enter a
drydock to install a ballast water management system..."). However, both the U.S. Coast Guard
and many vendors have stated that ballast water treatment systems can be installed without
drydocking.
The EPA should not allow for these additional delays. The EPA should compress the
implementation timeline and require that technology-based effluent limitations be met on the
date that the new permit goes into effect.
Response: Please see § 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response
document.
627
-------
Commenter Name:
Edward L. Michael, Chairman, Illinois Council of Trout
Unlimited (ICTU)
Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited (ICTU)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0565-A1
1
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: With respect to the ballast water provisions (Sec. 2.2.3) of the Proposed 2013 Vessel
General Permit (VGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels, ICTU
supports the position that non-potable quality ballast water not pumped off ocean going ships to
a treatment facility must be treated with an approved, effective on-board ballast water treatment
system (BWTS) prior to discharge into jurisdictional waters. ICTU further concurs with the
inclusion in the body of the VGP of numeric standards setting limits on the number of organisms
of various sizes in treated and discharged ballast water (Sec. 2.2.3.5). Such a statement
establishes the basic level of efficiency at which any approved BWTS must operate. However,
ICTU disagrees with the specific numbers cited in the VGP on two counts.
First, the numbers in the stated standard - like the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
standards of 2004 which the VGP numbers mimic -- pertain only to micro-organisms. The VGP
itself does not establish an acceptable standard for larger organisms, among the primary targets
of ballast water permitting. The rational for including a numeric standard for larger organism in
the body of the VGP is the same as that for including the numeric standard for smaller ones (i.e.,
it establishes the basic level of efficiency at which any approved BWTS must operate) and
should not be left to unstated presumptions about the efficiency of any BWTS that might be
approved "in accordance with the EPA-ETV [EPA Environmental Verification Technology
Program] protocol for the verification of ballast water treatment technology," as described in
Sec. 2.2.3.5.1.1. The VGP should unequivocally establish a zero discharge limit for larger
aquatic organisms.
Secondly, ICTU stands with the broader environmental/conservation community and the states
of New York and California with respect to the assertion that the numeric standards for
microorganisms in the VGP are too low to adequately minimize ballast effluent risk and that
Best Available Technology Economically Feasible (BAT) already yields results that exceed the
proposed VGP standards. Indeed, these IMO standards were already lenient when originally
adopted by that shipping industry friendly organization eight long years ago at a time when
ballast water treatment technology was much less advanced than it is presently. In short, higher
standards are both necessary and practicably attainable.
Response: EPA does not agree with commenter's assertion that the numeric technology based
standard in the VGP "pertain only to micro-organisms," as the first numeric standard articulated
in the VGP is for organisms "greater than or equal to 50 micrometers in minimum dimension"
(emphasis added). See final VGP § 2.2.3.5. With respect to commenter's concern about the
adequacy of the numeric standards, please see § 1 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this
comment response document.
628
-------
Commenter Name:
Scott Strand, Executive Director, MN Center for
Environmental Advocacy, et al.
MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A2
12
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: 2.2.3.5.2 Schedule for when Ballast Water Treatment Becomes BAT (and Therefore
Required)
The vessel compliance dates for existing vessels do not provide adequate protection under the
Clean Water Act (CWA), given the known risks of AIS introductions and spread in the Great
Lakes. New vessels will be required to comply with the IMO standards immediately but all
existing vessels will not even need to begin complying until after 2014. These timelines are
unacceptable given the requirements of the CWA and the imminent threat of permanent
ecological and economic harm which AIS pose to our region. We understand that, as a general
rule, the CWA requires that permits like the VGP Permit must contain technology-based effluent
limitations (TBELs) and that permittees must comply immediately with them based on Best
Available Technologies (BAT) to further the statute's goal that all discharges of pollution
ultimately be eliminated.20 The EPA may not use compliance schedules to extend this statutory
deadline. 21 Consequently, we believe the proposed VGP Permit establishes a compliance
schedule that is inconsistent with the CWA.
EPA has apparently assumed that the installation of technologies to meet the standards depends
entirely on a vessel's drydock schedule. No evidence is presented in the fact sheet or proposed
permit that drydock is, or will be, required in order to install technologies to meet permit
standards. It appears from the fact sheet that this assumption of mandatory drydocking allows
vessels to delay installation of treatment technologies for three to five additional years. We do
not believe that this assumption is warranted and are aware of evidence to the contrary. The U.S.
Coast Guard evaluated this issue in 2009 and found that none of the treatment systems required a
vessel to be drydocked for installation.22 It appears that EPA is simply accepting without
investigation the unsupported claims of the shipping industry that they cannot install
technologies in a timely fashion. This must stop.
We urge that the VGP Permit be changed to require that all vessels meet the conditions of the
permit as soon as it goes into effect.
20
33 U.S.C. § 1311(b) (requiring compliance with BAT effluent limitations no later than March 31, 1989).
21 40 C.F.R. § 122.47.
22
U.S. Coast Guard Office of Standards Evaluation and Development, Preliminary Regulatory Analysis and Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (June 2008), Doc. No. USCG-2001-10486-0140.1, at 49.
Response: Please see § 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response
document.
629
-------
Commenter Name:
Holley Horrell, Mills Legal Clinic on behalf of Northwest
Environmental Advocates
Northwest Environmental Advocates
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2
3
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: A. EPA's ballast water discharge standards must conform with the Clean Water
Act's techno logy-forcing mandates, and EPA must set appropriately stringent limits at the outset
before the infrastructure for treating ballast water is locked in place.
Like other NPDES permits, the VGP must satisfy the technology-forcing purpose of the Clean
Water Act. Congress set an ambitious goal for the statute - to eliminate all discharges of
pollution into our nation's waters.5 To achieve that objective, Congress intended the statute to
drive technological advances.6 Courts have repeatedly found that this technology-forcing policy
"is expressed as a statutory mandate, not simply as a goal."7 As the Supreme Court has
explained:
Congress intended to use the [Clean Water Act] standards as a means to "force" the introduction
of more effective pollution control technology.... in establishing BAT levels, it directed EPA to
look at "the best performer in an industrial category... by requiring that the standards be set by
reference to [the] very "best" technology, the Act seeks to foster technological innovation.8
This statutory mandate imposes on EPA a duty to set appropriately forward-looking technology-
based effluent limitations (TBELs) that reflect "best available technology" (BAT), defined as the
"maximum control economically possible."9 Put differently, "Congress's use of the superlative
'best' in the statute cannot be read to mean that a facility that achieves the lower end of the
ranges, but could do better, has complied with the law... insofar as the EPA establishes
performance standards instead of requiring facilities to adopt particular technologies, it must
require facilities to choose the technology that permits them to achieve as much reduction of
adverse environmental impacts as is technologically possible."10 Where, as here, the market for
pollution control technology has been stunted by inappropriate regulatory exemptions, EPA can
and should look to other industries in considering what pollution control technologies may be
available."11 The Draft VGP will not foster technological advances for the treatment of ballast
water discharges. Its proposed TBELs are legally deficient for a number of reasons, as discussed
in detail in the NRDC/NWF Comments and further below. By selecting TBELs that do not
reflect BAT, EPA has circumvented its duty to set standards that will drive ballast water control
technology.
What is worse, the Draft VGP misses the opportunity to set technology-driving standards when it
matters most. EPA unlawfully failed to regulate vessels' ballast water discharges for years,
effectively retarding any market for technological innovation.12 The first general permit issued in
2008, which this Draft VGP will replace, neglected to set TBELs altogether. While we
thoroughly agree with EPA's decision to finally establish TBELs for ballast water discharges, it
is imperative that those limitations foster meaningful progress in development of treatment
technology options, not chill progress by permanently freezing minimally protective standards in
630
-------
place for years to come. Although EPA claims that it will "continue to explore new technologies
. . . and when warranted, will make this [technology-based] numeric limit more stringent in the
future,"13 the combination of delayed compliance and minimal standards in the current Draft
VGP will make future progress in technology development highly unlikely.
In particular, because EPA proposes - contrary to the Clean Water Act's mandates - to allow
permittees until as late as 2021 to meet the current proposed effluent limitations, it is doubtful
that more innovative ballast water treatment systems will be brought to market during that
time.14 As the NRDC/NWF Comments explain, this extended phase-in period for TBELs is not
lawful under the Clean Water Act. But even assuming that EPA could properly delay compliance
with BAT requirements, it is critical to establish the most stringent effluent limitations
achievable at this time, even if the technology to meet such limitations is not yet widely
available. Otherwise, ballast water treatment system manufacturers will have little incentive over
the coming decade to invest in developing technologies that more effectively reduce invasive
species. If vessels can purchase "off the shelf' systems for the next two permit cycles, there will
be insufficient returns on investment for additional manufacturer research and better technology
development And without more innovative and effective technologies on the market or in
development, EPA will likely find it difficult or impossible to establish a more stringent BAT
standard in the foreseeable future.
As a practical matter, the installation of thousands of less than sufficiently protective treatment
systems on individual vessels over the coming decade will inevitably create pressure on EPA to
leave the proposed TBELs (and the virtually non-existent water quality based effluent limitations
or "WQBELs") untouched in the next round(s) of nationwide permitting. Although EPA
minimizes the idea of compliance costs - because the proposed requirements in the Draft VGP
simply mirror the IMO D-2 and anticipated Coast Guard standards - permittees will incur, on
average, $315,000 per vessel between 2012 and 2021 to install onboard treatment capacity to
meet standards.15 The Draft VGP allows permittees to choose among four ballast water
management methods to meet the proposed effluent limitations.16 With proper study and
evaluation, EPA would very likely be compelled to conclude that more stringent effluent
limitations are achievable, rendering some or all of these treatment systems inadequate.17 It is not
reasonable to believe that vessels which have recently installed these superseded treatment
systems will readily embrace more stringent standards in the next VGP. Once the industry has
invested in the proposed management methods, EPA will be hard-pressed to impose more
protective requirements without significant opposition.18
For these reasons, it is imperative that EPA establish techno logy-forcing standards at the outset,
before permittees begin making significant investments in ballast water management systems. As
EPA itself notes, the Agency "believes that vessel owner/operators are already planning for the
installation and use of ballast water treatment systems, or making other arrangements for ballast
water management as appropriate, and they have factored these costs into their long-term
operating plans."19 Now - not four or five years from now - is the time for EPA to fully and
carefully assess best available technology options for long-term management of ballast water
discharges. Failure to do so at this juncture not only is legally inconsistent with the Clean Water
Act, but constitutes a misguided policy that sets the stage for continued controversy in this area.
After years of unnecessary delay, EPA should finally step up and act decisively to make the U.S.
631
-------
a world leader in environmentally responsible ballast water management. As discussed further
below and in the NRDC/NWF Comments, it is possible to achieve more protective effluent
limitations today; there is thus no legal or policy justification for further delaying compliance
with the Clean Water Act and thereby protecting the nation's waters from aquatic invasive
species.
B. EPA may not shield its inadequate analysis behind the limited findings of the SAB and NAS
panels.
In promulgating any rule, agencies have an independent obligation to conduct their own analysis
and provide a rational basis for their conclusions.20 An agency "must examine the relevant data
and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a 'rational connection between
the facts found and the choice made.'"21 A decision is thus arbitrary and capricious if the agency
fails to examine relevant data, relies on improper factors, "entirely fail[s] to consider an
important aspect of the problem," offers "an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the
evidence before the agency," or is simply "implausible."22 The responsibility for ensuring that an
action satisfies these requirements falls squarely on the agency itself.
EPA failed to consider relevant data for setting ballast water discharge limitations and
implementing a compliance schedule, and the Agency cannot escape these deficiencies by
relying on the SAB and NAS reports.23 EPA relies largely on the reports from the SAB and NAS
panels to support its decision that IMO D-2 standards constitute TBELs under the Clean Water
Act and to justify its failure to establish meaningful WQBELs. EPA's reliance on these
documents was arbitrary and capricious because in both cases, the panel deliberations and
conclusions excluded relevant data and failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.
The Agency's reliance on the SAB report excluded relevant data from the start because EPA
narrowly tailored its charge to the SAB, limiting the panel's evaluation of BAT to shipboard
technologies and instructing the panel to ignore onshore treatment options.24 EPA also instructed
the SAB panel to consider only 15 ballast water treatment systems, although over 51 systems
were identified in prior reports.25 The legal deficiencies in the SAB report are discussed at
greater length in the NRDC/NWF Comments. The most fundamental flaw in the SAB process,
however, is EPA's reliance on an outside evaluation that was, by the Agency's own direction,
truncated and incomplete. For example, at the express instruction of EPA, the SAB panel failed
to evaluate onshore treatment as BAT when, in fact, there is evidence that onshore treatment can
significantly reduce invasive species levels for all class sizes.
5 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (2011).
6 See NRDC v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156, 208-09 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ("Congress had a deep respect for the sanctity of water
quality standards and a firm conviction of [the] need for technology-forcing measures."); NRDC v. EPA, 822 F.2d
104, 123-24 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ("[T]he most salient characteristic of this statutory scheme, articulated time and again
by its architects and embedded in the statutory language, is that it is technology-forcing."); S. Rep. 92-414, 1972
U.S.C.C.A.N. 3668, 3701 (1971) ("[T]he program established by this section requires increasingly tougher controls
on industry;... industry will be required every five years to re-evaluate its control efforts and to apply the best
technology then available...").
7 Id, 822 F.2d at 124.
g
Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 470.
U.S. 116, 155-56(1985) (citations omitted).
9 EPA v. Nat'l Crushed Stone Ass'n, 449 U.S. 64, 74 (1980).
632
-------
10 Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 475 F.3d 83, 107-08 (2d Cir. 2007), rev'd sub nom on
limited grounds, Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1498, 1510 (2009).
11 Am. Petroleum Inst. V. EPA, 858 F.2d 261, 265 (5th Cir. 1988).
12 Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. EPA, 537 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2008).
13 Id.
14
The Draft VGP's "Ballast Water Treatment to BAT Schedule" would allow existing vessels with ballast water
capacity of less than 1500 m3 and greater than 5000 m3 to meet effluent limitations as late as the first scheduled
drydocking after January 1, 2016. Draft VGP, Part 2.2.3.5.2, at 35. Combined with EPA's finding that vessels
drydock "no less than once every five years," Fact Sheet, Part 4.4.3.5.5 at 107, this schedule would allow vessels
until late as January 2021 to come into compliance with TBEL requirements.
15 Fact Sheet, Part 4.4.3.5.1, at 80.
16 Draft VGP, Part 2.2.3.5.1, at 26-35.
17
As we explain below, supra II(i)(c), onshore treatment has demonstrated success in treating ballast water to much
more stringent levels, and EPA erred in not evaluating this treatment method in determining BAT.
18
Consider, for example, EPA's timeline in setting numeric effluent standards for Construction General Permits
("CGP"). EPA has since 1992 issued CGPs that cover areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. EPA,
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Point Source Category, 77
Fed. Reg. 112, 113 (Jan. 3, 2012). EPA did not establish national numeric effluent limitations until 2009. Id. The
portion of its rule setting numeric effluent limitations, however, is currently stayed. Id. at 113-14. Twenty years after
EPA began issuing CGPs, no numeric effluent limitations have been set.
19
Fact Sheet, Part 4.4.3.5.1, at 81. EPA bases this belief apparently on the sole fact that "numerous publications and
forums have been devoted to the imminence of the IMO standards." Id. It is an unfounded logical leap to assume
that an abundance of publications corresponds to industry planning or irreversible budget allocation.
20
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983); Am. Lung
Ass'n v. EPA, 134 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (requiring an agency to cogently and plausibly describe the "link"
between the factual record and a specific conclusion).
21 Motor Vehicle Mfrs., 463 U.S. at 43.
22 Id.
23
EPA's reliance on others' reports here contrasts with its efforts to identify and analyze the relevant data in
connection with other general permits. For example, when EPA developed effluent limits for the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard point source category, it collected information from a number of sources, including its own sampling
programs and two questionnaires, which it updated with ongoing data collection efforts and then compiled into a
database and analyzed to determine the impacts of the proposed effluent limitations. EPA, Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Category; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and Paper
Production, 58 Fed. Reg. 66078, 66093-94 (Dec. 17, 1993).
24
Science Advisory Board, Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems: A Report by the EPA Science Advisory
Board 3-4 (2011) [hereinafter "SAB Report"].
25 SAB Report at 36. 19 Fact Sheet, Part 4.4.3.5.1, at 81. EPA bases this belief apparently on the sole fact that
"numerous publications and forums have been devoted to the imminence of the IMO standards." Id. It is an
unfounded logical leap to assume that an abundance of publications corresponds to industry planning or irreversible
budget allocation. 20 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43
(1983); Am. Lung Ass'n v. EPA, 134 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (requiring an agency to cogently and plausibly
describe the "link" between the factual record and a have been set.
Response: With respect to concerns about the adequacy of the numeric technology based
ballast water discharge standard in the VGP and schedules for its implementation, Please see
§§ 1 and 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document. With
respect to concerns about the information and studies used for determining BAT for ballast
water discharges, including use of the SAB report, please see § 2 of the response essay in
section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
633
-------
Commenter Name:
Holley Horrell, Mills Legal Clinic on behalf of Northwest
Environmental Advocates
Northwest Environmental Advocates
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2
6
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: II. SPECIFIC CONCERNS
A. EPA's selection of BAT was flawed.
1. Technology capable of achieving, at best, IMO standards is not BAT.
As described in the NRDC/NWF Comments, the SAB panel analyzed data from only a
fraction of commercially available ballast water management system, and SAB's criteria for
determining whether a ballast water management system can meet standards more stringent
than the IMO standards were unduly restrictive.47 On the second point, we further note that
the SAB panel, constrained by EPA's narrow research charge, did not consider any limits for
different organism classes or sets of limits other than those designated by EPA. For example,
the SAB did not consider whether any shipboard systems could meet discharge limits for the
two organism size classes that are more stringent than IMO D-2 but less stringent than lOx
D-2 (such as 2x D-2 or 5x D-2), or any limit for total bacteria that is less stringent than Coast
Guard Phase 2. The SAB (and thus EPA, by relying on the SAB report) also failed to
consider whether systems could treat for viruses. Since data from laboratory tests and
water/wastewater treatment show that the processes used by some shipboard systems can
produce substantial reductions in viral concentrations.48 EPA's failure to consider that
relevant data was arbitrary and capricious.
2. Technology capable of achieving better than IMO standards is available and economically
To reiterate what is analyzed fully in the NRDC/NWF Comments, more protective standards
than the IMO requirements are available and economically achievable. We strongly encourage
EPA to take a hard look at the technology-based effluent limitations established by California
and New York.49
47 See NRDC Comment, Section IV(A).
48 SAB Report, at 77.
49 See NRDC Comment, Section IV(B).
Response: With respect to concerns about the adequacy of the numeric technology based
ballast water discharge standard in the VGP, please see § 1 of the response essay in section
9.1.2 of this comment response document. With respect to concerns about the information and
studies used for determining BAT for ballast water discharges, including use of the SAB report,
please see § 2 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document. With
respect to the SAB considering various regulatory limits or why EPA did not establish numeric
limits for viruses (or virus-like particles), please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-
2011-0141-0487-A1, excerpt 1.
achievable.
634
-------
Commenter Name: Holley Horrell, Mills Legal Clinic on behalf of Northwest
Environmental Advocates
Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: B. EPA's phased compliance schedule is flawed.
We reiterate the NRDC/NWF's Comments' condemnation of the proposed phase-in schedule,
which would allow some vessels to avoid compliance with BAT for many years, in violation of
the CWA.56 The Draft VGP's "Ballast Water Treatment to BAT Schedule" permits existing
vessels with ballast water capacity of less than 1500 m3 and greater than 5000 m3 to meet
effluent limitations as late as the first scheduled drydocking after January 1, 2016.57 Based on
EPA's statement that vessels come into drydock "no less than once every five years,"58 this
schedule would allow vessels until as late as January 2021 to come into compliance with TBEL
requirements.
Consistent with the Clean Water Act's implementing regulations,59 EPA may not use compliance
schedules to extend the decades-old statutory deadline for requiring compliance with BAT
effluent limitations.60 EPA attempts to sidestep this prohibition on compliance schedules by
claiming that BAT for the treatment of ballast water discharges is a moving target. This novel
conception of an evolving BAT, however, is nothing more than a improper compliance schedule
under another name. The Agency attempts to justify this delayed implementation schedule by
positing that "treatment system industry will need the additional time... to produce the required
units, and vessel owners will need that additional time to do the advance work necessary to
ensure that they choose and secure the appropriate system for their vessels and, after making the
necessary drydocking and inspection and approval arrangements, properly install the
technology."61 This explanation is insufficient on several levels. First, EPA provides no citations
to support its conjectures. Without any evidence or analysis to support the statement that such
time is necessary to get appropriate treatment systems on the market or any independent
evaluation of the IMO's industry-driven conclusions regarding the availability of drydocking,
EPA's decision to implement this schedule is arbitrary and capricious. In addition, EPA fails to
explain - because it cannot - how these practical concerns, even if grounded in fact rather than
conjecture, somehow negate the Clean Water Act's clear prohibition on compliance schedules
for TBELs. EPA fails to explain why it must invent this rolling-BAT concept in the context of
ballast water discharges, when it has never needed to resort to such a concept in issuing general
permits for other point source categories.
Added to the Draft VGP's other flaws - weak TBELs, a meaningless narrative WQBEL,
ineffective compliance monitoring, and bare-minimum reporting requirements - this prolonged
phase-in schedule of BAT compliance will allow the unabated discharge of invasive species to
continue for many years.
56 See NRDC Comment, Section V.
635
-------
Draft VGP, Part 2.2.3.5.2, at 35.
58 Fact Sheet, Part 4.4.3.5.5, at 107.
59 40 C.F.R. § 122.46.
60 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b) (requiring compliance by 1989).
61 Fact Sheet, Part 4.4.3.5.5, at 106.
Response: Please see § 4 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response
document. In addition, EPA specifically refers the commenter to Section 4.4.3.5.5 of the Fact
Sheet for EPA's "evidence and analysis" [not sure why you put this in quotes unless that's the
name of the section, in which case you should capitalize] supporting this schedule. That section
(along with the supplemental discussion in the response essay and elsewhere in this response to
comments document) fully explains EPA's basis for the schedule. Commenter fails to explain
why use of the IMO schedule, even if "industry driven," is improper, and commenter provides
no other analysis, data, or information for why EPA's approach is not appropriate. Instead,
commenter surmises that EPA should generate a schedule that is more rapid than that finalized
today merely because the commenter does not believe the VGP requires ballast water treatment
systems to be installed rapidly enough. Commenter provides no information that invalidates
EPA's analysis, nor do they provide information to support the claim that EPA's informed
analysis was arbitrary or capricious. Finally, EPA disagrees with commenters characterization
of the BAT schedule as a compliance schedule. The approach to BAT in today's permit is not
"novel" and is consistent with the Clean Water Act. See, Pulp and Paper "cluster rule" (63 FR
18504-18751 and 63 FR 42238-42240). In fact, in its comments on the 2008 VGP, Northwest
Environmental Advocates stated that EPA should "rely upon the IMO and shipping industry for
a feasible and realistic implementation schedule for installation of onboard treatment
technology..." (See Northwest Environmental Advocates (2008), available at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail:D=EPA-HO-OW-2008-0055-0309).
Though EPA has not relied on industry for establishing the implementation schedule in today's
permit, the Agency has used IMO and other information to inform the EPA's independent
decision to adopt the schedule finalized in today's permit.
Commenter Name: Holley Horrell, Mills Legal Clinic on behalf of Northwest
Environmental Advocates
Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Late Comment? No
Comment: G. EPA should clarify what testing protocol must be used.
The Draft VGP is somewhat unclear on what testing protocol must be used for approval of
ballast water treatment systems. Part 2.2.3.5.1.1 indicates that treatment systems must have
"been shown to be effective by testing in accordance with the EPAETV protocol,"89 while other
parts of the Draft VGP appear to allow foreign administration-approved devices to be tested
either "in accordance with" the ETV protocol or "in a manner consistent with the ETV protocol"
with respect to specified factors.90 EPA should clarify whether all systems must be tested in
636
-------
accordance with the ETV protocol. (EPA should also be consistent in its terminology and refer to
the protocol as either ETV or EPA-ETV, but not both.)
The Agency should also consider whether foreign administration-approved devices, especially
those not tested in accordance with ETV protocol, will be consistent with the proposed permit.
The efficacy test protocol that many foreign administrations use for type approval, the IMO G8
protocol, differs from and is in some ways weaker than the ETV protocol.91 At a minimum, EPA
should also consider how rigorously foreign administrations review test conditions. If foreign
administrations award type approval to systems that would not pass the relatively more rigorous
US type approval process, EPA cannot include these alternative protocols. Moreover, the ETV
protocol itself is deficient in several respects, as discussed extensively by the SAB Panel.92 For
example, the protocol should require testing of both inputs and outputs to verify the efficacy of
the treatment.
89 Draft VGP, at 27.
90 Id., Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.4, at 29; id, Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.5.2, at 31.
91
See, e.g., SAB Report, at 32, 95 (noting that ETV Protocol improves upon the G8 protocol).
92 See. SAB Report, at 60-62.
Response: EPA has modified § 2.2.3.5.1.1 of today's final VGP to make clear that systems
may be tested under non-ETV Protocols. That section of the VGP now provides that systems
used must be shown to be effective by testing conducted by an independent third party
laboratory, test facility or test organization. This section further specifies that systems that are
type-approved by the Coast Guard (which uses the ETV Protocol in its approval process (see
e.g., 46 CFR 162.060-26) or which have been type-approved by foreign Administrations and
determined by the Coast Guard to be an "alternative management system" (see 33 CFR
151.2026) satisfy this requirement. Approval of ballast water treatment systems is a
responsibility of the Coast Guard, and inclusion of language in the VGP that systems used must
be shown to be effective was done in order provide a degree of assurance in advance of
installation that systems will function in a shipboard environment; regardless of how any
system was tested and approved, any discharge of ballast water from the treatment system to
waters of the U.S. is subject to the VGP's effluent limitations. With respect to comments about
the ETV Protocol, EPA notes that this is outside of the scope of the VGP, as it does not
establish testing methods. Please also see § 5 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this
comment response document. EPA further notes it is unclear why commenter believes testing
both inputs and outputs should be used to verify treatment efficacy, as the applicable discharge
standard systems must meet is a concentration based discharge standard, not a percent removal
requirement.
Commenter Name: Holley Horrell, Mills Legal Clinic on behalf of Northwest
Environmental Advocates
Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Late Comment? No
637
-------
Comment: H. In its conditions for the use of ballast water treatment systems. EPA should
require that the system be used at uptake (where appropriate) and require maintenance of clean
tanks.
The Draft VGP requires vessels with shipboard treatment systems to maintain the system "in
accordance with all manufacturer specifications" and conduct all treatment using the system in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.93 EPA requires that vessels use the treatment
system "prior to any discharge of ballast water to waters of the U.S."94 Depending on the
treatment system, however, using it only prior to discharge might not be fully effective.
Treatment systems using filtering and UV, for example, must be used with every intake.95 Even
then, to be effective, the ballast tanks must "be maintained in a consistently pristine solution."96
Rather than relying on manufacturers' specifications, EPA should specify that tanks must be
maintained in a clean condition and that, for certain types of systems, vessels must also use the
treatment system upon each uptake.
93 Draft VGP, Part 2.2.3.5.1.1, at 27.
94 Id.
95
M. Eric Reeves, Protection of the Great Lakes from Infection by Exotic Organisms in Ballast Water, Report for
the 9th U.S. Coast Guard Dist., at 17-18 (1998). See attached.
96 Id.
Response: EPA has revised § 2.2.3.5.1.1 of the final VGP to address this issue, and that
provision now provides the treatment system must be used prior to any discharge of ballast
water to waters of the U.S, "either at uptake, in tank, or during discharge according to the
treatment system manufacturer's instructions." With respect to tank cleaning, the final (and
draft) VGP already contain a provision requiring tank cleaning. See, final VGP § 2.2.3.3.
Commenter Name: Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law Division, New
York City Law Department
Commenter Affiliation: New York City Law Department
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0598-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.5.2 Schedule for when Ballast Water Treatment becomes BAT (and
therefore required), pg. 35
This section requires the installation of equipment without regard for economic impact to the
operator. This section also does not place a limit on the number of times that the EPA or state
agency can determine that the latest technology becomes BAT and thereby impose a new
requirement for installation of newer and more expensive equipment. The City requests that
economic impact be explicitly considered, and that the number of required upgrades be limited.
Response: EPA does not agree with commenter's claim that the requirement for equipment
638
-------
installation was made "without regard for economic impact to the operator." The schedule
contained in § 2.2.3.5.2 of the VGP is based on BAT and was developed after taking into the
factors specified in the CWA and its implementing regulations, including costs. See final VGP
Fact Sheet § 4.4.3.3. For further discussion of economic issues, please also see section 13 of
this comment response document. With respect to limits on treatment upgrades, EPA notes that
as required by the CWA, the VGP contains numeric ballast water discharge limits based upon
the best available technology. As technologies evolve and improve, the effluent limits
achievable may also improve and it would be inappropriate and inconsistent with the Act's
mandates to set limits on technology upgrades once they become available. EPA further notes it
would consider the economic achievability issues associated with vessels that have previously
installed treatment equipment, along with the other relevant BAT factors, in determining what
constitutes BAT for future iterations of the VGP.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: 5. Whether the controls in this permit represent the BPT, BCT and BAT levels of
control.
We agree that the ballast water effluent standards as referenced under the 2013 VGP represent
Best Available Technology at this time.
In addition, we concur with the findings of the reference reports by EPA Science Advisory Board
(12 July 2011) and National Academy of Sciences Water Science and Technology Board report
which state that increasingly restrictive efficacy standards are not technologically feasible for
either effectiveness or for verification of effectiveness at this time.
Response: EPA notes the comment and further notes the final VGP's numeric technology
based limits for ballast water are the same as proposed. Please see § 1 of the response essay in
section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Late Comment? No
Comment: 16. Comment on the appropriateness of the technology-based ballast water controls
proposed in the VGP.
639
-------
The international community through the extensive efforts of the International Maritime
Organization (IMO), in cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard, has studied, developed discharge
standards, and implemented protocols against which ballast water treatment technologies can be
certified.
It is our recommendation that the Phase 1 requirements of the EPA's vessel discharge permit are
appropriate for all vessels. This is consistent with the results of EPA's own sponsored studies
(e.g. EPA Science Advisory Board Study and National Academy of Science Report 2011), that
there is no evidence to support verifiable standards in excess of IMO standards.
Since there is no demonstrated method to verify the Phase 2 requirements and since the need for
such requirements have not been adequately quantified, it is our recommendation that the Phase
2 requirements be put aside until such a time that a verification method has been accepted and
that the need has been established.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2, excerpt 5;
EPA further notes the final VGP does not contain a "phase 2" requirement.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
6
No
Comment: 5. Whether the controls in this permit represent the BPT, BCT and BAT levels of
control.
We agree that the ballast water effluent standards as referenced under the 2013 VGP represent
Best Available Technology at this time.
In addition, we concur with the findings of the reference reports by EPA Science Advisory Board
(12 July 2011) and National Academy of Sciences Water Science and Technology Board report
which state that increasingly restrictive efficacy standards are not technologically feasible for
either effectiveness or for verification of effectiveness at this time.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Commenter Affiliation: Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
640
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Late Comment? No
Comment: 16. Comment on the appropriateness of the technology-based ballast water controls
proposed in the VGP.
The international community through the extensive efforts of the International Maritime
Organization (IMO), in cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard, has studied, developed discharge
standards, and implemented protocols against which ballast water treatment technologies can be
certified.
It is recommended that the Phase I requirements of the EPA's vessel discharge permit are
appropriate for all vessels. This is consistent with the results of EPA's own sponsored studies
(e.g. EPA Science Advisory Board Study and National Academy of Science Report 2011), that
there is no evidence to support verifiable standards in excess of IMO standards.
Since there is no demonstrated method to verify the Phase 2 requirements and since the need for
such requirements have not been adequately quantified, it is our recommendation that the Phase
2 requirements be put aside until such a time that a verification method has been accepted and
that the need has been established.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2, excerpt 5;
EPA further notes the final VGP does not contain a "phase 2" requirement.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
28
No
Comment: b. Availability of Third-Party Testing Facilities.
It is our understanding that the USCG will be responsible for accreditation of labs and test
facilities. There are currently three test facilities in the United States - MERC in Maryland;
Golden Bear in California; and Great Ships Initiative in Minnesota. In addition, the USCG
expects that many foreign test facilities will also seek accreditation. None of the facilities have
been accredited yet because the process to accredit them will not be released until after the final
discharge rule is released. The timing of getting facilities accredited could be a major bottleneck
because existing facilities cannot do the work until accredited. Also, verification of discharge
quality is complex and will require third-party lab testing which will add to the bottleneck for
both lab accreditation and processing of samples. However, with regard to other nations' third-
party testing protocols, it is important that that the USCG - or its designated representatives - be
confident that these programs are comparable in quality to meet their intended purpose.
641
-------
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the VGP, as the VGP does not establish
processes for facility accreditation, and as commenter notes, such accreditation is the
responsibility of the Coast Guard.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
6
No
Comment: MISP staff also contends that in setting the proposed 2013 VGP performance
standards as a TBEL, EPA relied too heavily on the Science Advisory Board report assessing the
availability of ballast water treatment technologies (see SAB 2011). MISP staff believes that the
SAB report is insufficient as a review of available treatment systems. The conclusions from this
report are based on incomplete data and information, and as such should not be considered the
conclusive source of information on the availability and performance capabilities of existing
ballast water treatment systems. MISP staff submitted substantial comments to the SAB during
the development of that report. The MISP staff comments are included as Attachment A to this
comment letter. The most important comments from that letter are that: 1) the SAB confused
measurability (i.e. the detection limits of tests used to assess system performance) with the
performance capabilities of ballast water treatment systems (BWTS). It is inappropriate to state
that systems cannot meet standards more strict that the IMO standards (i.e. lOx IMO, lOOx IMO)
if methods are not available to determine system performance to those levels. Moreover the
methods used to review the data and assess system performance were not clearly delineated in
the report, and thus other researchers are prevented from repeating the analysis of the data; and
2) the report conclusions were based on limited data. Out of the 51 treatment systems reviewed
by the report, only 9 reliable datasets were collected, one of which was for a system that is no
longer on the market. In contrast, MISP staff collected 18 reliable data sets for inclusion in
Dobroski et al. (2011). Clearly, more information is available for analysis of system efficacy and
availability than was reviewed by the EPA SAB.
Therefore MISP staff asserts that the inadequacies of the SAB report prevent it from serving as a
reliable information source and should therefore not be used as the main source of information to
evaluate the BAT and establish a TBEL. There are other available sources of information that
provide insight into the availability of efficacy data above and beyond what is included in the
SAB report, especially data demonstrating the ability of systems to meet performance standards
that are more protective than the proposed 2013 VGP standards (see California State Lands
Commission 2010 and Dobroski et al. 2011 for a list of available systems and sources of system
performance data). Staff therefore believes that existing, available BWTS are capable of
exceeding the proposed 2013 VGP standards (IMO standards). Thus the TBEL established by
EPA is not reflective of the BAT and should be reconsidered.
Response: Please see §§ 1 and 2 of the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment
642
-------
response document. With respect to the SAB "methods used to review the data and assess
system performance," EPA does not agree that such methods were not clearly delineated in the
report as such information is plainly set out in §§ 2.2, 3 and 4.2 -- 4.4 of the SAB report.
Additionally, regarding data transparency and the ability to replicate analyses, unlike some
evaluations of ballast water treatment system performance, all of the data evaluated by the SAB
were made publicly available and included in a public docket (see
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0582). See also response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1, Excerpt 9. With respect to issues specific to the
California standard, see sections 9.1.9 and 9.1.1 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Related to USCG Rule?
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
7
No
No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.5.1.1: Ballast Water Management Using a Ballast Water Treatment
System - The requirement for vessels to use BVVTS that have been shown "to be effective by
testing in accordance with the EPA-ETV protocol" is ambiguous and may be confusing for the
regulated industry. The term effective is not defined. Furthermore, the ETV program is not an
approval program. The goal of the ETV program is to verify vendor claims regarding BVVTS
performance. Depending on the vendor's claim, the testing performed may vary to some degree
from system to system, and currently there are no ETV ballast water protocols to verify
shipboard performance. As written, this section will have little authority to regulate which
systems are installed on ships, and without the reassurance that a BVVTS tested according to
the ETV protocol will receive Type Approval from the U.S. Coast Guard, we believe vessel
owners and operators will be hesitant to purchase and install any' BVVTS.
Response: Please see sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, and 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
U.S. Coast Guard type approval is beyond the scope of this permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Related to USCG Rule?
Late Comment?
Gary Rosenlieb, Acting Chief, National Park Service Water
Resources Division, United States Department of the
Interior
National Park Service, United States Department of the
Interior
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0742-A2
5
No
No
643
-------
Comment: A portable ballast treatment system could help address two critical gaps in the
current regulations: 1) miles of aquatic resources, including those at ISRO and other NPS units,
are at risk from potential ballast discharges in emergency groundings; and 2) ships and ports will
require back-up treatment methods for inadequate shipboard ballast treatment and mechanical
failures. Such a portable treatment system could be used in both situations and we are working
with our partners on commercialization of this system. We request explicit recognition of the
possibility of such a treatment system and protocol.
Response: Please see sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, and 9.1.17 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: L. P. Kolb
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0779-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Related to USCG Rule? No
Late Comment? No
Comment: 1. The draft permit does not require Best Available Technology (BAT)
The SAB report and the fact sheet acknowledge that numerous studies have found that onshore
treatment systems for ballast water, sometimes called reception facilities, can achieve several
orders of magnitude better removals, are technically feasible, more reliable, safer for the people
running them, and less expensive compared to shipboard treatment. Given these advantages, I
believe EPA should either conclude that use of reception facilities is BAT, or provide a clear and
convincing rationale for why not. Saying that reception facilities are not now available, and that
time will be.
Response: Please see sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, and 9.1.18 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: L. P. Kolb
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0779-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Related to USCG Rule? No
Late Comment? No
Comment: 4. Reception facility treatment solves these problems.
Transfer of ballast water to a reception facility for treatment does meet the definition of BAT.
This approach is feasible to implement, much for effective, less expensive than shipboard
treatment and would greatly simplify life for the crew that has many other things to do in port.
Finally, a land or barge based reception facility would be subject to the same generally effective
monitoring and inspection that other NDPES dischargers have undergone in the 40 years since
enactment of the Clean Water Act.
644
-------
Reception facilities would likely be run by public agencies, probably port authorities or water
utilities under contract. The latter have long experience with filtration, disinfection, and other
technologies involved, they normally have analytical laboratories, and they are good at devising
effective monitoring systems.
The draft permit does allow use of reception facilities. This is not good enough. BAT should
prohibit discharge from the ship, so as to mandate ballast water treatment at a reception facility.
5. The shipping industry should bear the costs.
It might be argued that some US ports, or for that matter ports in other countries, may not be able
to afford to construct and operate reception facilities for ballast water. To the contrary, reception
facilities should be generally affordable, because the costs should be borne by the shipping
industry, probably on a cost per gallon basis, levied by the port. The industry is causing the
problem, and ought to cover the cost of resolving it. In some cases where local infrastructure is
not up to this task, there may be a need for international organizations to undertake this.
Response: Please see sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, and 9.1.18 of this comment response document.
9.1.3 Unmanned, Undowered Barges
Commenter Name: Cory Sause, Environmental Coordinator, Sause Bros
Commenter Affiliation: Sause Bros
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0482-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: With regards to our unmanned barges, because of the discharge characteristics and
operational profile of these unmanned vessels, barges should be able to obtain permit coverage
under the sVGP. Our barges have a very low volume of discharges, deck run off is minimal and
ballasting is only done on occasion. Further, because the vessels are unmanned and constantly on
the move, recordkeeping and coordinating inspections has been challenging due to the fact that
they are a constantly moving target. It's our position that if the sVGP is not finalized an sVGP
approach should be added into the VGP for barges that incorporates best management practices,
quarterly visual inspection requirements and recordkeeping and reporting via the PARI form.
Response: With respect to commenter's request for coverage of barges under the sVGP, please
see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, Excerpt 1 and section 2 of this
comment response document.
With respect to addition into the VGP of an sVGP approach for barges, EPA believes the
Agency already has incorporated several efficiency improvements in the 2008 VGP that will
reduce burden for barges (e.g., EUP inspections, combined annual reports, recordkeeping
reduction). EPA notes that barge owner/operators can use their own forms, or utilize
appropriate computer programs to keep track of their visual inspection and recordkeeping
requirements. Insofar as barges have to meet the VGP permit limits, a vessel owner/operator is
645
-------
only responsible for meeting applicable permit limits and for most unmanned, unpowered
barges, there are only a limited number of discharge types. Hence, EPA believes that the
effluent limits and other requirements that are applicable to barges in the VGP are reasonable.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 33
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question 14. Whether unmanned, unpowered barges have technologies available to
meet numeric ballast water treatment limits. Also, any information about how these vessels
utilize ballast water, and whether the Agency's understanding of their ballasting patterns is
correct. While we defer to the comments submitted by the American Waterways Operators on
this issue, we would like to emphasize the near impossibility of conducting ballast water
treatment operations on an unmanned barge. To require such an action means that a crew
member(s) would need to be placed on the barge while at sea likely in less than ideal wind,
weather and sea conditions. It is also important to note that this operation would entail a crew
member moving from the tug main deck and scaling the vertical side of an unloaded barge (on
average 15-30 feet) to reach the deck surface, which under the best conditions, is a risky
venture. This simply represents an unreasonable risk of human life.
Response: The comment provides further support for the final VGP's exclusion for unmanned
unpowered barges from its numeric technology based ballast water discharges standards. Final
VGP § 2.2.3.5.3.2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
4
No
Comment: Furthermore. Ingram Barge supports EPA's exemption of barges from ballast water
numeric discharge limits-
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 33.
Commenter Name: Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
Commenter Affiliation: The American Waterways Operators
646
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
7
No
Comment: Barges Are Appropriately Exempted From Numeric Discharge Limits.
AWO appreciates EPA's recognition that "treatment technologies are not currently available for
unmanned, unpowered barges which meet the IMO discharge limit."29 AWO believes that the
agency's decision not to propose numeric ballast water discharge standards for barges is based
on an accurate understanding of the physical and operational characteristics of barges. As EPA
notes, barges "do not have dedicated ballast water tanks," and, as the SAB acknowledged, "do
not have their own source of power or ballast pumps and are unmanned."30 In its Fact Sheet,
EPA correctly asserts that "ballasting for barges is typically done in limited locations [...] [or] to
improve stability in stormy conditions or other rough water."31 Although operations vary widely
across the inland and coastal barge industries, AWO and its members can confirm that barges, as
a vessel class, are not "a significant discharger of ballast water."32.
29 U.S. EPA 201 la, Part 4.4.3.5.6.2.
30 U.S. EPA SAB 2011, p. 40.
31 U.S. EPA 201 lb, Part 4.4.3.5.6.2.
32 Ibid.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 33.
Commenter Name: Anonymous Public Comment
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0517
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Fact Sheet Section 4.4.3.5.6.2: EPA is correct in its understanding that barges take
on water only in very limited circumstances to pass under low structures when water is high.
When this occurs, water is taken into wing tanks immediately before the barge passes under the
structure in question and discharged after passing underneath, always in the same water body
segment. As EPA notes, barges are always unmanned and do not have their own source of
power, presenting significant logistical challenges for implementing ballast water management
systems. For these reasons, the EPA's decision not to apply numerical treatment limits for
unmanned, unpowered barges is appropriate. Barge operators can and should continue to limit
the use of "ballasting" so that it is only done when necessary.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 33.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
647
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 26
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question #14: Are there technologies available that would allow unmanned,
unpowered barges to meet numeric ballast water treatment limits?
LCA response: The Draft VGP Fact Sheet indicates that EPA is referring here to barges on the
inland and coastal waterway systems that are the equivalent of a maritime railway car, are
unmanned, do not have infrastructure that allows for complex or energy intensive operations, and
mostly ballast to pass under bridges. No such vessels are enrolled in LCA.
Response: EPA notes LCA has not enrolled unmanned unpowered barges. Please also see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 33.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
13
No
Comment: Unmanned Barges. Wisconsin DNR agrees with EPA that treatment system
installation on unmanned barges is currently infeasible and acknowledges unique challenges of
regulating unmanned vessels that change "operators" frequently. It is important to require BMPs
that will adequately address the transport and introduction of A1S. Wisconsin DNR proposes to
include BMPs that would require regular visual inspections and patching holes in the frequently
damaged ballast tanks, as needed.
Response: With respect to treatment system installation on unmanned unpowered barges,
please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 33. EPA notes
Wisconsin DNR's support for the final VGP to include BMPs for barges that would require
regular visual inspections and the patching of holes in ballast tanks. With respect to regular
visual inspections, EPA notes the VGP contains a visual requirement in final VGP §§4.1.1 and
4.1.2. With respect to patching of ballast tanks, an express requirement is unnecessary, as the
visual inspection provisions of final VGP § 4.1.1 already require inspection of all accessible
areas addressed in the VGP, particular attention to ballast water originating from the vessel, and
an obligation to undertake corrective action if pollutants or constituents of concern are
originating from the vessel in a manner that violates limitations in the VGP. EPA further notes
that under VGP § 2.2.3.3 all vessels (including unmanned unpowered barges) are subject to a
requirement to minimize the discharge of ballast water essential for vessel operations.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
648
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Late Comment? No
Comment: 14. Comment whether unmanned, unpowered barges have technologies available to
meet discharge standards. The global transfer and introduction of aquatic invasive species is
most frequently attributed to the ballast water discharge. As such, it seems reasonable that all
vessels that can contribute to the transfer and/or introduction of invasive species be required to
properly manage or treat their ballast water before discharge.
Response: EPA agrees that ballast water discharges are a significant vector for the introduction
of aquatic invasive species. With respect to unmanned unpowered barges, as explained in the
final VGP's Fact Sheet at § 4.4.3.5.6.2, EPA has determined that treatment technologies are
not currently available and thus has not included numeric treatment limits in the final VGP for
these vessels. EPA further notes commenter has not submitted information indicating a belief
that such technologies are available; and further notes that comments from the Water and
Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. indicates they are unaware of any such
treatment systems. Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2,
excerpt 14. While treatment technologies for unmanned unpowered barges are not available,
EPA notes that such barges are subject to the ballast water best management practices specified
in § 2.2.3.3 of the final VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Patrick Stant, President, Marmac, LLC, McDonough
Marine Service
Marmac, LLC., McDonough Marine Service
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0627-A2
5
No
Comment: We agree with the comment in the Federal Register notice, section III, Summary of
Today's Permit, (A) (1), that unmanned, unpowered barges should not have numeric
concentration-based treatment limits for ballast water discharges.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 33.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Patrick Stant, President, Marmac, LLC, McDonough
Marine Service
Marmac, LLC., McDonough Marine Service
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0627-A2
9
No
Comment: Since barges are unmanned and unpowered,, it is not feasible to install ballast water
treatment systems on board. There is no practical means of retrofitting barges to do so.
649
-------
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 33.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
14
No
Comment: 14. Comment whether unmanned, unpowered barges have technologies available to
meet discharge standards. The global transfer and introduction of aquatic invasive species is
most frequently attributed to the ballast water discharge. As such, it seems reasonable that all
vessels that can contribute to the transfer and/or introduction of invasive species be required to
properly manage or treat their ballast water before discharge. However, at this time, we are not
aware of any treatment system that exists for unmanned, unpowered barges, nor for very small
vessels (less than 8 cubic meters).
Response: Please see the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2, excerpt
13 and EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 33.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
11
No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.5.3.2: Unmanned. Unpowered Barges - Unmanned, unpowered barges
such as hopper barges are not required to meet the ballast water management measures of Part
2.2.3.5. What is the rationale, scientific or otherwise, for exempting this class of vessels? While
it is true that many existing barges are unable to conduct mid-ocean or near-shore ballast water
exchange, these vessels are excellent candidates for utilizing either a shoreside treatment facility
or transferring ballast water to a treatment barge for eventual treatment and discharge.
Furthermore we are aware of barges operating along the West Coast (e.g. barges belonging to
Crowley Maritime) that have outfitted their vessels with equipment to conduct exchange and/or
ballast water treatment. Therefore it is possible to manage ballast water in barges, and EPA
should and must establish requirements for these vessels to conduct such management.
Response: With respect to the exemption of unmanned unpowered barges from the VGP's
technology based numeric ballast water discharge standards, see final VGP Fact Sheet at §
4.4.3.5.6.2. With respect to the potential use of shoreside treatment or discharge to treatment
barges, EPA is not aware of any such facilities existing in the United States and commenter did
650
-------
not provide any evidence of their existence. See also, SAB Report, § 4.8; sections 9.17 and 9.18
of this comment response document. With respect to assertions that some barges operating
along the West Coast are equipped to conduct exchange and/or ballast water treatment, EPA is
unaware of treatment technologies that are assisting unmanned, unpowered barge operators to
meet ballast water numeric limits. EPA further notes that no supporting information was
provided by the commenter, nor did EPA see any such supporting information submitted by
Crowley Maritime. Lastly, EPA notes unmanned unpowered barges are subject to the ballast
water best management practices specified in § 2.2.3.3 of the final VGP. Hence, these vessels
have technology based limits which are applicable; those limits are simply not numeric
concentration based limits which require a ballast water treatment system or some other
method.
9.1.4 Existing Confined Lakers
Response Essay:
EPA received numerous comments on the VGP's proposed requirements for "Lakers." Some
commenters objected to EPA not requiring numeric treatment limits for a class of vessels EPA
called "confined Lakers" (i.e., existing bulk carriers built before January 1, 2009, that operate
upstream of the Welland Canal). Other commenters, primarily operators of vessels that operated
upstream and downstream of the Welland Canal, thought it was inappropriate that bulk carriers
operating solely upstream of the Welland Canal did not have to meet the same numeric limits
that they would be required to meet. Some commenters suggested EPA move the boundary
from the Welland Canal to other locations reaching to Anticosti Island at the mouth of the St.
Lawrence River. Some commenters expressed the opinion that ballast water from "Lakers"
posed no ecological risk because the Great Lakes are one continuous body of water. Other
commenters believed that EPA's prohibition of sediment from ballast water tank cleaning was
not justified.
As far as EPA's decision not to require existing "Confined Lakers" to meet numeric treatment
limits, EPA notes that those determinations were made based upon whether technologies were
available for these vessels. Contrary to claims by some commenters, EPA has not "exempted"
existing Lakers from NPDES requirements; rather, EPA found that ballast water treatment
technologies compatible with the operational and design constraints of these vessels and that
have been documented to meet the limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the permit are not currently
available. As discussed in the VGP fact sheet, and by several commenters in this section and
other areas of this response to comment document, these vessels generally have short voyage
durations, high pumping rates, unlined ballast water tanks, limited power availability,
independently pumped and piped ballast tanks, and systems which can operate exclusively in
the cold, fresh waters of the Great Lakes. One commenter, the Government of Canada (EPA-
HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1 excerpt 5) acknowledged that it is not feasible for existing lakers
equipped with one ballast pump per tank to install these treatment systems, but otherwise
expressed its believe that treatment systems were available for existing "Confined Lakers"
although it did not provide any record support for these assertions. Based upon EPA's review of
ballast water treatment technologies currently available, EPA did not identify technologies that
651
-------
could meet these complex operational challenges at the time of this proposal, nor did
commenters on this issue identify any such proven technologies.1 EPA notes in the VGP fact
sheet that the Agency intends to require these vessels to meet treatment limits once these
technologies become available. In addition to potentially requiring this as part of the next VGP,
EPA included a permit reopener clause in this permit that could be invoked if new information
would indicate that treatment technologies were available and their use was economically
achievable for these vessels.
One commenter (the State of Minnesota) suggested that EPA should consider whether a delayed
implementation schedule for Lakers was more appropriate than not requiring them to meet the
numeric limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP. EPA did not include such a schedule in the
draft permit because the Agency did not have the information in the record necessary to derive
such a schedule and the commenter did not provide the type of information that would allow the
Agency to determine when numeric limits applicable to Lakers would, in fact, constitute best
available technology (BAT). Likewise, another commenter appeared to suggest that EPA
should set a date for treatment installation "5 years out" so as to create incentives for system
development; this commenter, however, provided no concrete information suggesting that
systems would be available and economically achievable for this class of vessels within that
timeframe. As discussed above, EPA plans to closely track the development of ballast water
treatment systems and their applicability for Lakers, and EPA will, consistent with the
requirement of the CWA, require those vessels to meet appropriate numeric technology-based
effluent limits (TBELs) once those systems (or other ballast water management approaches) are
available and their use is economically achievable. EPA acknowledges the fact that NPDES
permits expire every 5 years and that newly issued permits must reflect BAT as a significant
incentive for treatment system development.
Some commenters have stated or suggested that EPA has not included any TBELs for Lakers in
this iteration of the VGP. EPA notes that the VGP contains other TBELs and related
requirements for Lakers' ballast water discharges (See VGP Parts 2.2.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.2.3.3., and
2.2.3.4). Hence, EPA disagrees with comments, such as those from NRDC, which state the
"current VGP TBELs for invasive species in ballast water" do not apply to Lakers. Nonetheless,
EPA acknowledges and agrees with some commenters, such as the Little Travers Bay Band of
Indians, NRDC, and New York DEC, that Lakers can spread or more rapidly disperse invasive
species previously introduced into the Great Lakes. EPA notes that the TBEL requirements
found in Part 2.2.3.1 through 2.2.3.4 of the permit are designed to reduce the risk of transferring
and dispersing invasive species, with the requirements in Part 2.2.3.4 being specifically
designed for Lakers. For further discussion of how TBELs are established under the CWA refer
to Parts 4.1 and 4.2 of the VGP Fact Sheet. For information on how EPA established the
numeric ballast water treatment limits and determined which vessels they should apply to,
please see Part 4.4.3.5 of the Fact Sheet. For further discussion of how EPA developed the
technology-based requirements specific to Lakers, please see Part 4.4.3.5.4 of the Fact Sheet.
Please also see sections 9.1, 9.1.1, and 9.1.2 of this comment response document. The VGP is
an NPDES permit that covers Lakers, and the permit has TBELs that apply to those Lakers that
EPA established consistent with the factors set forth in the CWA, including the requirement that
the technology to meet such limit be "available". See CWA §304(b)(2)(B). The Agency also
has established Water quality-based effluent limits (WQBEL) that apply to these vessels (See
652
-------
discussion later in this essay and sections 10, 10.1, and 10.1.1 of this comment response
document). Hence, unlike in Northwest Envtl. Advocates et al. v. United States EPA, 2005 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 5373 (N.D. Cal. 2005), where the Agency was found to have exceeded its
authority by exempting incidental discharges from vessels from NPDES permitting, in the VGP,
EPA has not "exempted" Lakers from meeting permit limits but has exercised its CWA
authority to impose required limits.
Regarding whether EPA's draft permit appropriately identified the "Lakers" for which
treatment technologies do not constitute BAT and thus do not have to meet treatment limits
(i.e., Lakers that operate upstream of the Welland Canal), EPA has modified the proposed
approach based on comments received. In today's permit, EPA extended the demarcation line
of what the Agency considers a Laker not having to meet the treatment limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of
the Permit to Anticosti Island. Hence, any vessel that operates upstream of the waters of the St.
Lawrence River west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap de Rosiers to West Point, Anticosti
Island, and west of a line along 63 W. longitude from Anticosti Island to the north shore of the
St. Lawrence River do not have to meet the numeric treatment limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the
permit (the applicability line is drawn consistent with that described in 46 CFR § 42.05-40(c)).
Any existing vessel that would otherwise be required to meet the numeric treatment limits in the
VGP (e.g., vessels greater than 1600 GRT) must meet the numeric limits found in Part 2.2.3.5
of the permit for discharges of ballast water in waters subject to the permit once they operate
outside of these waters (i.e., seaward of Anticosti Island).
EPA demarcated the line at Anticosti Island based upon information provided in comments
received during the public comment period. Specifically, EPA was convinced by the comments
submitted by the Canadian Shipowners Association (EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2,
excerpt 2) which pointed out that the owner/operators of such vessels that operate exclusively
within the entire Laurentian Great Lakes face many of the same challenges as those identified
by EPA as being applicable to vessels previously defined as "Confined Lakers." (e.g., power
constraints, short distance voyages, lack of space, high flow rates). Several other knowledgeable
commenters provided similar information showing that vessels that operate exclusively
upstream of Anticosti Island share many of the technological challenges that EPA considered
when providing that "Confined Lakers" as defined in the proposed VGP did not have to meet
the numeric treatment limits . These commenters pointed out that these limitations include
power limitations, short voyage durations, unlined tanks (in some cases), and limitations on
systems that can operate in a cold freshwater only environment. In particular, EPA was
convinced by comments submitted by Rand Logistics, Inc (EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0568-A2
excerpt 4) that provide a good summary of the combination of operational and environmental
characteristics rendering the existing technologies unavailable for existing vessels operating
exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Based on the information provided in these
comments, EPA agrees that existing vessels operating exclusively upstream of Anticosti Island
share many of the most significant limitations of Confined Lakers and that an examination of
available treatment technologies revealed no systems that are available for these vessels as well.
EPA has therefore changed the permit to not require these vessels to meet numeric treatment
limits. These existing vessels must instead meet all the management measures found in Part
2.2.3.1-2.2.3.3 of the permit, as previously proposed, and like the proposal for "Confined
Lakers", must also meet the best management requirements found in Part 2.2.3.4 of the permit.
653
-------
The Agency has continued to require these vessels, if built on or after January 1, 2009, to meet
the numeric treatment limits on the schedule finalized for existing vessels. As discussed in the
Fact Sheet and section 9.1.6 of this comment response document, EPA believes this is an
appropriate date for determining when vessels can install ballast water treatment systems or
otherwise meet the limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP.
Though beyond the scope of this permit issuance, EPA notes that the Agency plans to continue
examining this issue, in partnership with the U.S. Coast Guard, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and
the Canadian Government, as appropriate, and once technologies become available for these
vessels, the Agency intends to require that they too, meet numeric treatment limits. Although
also beyond the scope of this permit issuance, EPA notes that the Canadian Government has
released a discussion paper where they announced they intend to require any Laker to meet
numeric treatment limits on a delayed schedule from the Ocean and Seagoing fleets. EPA is
supportive of these efforts, and believes that such work will continue to drive technological
development that results in the ability to meet limits in a manner that is economically
achievable for these vessels. However, EPA notes that this schedule provided in the discussion
paper is still in the very early stages of development, and so EPA will reexamine this issue for
the next issuance of the VGP (or perhaps earlier in the context of considering whether to reopen
the permit to impose new BAT requirements). As previously discussed, EPA expects to
establish numeric treatment limits once technologies are available and economically achievable
for these vessels.
EPA has concluded that onboard treatment reflects BAT for vessels operating downstream of
Anticosti Island (e.g., on the seaward side of the Island). In addition to having longer voyages,
these vessels have lined ballast tanks (or otherwise cope with the corrosive saltwater
environment). Additionally, though not relevant to EPA's BAT determination, a vessel entering
from outside the Laurentian Great Lakes likely poses a greater risk of introducing ANS to the
Great Lakes, and requiring numeric treatment limits be met for these vessels will reduce this
risk accordingly.
One commenter who opposed imposition of ballast water treatment for Lakers asserted that the
"goal of requiring installation of ballast water treatment systems would be to stop the
introduction of non-indigenous species into U.S. Waters." EPA disagrees. The goals of
requiring ballast water treatment systems are to both stop the introduction of non-indigenous
species (ANS) into U.S. waters and to limit their spread and dispersal within those waters.
Another commenter (Minnesota) noted that there are many ANS that are present in the lower
lakes which have not yet migrated to the upper lakes. EPA agrees, and as discussed above, EPA
has included non-numeric TBELs found in Parts 2.2.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.2.3.3, and 2.2.3.4 of the
permit to reduce the numbers of living organisms discharged in Lakers' ballast water, and
consequently, reduce the risk of these organisms being discharged into the upper Lakers. EPA
also notes that there are currently ANS in the upper lakes which have not yet migrated to the
lower lakes.
One commenter (the Government of Canada) asserts that the best management practices
(BMPs) required in Part 2.2.3.4 of the permit have not been demonstrated to substantially lower
the numbers of organisms that would otherwise be present in the discharge. While EPA agrees
654
-------
that studies have not been conducted to quantify this reduction and that the reduction in
numbers of living organisms resulting from these BMPs is most likely to be less than the
reduction that would be achieved by meeting the numeric treatment limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of the
permit, the Agency has concluded that, as discussed in the above, the VGP's numeric limits do
not represent BAT at this time for these existing Laker vessels, and the practices required in
Part 2.2.3.4 of the VGP are BAT and would reduce the number of living organisms. For
instance, a sea chest screen that is maintained and does not contain gaps or holes is more likely
to keep out the largest organisms (e.g., large fish) than one that is not. These larger organisms
pose risks (i.e., if they are invasive themselves, they pose risks of being transported, or if they
are infected with pathogens (such as VHS), they pose risks of being a vector for the pathogen).
EPA also recognizes that many Lakers will not be able to substantially reduce the volume of
water taken onboard shoreside; however, for those vessels that can do so, the expected
concentration of some living organisms is likely to be lower in the deeper waters of the lake
compared to the nearshore shallow water environment. Additionally, less sediment would be
taken onboard by the vessel (sediment which has been shown to pose a risk of dispersing
benthic organisms and other macro invertebrate eggs). However, in response to comments
questioning whether there were additional BMPs that reflect BAT, EPA took a harder look at
existing voluntary BMPs (available in the record for the draft permit). EPA added an additional
BMP to Part 2.2.3.3 of the permit which requires that vessels use ballast water pumps instead of
gravity draining to empty ballast water tanks to minimize potential living organisms in the
discharge unless they meet the treatment limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP. This practice
has been shown to significantly reduce the number of living organisms present in ballast water
discharges. For instance, USCG (Asian Carp Survivability Experiments and Water Transport
Surveys in the Illinois River, 2013) found high mortality (99.44%) among Asian carp larvae
that were entrained and then pumped out. Offering further support of this BMP, EPA notes that
there are documented effects of entrainment and impingement on organism mortality in cooling
water intake structures. Mortality is likely induced from cavitation, entrainment, and maceration
that will occur during the pumping process and by the pump itself. Hence, EPA believes that
pumps used on ballast water tanks will reduce the numbers of living organisms discharged and,
therefore, reduce the risks posed by vessels employing this BMP. Furthermore, EPA found that
inclusion of this requirement is economically achievable and available for any vessel which
currently uses pumps (there is no increase in capital costs). Hence, EPA believes this is an
appropriate additional BMP to reduce the number of living organisms discharged from ballast
water tanks for vessels which do not yet have to meet the numeric treatment limits found in Part
2.2.3.5 of the VGP.
One commenter (Minnesota) questioned why EPA did not require a numeric water quality-
based effluent limit (WQBEL) for Lakers in the VGP. As discussed in the VGP Fact Sheet, and
sections 10.1 and 10.1.1 of this comment response document, EPA found that a numeric
WQBEL was infeasible to calculate for all vessels (not just Lakers). The ballast water numeric
limit applicable in today's VGP is a TBEL and is only applicable for those classes of vessels for
which EPA believes treatment systems are available and their use is economically achievable.
The commenter further questioned whether EPA considered the NAS' statement that "as a
logical first step, a benchmark discharge standard should be established that clearly reduces
concentrations of coastal organisms below current levels resulting from ballast water exchange
(such as the IMP standard)." The commenter further notes that EPA should explain why this
655
-------
statement "was not included as a component of the WQBEL". As discussed in the VGP fact
sheet, the NAS also found that there is currently a "profound lack of data" that does not allow
regulatory agencies to accurately estimate the risk of establishment of new non-indigenous
populations at various ballast water discharge concentration levels. As further discussed by the
NAS, the lower the concentration, the lower the propagule pressure (and therefore, the lower
the risk of invasion). However, EPA emphasizes that the NAS stated a benchmark standard
should be established, such as one at the IMO, to reduce concentrations of coastal organisms.
They did not state that IMO was an appropriate WQBEL, nor did they state that this was an
appropriate level of risk reduction. The NAS was merely noting that at current discharge levels,
the risk of new invasions from international vessels was nontrivial and that the risk should be
reduced. By requiring a TBEL based on CWA factors, EPA has established that benchmark for
many vessel types, even though the Agency found that a numeric WQBEL was infeasible to
calculate. By inclusion of the non-numeric TBELs for Lakers, EPA has also reduced propagule
pressure from their ballast water discharges, albeit, the Agency could not establish a numeric
TBEL for these vessels for the reasons discussed above. Finally, EPA notes that the referenced
NAS statement was, in fact, directed at coastal organisms; vessels travelling through the oceans
are those which are currently conducting ballast water exchange. Hence, EPA notes, that
although the general principle of reducing the concentration and number of living organisms in
Lakers' ballast water discharges reduces the likelihood of spreading and dispersing ANS in the
lake, the suggestion of establishing a numeric benchmark standard for Lakers is not clearly
recommended by the NAS in the quote presented by the commenter.
We also note that where States (including those in the Great Lakes), have included in their
CWA § 401 certification of the VGP ballast water discharge standards or treatment
requirements based upon State water quality standards or other State laws, these were included
in the VGP Part 6.
EPA notes that all vessels are subject to the narrative WQBEL found in Part 2.3 of the VGP,
including all Lakers. If the vessel owner/operator becomes or is made aware that their discharge
is causing or contributing to an exceedance of water quality standards, the vessel
owner/operator must take action as required by the permit. Please see Part 2.3 of the VGP, Part
4.5 of the VGP fact sheet, and sections 10, 10.1, and 10.1.1 of this comment response document
for additional discussion.
Some commenters argued that EPA should remove the TBEL requirement prohibiting the
discharge of sediment from the cleaning of ballast tanks in U.S. waters. EPA does not believe it
appropriate to change the requirements prohibiting the discharge of sediment from the cleaning
of ballast tanks as outlined by these commenters. EPA notes that this requirement as proposed t
in the 2013 VGP, is unchanged from a requirement in the 2008 VGP. Hence, sediment
discharges from the cleaning of ballast water tanks have been prohibited in U.S. waters,
including all of the U.S. controlled Great Lakes, since February 6, 2009. EPA assumes that
vessels are currently meeting this existing requirement as we are not aware of the Agency
receiving a non-compliance report under the existing VGP stating that a vessel discharged
sediment from the cleaning of ballast water tanks into waters subject to the permit. Thus, EPA
believes that the prohibition on the discharge of sediment from the cleaning of ballast water
tanks remains an available and economically achievable management option for vessel
656
-------
operators, and that vessel operators have not been discharging sediment into waters subject to
this permit for more than three years.
Additionally, given the current permit's requirement, if EPA were to accept the commenter's
request, we note that such authorizing the discharge of sediment from the cleaning of ballast
water tanks in this VGP might constitute backsliding under section 40 CFR 122.44(1)(1) of the
Clean Water Act. Even if EPA were to agree with the commenter, which we do not, the
commenter has not presented evidence which would justify an anti-backsliding exception
consistent with 40 CFR 122.44(1)(1).
As discussed in the 2008 VGP supporting documentation, Part 2.2.3.3 of the VGP states that
vessel owner/operators must "Clean ballast tanks regularly to remove sediments in mid-ocean
or under controlled arrangements in port, or at dry dock. No discharge of sediments from
cleaning of ballast tanks is authorized in waters subject to this permit." Hence, the permit is
prescriptive in stating that the discharge of sediments resulting from the cleaning of ballast
tanks is not authorized in waters subject to this permit.
EPA agrees that removal of sediment is needed so that ballast tanks do not fill with it; however,
EPA does not agree that flushing of sediment into waters subject to this permit is an operational
necessity to accomplish such removal. Vessel owner/operators may need to make arrangements
for onshore disposal. Sediment could be removed when vessels are in Port, while the vessels are
not in service during the winter season, or while vessels are in drydock. The commenter states
that sediments are only removed once or twice per year, and has not provided information on
why the options stated in the previous sentence are not available. Vessel owner/operators should
make arrangements to remove the sediments under controlled circumstances when the vessel is
in drydock or otherwise laid up.
EPA has not authorized the discharge of sediment from cleaning of ballast tanks for three
primary reasons. First, as discussed above and today's VGP fact sheet, vessels can and are
avoiding the discharge of sediment in waters subject to this permit, highlighting that avoiding
the discharge is an available practice and it is economically achievable.
Secondly, sediment likely poses a risk for further distribution of aquatic nuisance or invasive
species. Organisms can survive in ballast sediment for prolonged periods in resting stages.
Numerous papers, including many cited in the VGP fact sheet, have discussed how resting and
dormant stages of numerous species can survive in ballast water sediments for prolonged
periods. Additionally, numerous studies, such as Briski et al. (2012) [Role of domestic shipping
in the introduction or secondary spread of non-indigenous species: biological invasions within
the Laurentian Great Lakes; Journal of Applied Ecology: 49(5) 1124-1130] have found that
domestic vessels, including Lakers, "have high potential to introduce or spread species with
restricted distribution, demonstrating the importance of intraregional ballast water
management." Numerous other studies, including Drake and Lodge, 2007, Briski et al., 2010,
and Briski et al., 2011, have highlighted the role that sediments play in introducing and
spreading invasive species. Finally, EPA notes that the 2004 IMO ballast water convention is
formally titled the "International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast
Water and Sediments" (emphasis added). Clearly the goal of the treaty was to reduce the risk
657
-------
from discharges of both ballast water and sediment. When one simply connects the dots, it is
readily apparent that moving sediment from one part of the lakes to another is a potential vector
for the introduction of non-indigenous fauna. Hence, ballast water and ballast water sediments
from vessels pose a risk of continuing to disperse ANS, and it is appropriate for EPA to apply
TBELs which manage or reduce that risk. Prohibition of the discharge of sediments from the
cleaning of tanks is one way to do so without forcing the shipping industry to cease ballast
water discharges or operations. Hence, the practice is available and is economically achievable
as evidenced by the fact the Great Lakes shipping industry has continued to operate for the last
three years without a single reported incident of needing to discharge sediment of ballast water
from the cleaning of tanks.
Third, sediment is a traditional pollutant which can be linked to violations of water quality
standards. Sediment discharged in any significant quantities will increase turbidity, decrease the
size of the photic zone, and result in increased benthic embeddedness. Though the sediment
collected on the bottom of ballast tanks likely settled onto the bottom of the tank from
exclusively Great Lakes water, the characteristics of that sediment are substantially altered from
when it was taken onboard the vessel. Furthermore, the sediment is not from the same location
or waters where the ballast water was taken onboard the vessel.
In addition and unlike the oceans, organisms discharged further from shore in the Great Lakes
would be more likely to survive as they are simply being discharged from a freshwater to a
freshwater environment. Furthermore, the mortality of several other living organisms such as
certain plankton and pathogens may not be limited or significantly affected by nearness to
shore.
Therefore, EPA does not think it is appropriate to authorize the discharge of sediment from the
cleaning of ballast tanks anywhere in the Great Lakes, regardless of the distance from shore, nor
as discussed above, does EPA believe it infeasible to remove accumulated sediments from
ballast tanks without flushing them into the Great Lakes. Please see Part 4.4.3 of the Fact Sheet
for additional discussion of the sediment prohibitions, including discussions of how vessels
report their disposal of sediment from the cleaning of ballast water tanks [e.g., in dry dock] to
EPA.
Regarding schedule, several commenters argue that EPA should change the new build date of
what constitutes a "new Laker" from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2012. Please see section Bal
9.1.6 of this comment response document for discussion regarding this issue.
1 EPA notes that the commenter of comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-00573-A1, excerpt 13 cites results from a
sodium hydroxide (NaOH) practicality study led by the U.S. Coast Guard. EPA is aware of the work being led by
the National Park Service and appreciates that agency's research efforts to reduce the threat of invasions. EPA
notes that this work, though promising, has not been sufficiently proven to mandate this approach as BAT. For
instance, in the work cited by the commenter, the authors note that future work should have the following
additional steps: "Ship Testing. Demonstration and verification efforts should be performed to verify the
arrangements and logistics developed in this report." And "Land-based Testing. Further land-based efficacy and
toxicity testing to not only further confirm the system effectiveness, but also determine if a lower dose of the
chemical might be effective."
658
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Douglas W. Craven, Director, Natural Resource
Department, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Natural
Resource Department
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0433-A1
3
No
Comment: 'Lakers' Exemption Increases Risk of Introduction and Spread
LTBB NRD opposes the exemption in Part 2.2.3.5.3.3 that gives 'Lakers', bulk carrier vessels
confined exclusively to the Great Lakes, an exemption from the numeric discharge limits of Part
2.2.3.5. Although Lakers are confined to the Great Lakes they can still playa significant role,
spreading invasive species between Great Lakes' ports and the lakes themselves. This exemption
would also allow Lakers to spread new invasive species brought into the lakes by oceangoing
vessels. For example, if an oceangoing vessel enters the Great Lakes and releases its ballast
water containing a living invasive species, that species could then be transported and spread by a
Laker to other parts of the Great Lakes much more rapidly than the species could migrate on its
own and before management actions could be taken. LTBB NRD requests that Part 2.2.3.5.3.3
(exemption of Lakers) be removed from the draft permit.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
18
No
Comment: IV. The VGP Must Be Revised To Include Effluent Limitations for Invasive Species
in Ballast Water Discharges from Laker Vessels. The current VGP's TBELs for invasive species
in ballast water discharges apply only to so called "salties," i.e., oceangoing vessels, while not
applying to so-called "laker" vessels that only travel within the Great Lakes.42 This exemption
creates a serious hole in managing the spread of invasive species. Although laker vessels do not
play a primary role in introducing invasive species into the Great Lakes, these vessels take up
and discharge billions of gallons of ballast water every year as they travel from port to port
within the Great Lakes, thus playing a significant role in spreading invasive species after they
have been introduced.43 Roughly 90% of the commercial shipping operations in the Great Lakes
area are domestic, and lakers account for over 95% of the volume of ballast water transferred44
Thus, although lakers may pose no danger of primary infestation - that is, direct infestation by
non-indigenous species, they disperse invasive species wider and faster than those species could
have spread on their own.45
659
-------
Lakers are especially suited to transport invasive species for two reasons. First, they move the
water over relatively short distances and thus do not keep it in their ballast tanks for a long time,
leading to a high survival rate for the organisms inside.46 Secondly, empirical evidence shows
that 30% of the ballast water for lakers is loaded in Detroit, Nanticoke (Ontario), Indiana Harbor
and Cleveland, while most of it (56%) is discharged in Superior, Duluth, Two Harbors, Stoneport
and Calcite ports.47 This leads to a conclusion that a lot of ballast water transfer goes upstream,
transporting invasive species at a rate far greater than they could achieve on their own 48
A report by the Canadian government shows that lakers could serve as a vector for primary
introduction of non-indigenous species to ports on the Great Lakes by moving ballast water
sourced from ports on the St. Lawrence River, if taxa native to ports on the St. Lawrence River
are non-indigenous to the Great Lakes, or if ports on the St. Lawrence River serve as sites for the
primary introduction and establishment of taxa that are non-indigenous to both regions.49 Just as
importantly, while only 1% of lakers transport water from St. Lawrence River ports to Great
Lakes, the absolute volume is equivalent to the contribution by coastal and transoceanic vessels
combined.50
In other words, the fact that lakers do not travel outside the Great Lakes does not mean that their
ballast water discharges do not contain biological "pollutants" that must be regulated under the
CWA. Much as it did with respect to the now-vacated 40 C.F.R. § 122.3, which from 1973 until
2009 had exempted discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel from NPDES
requirements until it was struck down by a California district court as an ultra vires regulation,
EPA lacks authority to exempt lakers' ballast water discharges from NPDES permitting. NWEA
v. EPA, No. C 03-05760 SI, 2005 WL 756614, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2005), aff'd, 537 F.3d
1006 (9th Cir. 2008).
42
The current VGP's purported "WQBEL" does apply to lakers, but as noted above, the current VGP contains no
analysis of whether its effluent limitations are sufficient to protect Great Lakes and coastal water quality, and it
makes no attempt to define, let alone quantify, how water quality standards should be applied in the invasive species
context. See supra Section III.B.
43
See Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Comments Received on the Draft Section 401
Water Quality Certification (Dec. 8, 2008), available at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wb-swas-
401certresponse_258951_7.pdf (Response to Comment 2); Rup et al., Domestic Ballast Operations on the Great
Lakes: Potential Importance of Lakers as a Vector for Introduction and Spread of Nonindigenous Species, Can. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 67(2): 256-268 (2010).
46
See id. (With many intra-regional transits taking less than 24 hours, and typical inter-regional sailing times of 3^1
days, plankton survival in ballast tanks of lakers is expected to be very high).
47 Id.
48 Id.
49
S.A. Bailey, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Report on Domestic Ballast Water Study - Phase 2 (Fiscal Year 2008-
2009) at 7, available at
http://www.piersvstem.com/posted/443/Appendix3FisheriesandOceansCanadaRoleofDomesticBallastWaterStudvPh
ase2.355926.pdf.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
660
-------
Commenter Name:
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0497-A1
9
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: 5. EPA should not exempt bulk carrier vessels (Lakers) from the ballast water
treatment system requirements.
The VGP excludes bulk carrier vessels built before 2009 from the proposed discharge standards
if they are confined to the Great Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal. While DEC understands
the rationale for treating bulk carriers differently, these vessels are still capable of spreading AIS
around the Great Lakes. Domestic ballast water transfers "may contribute to non-indigenous
species introductions and are likely the most important ballast-mediated pathway of secondary
spread within the Great Lakes."11 Given the number of bulk carrier vessels transiting the Great
Lakes every year, it is imperative to address this pathway for invasive species.
EPA's exclusion of existing bulk carrier vessels (Lakers) confined to the Great Lakes from the
numeric discharge standards acknowledges the unique challenges facing this sector of the
industry, but unfortunately will prolong the time-frame for the development and installation of
suitable technology. Lakers have the capacity to spread existing invasive species within the Great
Lakes due to the very large quantity of ballast water transported between Great Lakes ports
by these vessels. The fact that Lakers do not travel outside the Great Lakes does not mean that
their ballast water discharges do not contain AIS that can be spread throughout the various Great
Lakes.
While land-based and ship-board test data for treatment systems operating in freshwater are
limited, it is DEC's understanding there are several commercially available technologies already
type approved that are suitable for operating in such conditions. A Report of Lloyd's Register
Ballast Water Treatment Technology: Current Status (June 2011) indicated 28 of 59 systems
reviewed are suitable for use in fresh water to treat AIS. DEC recommends that EPA require
vessels operating exclusively within the Great Lakes to install appropriate ballast water treatment
technology, consistent to that which is required for ocean going vessels. If engineering
constraints or availability of appropriate systems prevents vessel operators from meeting
established compliance deadlines, options for extending the compliance deadline for these
vessels should be considered. 11 Rup, M. et al, 2010. Domestic ballast operations on the Great
Lakes: Potential importance of Lakers as a vector for introduction and spread of non indigenous
species. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic. Sci. 67:256-268 (2010).
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
With respect to treatment system availability for freshwater , please also see section 9.1.2 of this
comment response document.
661
-------
Commenter Name:
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
5
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: 3. Requirements for Great Lakes vessels (Lakers)
Environmental conditions in our shared boundary waters, notably on the Great Lakes, add to the
difficulty of ballast water management and are cause for special consideration and co-ordination
between our two countries, [n order to operate in the commercial shipping environment of the
Great Lakes onboard any laker, BWMS must provide high flow rates and operate reliably and
safely on short voyages in cold freshwater conditions. Existing lakers face additional challenges
because designs for these vessels never anticipated the space and power requirements ofBWMS.
Canada is studying the risk associated with ballast water movement by lakers; despite the
challenges for these vessels, early results suggest that all ballast water discharged on the Great
Lakes requires management.
The EPA's approach to this challenge in the draft permit is to create a special class of ships,
which are exempted from the numerical requirements for ballast water treatment. Instead, in
section 2.2.3.4 of the draft permit, the EPA has imposed additional requirements on these
vessels: to monitor sediments, to minimize dockside ballast water uptake and to maintain sea
chest screens. Canada believes that this approach to the regulation of existing lakers lacks a
scientific foundation-being unaware of research that would establish the efficacy, reliability and
benefit of the management measures proposed. Indeed there are reasons to doubt their efficacy:
even minimal dockside uptake of ballast water may represent a substantial volume of water and
preferring deep-water uptake will simply shift concerns toward non-native organisms present in
deeper water. The approach of maintaining sea chest screens is not likely to curtail the spread of
the many small non-native species known to be established in the Great Lakes. Canada further
notes that a subset of the exempted laker vessels (e.g. the thousand footers) transport a
disproportionately large volume of ballast water; on an annual basis when compared with the rest
of the Great Lakes fleet, this also disproportionately multiplies any risk of spreading aquatic
invasive species.9 The definition of laker ships is also inappropriate as Canada's laker fleet
regularly operates on the St. Lawrence River as far downstream as Anticosti Island.
Canada opposes implementation by EPA of exemptions for two reasons:
1. Science advice received to date suggests that widespread laker exemptions for Canadian and
U.S. vessels would not prOVide the best environmental protection for the Great Lakes.
2. Existing commercially available BWMS are being marketed for use under the challenging
conditions faced by lakers (space, power; voyage duration, salinity, flow)-for both new and
retrofit applications. These systems have met efficacy and other requirements to receive type
approval according to the Convention's guidelines. They could be installed and placed into
service on lakers within the timelines of the Convention if authorized through the VGP and
type-approved by the U.S. Coast Guard in a timely manner.10
662
-------
As discussed above, there is an urgent need for uniform implementation of the MO convention.
Toward this end, Canada urges the EPA and U.S. Coast Guard to promptly approve currently
existing and commercially available BWMS based on data collected for type approvals under the
Convention's guidelines, which is necessary to allow shipowners adequate time to comply.
Canada sees a need to confirm the applicability of the existing systems described above to laker
ships. Accordingly, Canada plans to organize a working group towards these ends before the
EPA's permit comes into force, any report of which will be shared with the EPA.
9 See Rup, MP, Bailey, SA, Wiley, CJ, Minton, MS, Miller, AW, Ruiz, GM and Macisaac, HJ (2010) Can.]. Fish.
Aquae. Sci 67, 256-268.
10 Canada acknowledges that it is not feasible for existing lakers equipped with one ballast pump per tank to install
these treatment systems. A different management approach will likely be needed on these vessels.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
EPA notes that type approval is beyond the scope of the VGP issuance. Additionally, EPA
looks forward to the release of continued research being sponsored by the Canadian
government, and to the participation, as appropriate and resources allow, in any workshops on
ballast water management in the Great Lakes.
Commenter Name: Mark W. Barker, President, Interlake Steamship
Commenter Affiliation: The Interlake Steamship Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0516-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Interlake is a member of The Lake Carriers' Association and fully supports and
endorses each of their submission on the referenced subject. We support LCA's request that the
boundary for "upstream of the Wei land Canal" be the eastern end of the Welland Canal. The
natural flow of water in the system is west to east, so this flushing effect allows Lakers to transit
that far while remaining in what effectively constitutes an enclosed aquatic ecosystem. We
would also like to add some additional comments specific to our Company and its future well-
being, as the portions of the proposed permit - specifically the portion dealing with ballast water
could have far-reaching negative consequences for our Company.
Concerning the issue of ballast water treatment systems, we concur that there are no systems
currently available that can handle the flowrates and volumes of ballast water on our vessels, and
such systems are not likely to be available during the term of the next Vessel General Permit.
The Great Lakes is an ecosystem, and ships such as ours that operate exclusively within that
ecosystem cannot introduce a new non-indigenous species. Lakers are unique and different from
most other commercial ships that operate in U.S. waters or that are bound for ports in the U.S.
663
-------
and are equipped with ballast tanks (for the purpose of these comments, we will refer to all other
ships as "Salties"),
First and foremost. Lakers operate within a single Enclosed Aquatic Ecosystem. The United
States Coast Guard has recognized the whole of the Great Lakes as a single ecosystem. The high
volume configuration of the commercial docks throughout the Great Lakes, the relatively short
trip times between the various loading and unloading dock on the Great Lakes, and the shortened
navigation season resulting from the annual winter freeze has fostered the development of ships
that are unique to the Great Lakes. These ships are classed as Lakers. Internally, the United
States Coast Guard has recognized that there is a significant difference between Lakers and
Salties, and has established a "Center of Excellence" in Duliith, Minnesota, specifically for the
training of inspectors in Laker design, construction and operational characteristics. Because a
Laker's voyage is typically measured in days as opposed to the weeks or even months that a
Salty s voyage is measured in , and because Lakers often transit confined waters with speed
limits. Lakers' hulls were designed to hold the maximum amount of cargo. For most Lakers, their
very design limits their commercial usefulness to Great Lakes. Unlike most other commercial
ships, Salties, that have the ability to trade anywhere in the world , Lakers limit their operations
exclusively to the Enclosed Aquatic Ecosystem of the Great Lakes. In fact, most of them could
not physically leave the Great Lakes because they are not built for ocean service and are
physically larger than the connecting locks and waterways into and out of this Enclosed Aquatic
Ecosystem.
As part of their unique design and trading patterns. Lakers must have the ability to accept cargo
at high loading rates from specialized docks in the loading process and discharge cargo at
unloading docks in short periods of time. Unlike most Salties, Lakers operate as self-unloading
bulk carriers in order to accomplish this short turnaround. The self-unloading design allows
Lakers to unload their bulk cargoes very quickly using the ship's own cargo handling equipment
(typically a boom and a series of conveyor belts) without the assistance of sho reside equipment.
It is not uncommon for larger self-unloading ships to discharge cargo at rates between 6,000 and
10,000 tons per hour, and to completely unload in 4 to 10 hours. A 1000 foot ship can unload the
equivalent of 650 railcars or 6+ unit trains of cargo in about 10 hours. One of the benefits to such
rapid cargo discharge is that Lakers spend very short periods of time in port, making the
transportation of bulk commodities by Great Lakes self unloading bulk carriers the most
economically and environmentally efficient way to move those commodities. In contrast, Salties
often spend several days in port while their cargo is being offloaded using sho reside equipment.
The use of this self-unloading equipment, and the efficiencies of such rapid cargo discharge,
however, is dependent upon the Laker's ability to pump large volumes of ballast water quickly.
Most commercial ships, Lakers included, fill segregated ballast tanks with water as their cargo is
discharged. There are several reasons for this, including the need to keep the ship's deck at a
fairly constant height above the water to ensure that its rudder(s) and propeller) s) can operate
efficiently and that the ship has better and safer stability to prevent it from capsizing or breaking
apart. Additionally, ballast is used so that the ship's hull stress is reduced, and so it has better
trim and improved handling characteristics for more efficient movement through the water, and
so that the ship can fit under loading rigs and certain overhead obstructions. The distinction
between Salties and Lakers, however, is that because of their much larger cargo carrying
664
-------
capacities. Lakers carry multiples of the ballast carried by most Salties, and because of their
rapid cargo loads and discharges. Lakers need to pump that ballast at volumes that are multiples
of the pumping rate for Salties. The largest Laker, which is just over 1,000 feet long, is capable
of taking up to 16,400,000 gallons of ballast water in a single ballasting operation. Lakers in the
690 foot to 806 foot range, still much larger than most Salties, are capable of taking between
5,000,000 and 6,000,000 gallons of ballast water. The ballast flow rates on Lakers is extremely
high. Individual ballast pumps can typically transfer between 3,600 and 16,000 gpm, and Lakers
typically have multiple separate ballast systems and pumps. Numerous ships in Interlake's fleet
have 18 separate ballast pumps each serving a separate ballast tank, and are capable of pumping
ballast water at the rate of 79,200 gpm when operating all 18 separate ballast pumps at 4,400
gpm. Ships in other Great Lakes' fleets have similar ballast configurations. In contrast, many
Salties often have a single ballast system utilizing one ballast pump.
Another important distinction between Lakers and Salt ies is that Lakers operate exclusively in
fresh water, by virtue of their restriction to the Great Lakes, and typically have a useful life
lasting decades longer than Salties that operate in the corrosive salt water of the world's oceans.
Consequently, it is not uncommon for Lakers to be more than fifty years old, still operating and
making a contribution to the company, its customers and employees, and the economy. The keel
for Interlake's newest ship was laid in 1979, and its oldest ship was built in 1942. In contrast, it
would be rare to find a Salty built in the 1970s that was still in service, and ships built in the
1980's are routinely being retired from service. As a consequence, freight rates on the Great
Lakes are low because ships do not have to be replaced as often, and new ships are rarely built.
Perhaps the most compelling reason justifying special treatment of Lakers is that they operate
within and are truly a part of an Enclosed Aquatic Ecosystem . Simply put, the primary intent of
the ballast water related portions of the proposed permit is to stop the introduction of non-
indigenous species into u ,S Waters. Because Lakers operate exclusively within the Great Lakes,
it is impossible for a Laker to introduce a non-indigenous species into the Great Lakes. Lakers
are never presented with an opportunity to import a species that is non-indigenous to the Great
Lakes as they never leave the Great Lakes. Conversely, all of the non-indigenous species that
have been introduced to the Great Lakes have been attributed to Salt ies or other vectors. Some
have argued that although Lakers do not introduce new non-indigenous species, they contribute
to their spread throughout the Great Lakes. In an effort to minimize and avoid that happening ,
Lakers have continuously voluntarily participated in various ballast water management practices
for more than a decade. However, even if Lakers stopped operating , it would only be a matter of
time before non-indigenous species now existing in the Great Lakes migrated naturally
throughout the lakes. The Great Lakes are interconnected , and once a species has been
introduced and begins to thrive, it can move freely throughout the Great Lakes until stopped by a
natural predator or until it encounters a climate in which it cannot thrive.
Therefore, regardless of what Lakers do with respect to their ballast water, it will not stop the
introduction of one single non-indigenous species into the Great Lakes, nor will it prevent their
spread. While the potential benefit of requiring ballast water treatment by Lakers might possibly
slow down the inevitable migration of non-indigenous species throughout the Great Lakes, for
the reasons appearing elsewhere in these comments, that theoretical potential benefit is far
outweighed by the severe economic and environmental costs and impacts that requiring Lakers
665
-------
to install ballast water treatment systems, even if there were systems available for Lakers, would
have on our Company.
The eight states throughout the Great Lakes region, either in separate legislation or as part of
their Section 401 certification, have considered whether to regulate the ballast water of vessels
plying their state waters. Exactly half of those states - Ohio. Michigan. Indiana and Wisconsin -
have determined, after careful consideration and much debate, that for Lakers no treatment is
required of their ballast water. The United States Coast Guard has estimated that worldwide,
7,575 ships would be required to install ballast water treatment systems under the Coast Guard's
proposed ballast water rule, and 2.616 of them would be U.S. flagged. There are only 55 of those
U.S. flagged ships that are Lakers. That is less than 1 % of the affected worldwide fleet. The
affected Canadian Lakers account for another 74 ships. Still, the total number of Lakers
comprises only 1.7% of the worldwide fleet.
As set forth in more detail above, Lakers' ballast systems are significantly different from those of
Salties. Lakers' ballast systems are operated in fresh water rather than salt water, they transfer
ballast at significantly higher rates than those of Salt ies. they operate in water temperatures that
range from freezing to tropical (low 30's to mid 70's degrees F), and they have multiple ballast
systems with multiple ballast pumps on a single ship. Furthermore the Lakers have longer lives
and will not be replaced during the permit period or at any time closely following , as many
Salt ies will. Ballast water treatment systems designed for Lakers would really need to be
significantly different from those designed for Salt ies. One glaring example is that several of the
systems on the market rely upon salt water to work, and would be useless in the Great Lakes.
Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of the affected ships (98 .3%) are Salt ies.
companies developing ballast water treatment systems will almost certainly direct their
development of equipment for that larger market and not for Lakers. Even if one of those
systems could be retrofitted to work on Lakers, there are several other impediments as set forth
below that make their installation both commercially and in some cases physically impracticable.
The Science Advisory Board's ("SAB") report provides an excellent overview of the many
hurdles that must be cleared before treating Lakers' ballast is even feasible:
In addition to specific environmental and vessel applications, vessel type and vessel operations
can dictate BWMS applicability. Although a multitude of vessel designs and operation scenarios
exist, a few important examples of specific constraints can greatly limit treatment option .
Perhaps the most dramatic limitations are found with the Great Lakes bulk carrier fleet (emphasis
added) that operates vessels solely within the Great Lakes with large volumes of fresh, and often
cold, ballast water ( "Lakers" ). The vessels in this fleet have ballast volumes up to 50,000 m3,
high pumping rates (up to 5,000 m3/hour, uncoated ballast tanks (older vessels), and some
vessels have separate sea chests and pumps for each ballast tank. A further confounding issue is
that voyages taken by Lakers average four to five days, with many less than two days. Given
these characteristics, a number of limitations are imposed: electro chlorination and ozonation
may only work in freshwater with the addition of brine (in particular C and Br, respectively );
oxidizing chemicals may increase the corrosion rate of uncoated tanks; deoxygenation and
chemical treatments that require holding times to effectively treat water (or even the breakdown
666
-------
of active substances) may not be completely effective on short voyages; and the space and power
needed for the numbers of filtration + UV treatments may simply not be available ,1
1 Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatme nt Systems: A RepOll by the EPA Sc ience Advisory Board, July 12,20 11,
pg. 40.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
EPA notes that the commenter implies that Lakers pose no risks when it comes to invasive
species. EPA disagrees: see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response
document regarding the risks these vessels pose for dispersing or spreading invasive species in
the Great Lakes. EPA also disagrees with commenters that managing ballast water discharges
from Lakers will have no beneficial value as the migration of species introduced into the Great
Lakes is "inevitable" even without the contribution of Lakers to their spread (commenter states
that "it would only be a matter of time before non-indigenous species now existing in the Great
Lakes migrated naturally throughout the lakes.") Reducing the rate at which organisms are
transported will, at minimum, slow their spread (as noted and acknowledged by the
commenter), and reducing the numbers of living organisms discharged from ballast water can
prevent the spread or dispersal of ANS into new Lakes or shoreside ecosystems especially
where there are physical or ecological barriers to spread (e.g., locks, rivers, changing ecosystem
conditions). Even merely slowing the spread and dispersal of ANS could save the U.S.
economy millions or billions of dollars per year (e.g., each year a drinking water facility does
not have to treat its intake pipes to remove invasive mussels saves that facility money; each year
a fishery continues to operate as an existing industry; each year a beach is not closed due to fish
kills allows for recreation and tourism).
The commenter notes several challenges faced by existing Lakers to incorporate ballast water
treatment systems. EPA agrees that these challenges are faced on many existing Lakers and
notes that as explained in the VGP Fact Sheet and this response to comments document, the
Agency has determined that ballast water treatment systems are not available for Lakers at this
time. Thus, the Agency has not required existing Lakers to meet the numeric treatment limits
found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP.
Commenter Name: Mark W. Barker, President, Interlake Steamship
Commenter Affiliation: The Interlake Steamship Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0516-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: The goal of requiring the installation of ballast water treatment systems would be to
stop the introduction of non-indigenous species into U.S Waters. Requiring the installation of
ballast water treatment systems on Lakers does nothing to achieve that goal, because Lakers do
not and never have introduced these species into the Great Lakes. While the potential benefit of
requiring ballast water treatment systems on Lakers is that they might possibly slow down the
inevitable migration of non-indigenous species throughout the Great Lakes, for the reasons
667
-------
appearing elsewhere in these comments, that theoretical potential benefit is far outweighed by
the severe economic and environmental costs and impacts that such a requirement of Lakers
would have. Furthermore. Lakers, by virtue of their compliance with the Lake Carriers'
Association's Ballast Water Management Plan and its predecessor plans dating back more than a
decade, have taken and continue to take affirmative actions to prevent the movement of non-
indigenous species via ballast water. There are many vectors by which non-indigenous species
can and will move throughout the Great Lakes. The most pronounced and evident means is by
their own natural migration. The costs and impacts of requiring Lakers to install ballast water
treatment systems must be weighed against the multiple significant costs relating to the
installation and maintenance of ballast water treatment systems, which will do nothing to stop
any of the other dozens of identified vectors.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Kate Frantz, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0521-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: Basis for the "Confined Laker" Exemption
The vast majority of the ballast water discharge received by the Minnesota ports results from
vessels that are confined to the Great Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal, known as Lakers.
While it is understood that Lakers present special challenges in regard to implementing treatment
technology, it must also be underscored that introductions of aquatic invasive species can occur
between water bodies within the Great Lakes System and that Lakers pose a risk for such
introductions. There are numerous examples of aquatic invasive species (AIS) that are present in
Lake Michigan, Huron and Erie that are not yet established in Lake Superior. For these species,
the most likely dispersal mechanism is ballast water. Some of these species are fish-hook water
flea, bloody red shrimp, European fingernail clam, parasitic copepods, grass kelp and multiple
other species. The current VGP does not include numeric discharge standards or treatment
requirements for Lakers, which allows this dispersion of invasive species to go unchecked for the
duration of the permit. (Please see the attached paper, "Non-Native Species of Concern and
Dispersal Risk for the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study.")
EPA states that the proposed numeric technology-based discharge standards are not applicable to
confined lakers because these vessels operate in cold, fresh water and the vessels operate with
large ballast systems with high pump rates. Given that other vessels face similar challenges,
possibly not in the same combination, EPA should explain whether an implementation schedule
reflecting these challenges would be more appropriate than an exemption from the technology-
based requirements.
EPA should also further explain its development of Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
(WQBELs) for Lakers. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS)/National Research Council
(NRC) study was commissioned by the EPA in an effort to establish a process to set WQBELs
668
-------
for ballast discharges. This NAS/NRC report's objectives required responses to three unique
questions, the second being to "[r]ecommend how these approaches can be used by regulatory
agencies to best inform risk management decisions on the allowable concentrations of living
organisms in discharged ballast water in order to safeguard against the establishment of new
aquatic non-indigenous species and to protect and preserve existing indigenous populations of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife and other beneficial uses of the nation's waters." The NAS/NRC
report responded, in part, "[a]s a logical first step, a benchmark discharge standard should be
established that clearly reduces concentrations of coastal organisms below current levels
resulting from ballast water exchange (such as the IMO D-2 standard)." EPA should explain
whether this statement by the NAS/NRC was considered in the development of the WQBEL in
the proposed permit, and why it was not included as a component of the WQBEL for Confined
Lakers that are not subject to numeric TBELs.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
With respect to water quality-based effluent limits, please see sections 10.1 and 10.1.1 of this
comment response document.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: While EPA correctly concludes that there are no ballast water treatment systems that
can accommodate the operational requirements of Lakers and so imposes different requirements
on Lakers that confine their operations to upstream of the Welland Canal, the date of
construction for vessels so designated should be advanced to January 1, 2012, and upstream of
the Welland Canal should be defined as beginning at its eastern end.
Given that nothing in the record supports the conclusion that the sediment in Lakers' ballast
tanks is potentially harmful to the environment, flushing of tanks should again be permitted in
waters covered by this permit.
Response: Regarding the new build date for Lakers that must meet the numeric limits of the
VGP, please see section 9.1.6 of this comment response document. With respect to sediment,
please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document and Part 2.2.3
of the VGP fact sheet. As discussed therein, EPA disagrees with commenter's assertion that
sediment from the cleaning of ballast water tanks is not potentially harmful to the environment.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Late Comment? No
669
-------
Comment: 2.2.3.4: Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices for Existing Bulk Carrier
Vessels (commonly known as Lakers) built before January 1, 2009, confined exclusively to the
Great Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal.
Requirements: Existing Bulk Carrier Vessels known as "Lakers" that operate exclusively in the
Great Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal (i.e. those vessels confined to the upper Great Lakes
because they are too large to exit the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence Seaway) must meet the
following additional ballast water management requirements:
• Each owner/operator must perform annual inspections on their vessel to assess sediment
accumulations. Removal of sediment, if necessary, must be carried out. Each vessel
owner/operator must develop sediment removal policies as part of the Ballast Water
Management Plan. Records of sediment removal and disposal (including facility name
and location and all invoices) shall be kept onboard the vessel. EPA notes the discharge
of sediments from cleaning of ballast tanks is not authorized in waters subject to this
permit (see Part 2.2.3.3 of this permit).
• When practical and safe, vessels must minimize the ballast water taken dockside. This
will typically mean limiting uptake to the amount of ballast water required to safely
depart the dock and then complete ballasting in deeper water.
• The vessel sea chest is the first line of defense in keeping large living organisms out of
the vessel ballast water tanks. Owner/operators of Laker vessels must perform annual
inspections of their sea chest screens to assure that they are fully intact. The inspection
must assure that there is no deterioration which has resulted in wider openings or holes
in the screen. If the screen has deteriorated such that there are wider openings than the
screen design, the vessel owner/operator must repair or replace the screen. Any repairs
must be of sufficient quality that they are expected to last at least one year.
LCA response: Detailed comments follow, but summary the following issues must be addressed:
1. The date of construction for vessels operating upstream of Welland Canal for which no
ballast water treatment systems are available should be changed from January 1, 2009 to
January 1, 2012;
2. "Upstream" of the Welland Canal should be defined as the eastern end of the Welland Canal;
3. LCA is unaware of a ballast water treatment system that can function in frigid water
temperatures that occur on the Great Lakes at the opening and closing of navigation, and
nothing in the record suggests otherwise;
4. Intermittent welding effectively precludes coating ballast tanks;
5. Flowrates necessary for the economic operation of Lakers are incompatible with existing
ballast water technologies;
6. Lakers are unable to expand system capacity if flowrates are slowed;
7. Lakers complete many voyages just a matter of hours;
8. The natural flow of water in the Great Lakes is west to east, so this flushing effect enables
moving the border for "upstream of Welland Canal" to its eastern end;
9. If EPA defines "upstream" as western end of the Welland Canal instead of the eastern end as
advocated by LCA, the agency will put the 13th largest U.S-flag laker out of service;
670
-------
10. Lakers should be allowed to flush ballast tank sediment in waters covered by this permit, as
amounts are minute and material originated in the Lakes, not a body of water oceans away.
11. Furthermore, nothing in the record that Lakers' ballast is potentially harmful to the
environment.
EPA correctly concludes that there are no ballast water treatment systems that can accommodate
the operational requirements of Lakers and so imposes different requirements on Lakers that
confine their operations to upstream of the Welland Canal. We have no doubt that some
commenters will opine that requiring our vessels to meet these standards will lead to systems that
can handle our operational demands, but that is not the case. The technology does not exist today
that can accommodate the ballast water and pumping rates of Great Lakes vessels and will fit the
limited space available and is not likely to exist during the term of this permit.
Response: With respect to bullet 1, please see section 9.1.6 of this comment response
document for discussion regarding the "new build" date for Lakers. Regarding bullets 2, 8, and
9, which deal with the definition of "Confined laker" or "Laker", please see the response essay
in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document. Regarding bullets numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, and
7, which deal with technical challenges faced by Lakers in treating their ballast water
discharges, please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
EPA notes that the Agency does not believe that these challenges are insurmountable, merely
that based on the lack of availability of existing ballast water treatment systems or other
management options (e.g., onshore treatment) whose use is economically achievable for Lakers,
EPA is unable to impose numeric technology-based effluent limits for these existing (older)
vessels at this time. With respect to bullet number 10, which deals with Laker sediment
disposal, please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
EPA vigorously disagrees with point number 11 that "nothing in the record" demonstrates that
"Lakers' ballast is potentially harmful to the environment." See the VGP Fact Sheet and the
response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document for further discussion, and
other documents in the record including Briski, E., S.. Ghabooli, S. A. Bailey, S., and H.J.
Maclsaac, 2012. Invasion risk posed by macroinvertebrates transported in ships' ballast tanks.
Biological Invasions, 1-8.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Comment: The Science Advisory Board's (SAB) report provides an excellent overview of the
many hurdles that must be cleared before treating Lakers' ballast is even feasible:
"In addition to specific environmental and vessel applications, vessel type and vessel
operations can dictate BWMS applicability. Although a multitude of vessel designs and
operation scenarios exist, a few important examples of specific constraints can greatly limit
treatment option. Perhaps the most dramatic limitations are found with the Great Lakes bulk
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
14
No
671
-------
carrier fleet (emphasis added) that operates vessels solely within the Great Lakes with large
volumes of fresh, and often cold, ballast water ("Lakers"). The vessels in this fleet have
ballast volumes up to 50,000 m3, high pumping rates (up to 5,000 m3/hour, uncoated ballast
tanks (older vessels), and some vessels have separate sea chests and pumps for each ballast
tank. A further confounding issue is that voyages taken by Lakers average four to five days,
with many less than two days. Given these characteristics, a number of limitations are
imposed: electro chlorination and ozonation may only work in freshwater with the addition
of brine (in particular C and Br, respectively); oxidizing chemicals may increase the
corrosion rate of uncoated tanks; deoxygenation and chemical treatments that require holding
times to effectively treat water (or even the breakdown of active substances) may not be
completely effective on short voyages; and the space and power needed for the numbers of
filtration + UV treatments may simply not be available."6
We endorse these declarations in the Science Advisory Board's report, but must expand on some
statements.
Water temperature precludes use of currently available technologies. Cold is perhaps not the best
word to use when describing the temperature of Great Lakes water at the beginning and end of
the shipping season. It is a frigid 33 degrees. The ballast water treatment systems being installed
on vessels now were not designed to function in such an environment. For one, there is the issue
of slush ice plugging up the treatment equipment. During winter operations slush ice does plug
up the main engine raw water cooling duplex strainers. It is not unreasonable to assume that
similar problems will occur with respect to any back flushing filters or other equipment required
to treat/filter ballast water.
Shortly after receiving type approval from Germany in 2008, the SEDNA Ballast Water
Management System using Peraclean Ocean was withdrawn from the market after studies
revealed that unacceptably high levels of residual chemicals were found in ballast water
discharges when operating in very cold waters. In their study of the system, de Lafontaine, et al
concluded that a 15-20 day hold time is required to ensure the residual toxicity of the discharge
meets acceptable national and international standards. Other BWMS which use active substances
have not undergone similar testing and study, so data on the toxicity of other systems' discharges
is not available. Until such studies have been completed, it would be irresponsible for our
members to install systems which could potentially do more harm to the environment than good
and equally irresponsible for EPA to require such systems to be installed.
Lack of protection from corrosive effects of treatment systems is a fleet wide issue. Lack of
coating in the ballast tanks is not limited to older vessels. It is essentially a fleet-wide issue. Most
Great Lakes vessels use intermittent welding in their construction, which makes coating
somewhat of a formality, as no effective corrosion protection is possible outside of the welded
connections. Introduction of salt water or other corrosives would result in rapid loss of steel. On
a practical basis, our members' ballast tanks are effectively uncoated. To date, there have been
no studies - either long- or short-term - to evaluate the effects of ballast water treatment systems
on coated or uncoated tanks. Even systems which de-oxygenate the ballast as a means of killing
organisms and would therefore presumably reduce oxidative corrosion have been demonstrated
in some studies to foster anaerobic microbial crevice corrosion.
672
-------
Flowrates needed for doing business are incompatible with those needed for treatment
technologies. Lakers' challenging ballast water volumes and flowrates cannot be reduced to
levels required for current ballast water treatment technologies without rendering the entire
operation uneconomical. The largest vessels operated by our members can carry more than
70,000 net tons of cargo in a single voyage when high water levels offset the chronic lack of
adequate dredging. The rules of naval architecture require then that the vessel take on a similar
weight when in ballast. In terms of gallons, some vessels can take on as much as 16.4 million
gallons of ballast. The flowrate necessary to accommodate these amounts, which can approach
80,000 gallons per minute, is a result of our operational requirements. In order to remain
competitive with the railroads, vessels must load and discharge cargo as quickly as possible. This
means cargos of 65,000-70,000 tons are loaded and discharged in roughly ten hours. Smaller,
what we call "River-class" Lakers, discharge 15,000 tons or so in less than four hours.
To put these volumes and flowrates in perspective, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
includes Duluth, Hermantown, Proctor, Cloquet and three more small municipalities. On an
average day, the WLSSD processes approximately 2.0 million gallons per hour at their facility.
Their facility encompasses approximately 15 acres and contains 12 treatment tanks and miles of
piping. The largest Lakers have flowrates which are more than twice as much as WLSSD, yet
would have to treat this volume in the confines of an already cramped engine room which is a
fraction of the size.
Slowing the unloading process (and therefore the rate at which ballast is taken on) to
accommodate ballast water exchange technologies would have several severe impacts. First, it
would reduce the fleet's seasonal capacity and result in shortfalls of raw materials for our
customers. The reason a vessel in the Head-of-the-Lakes trade (Lake Superior to the Lower
Lakes) can make 50-plus trips in a season is because it can load and discharge cargo in 10 hours
or so. Lengthen those times to 20 or 30 hours and the vessel will forfeit trips. Based on a five-
day round trip and increasing both the load and discharge times from 10 to 20 hours would
reduce a vessel's seasonal carrying capacity by almost 15 percent.
There is no viable way to offset those lost trips right now. With the economy still yet to fully
recover from the recession, it is true that some vessels remained in lay-up in 2010 and 2011, but
during recent periods of high demand, only one hull has been idle. That ship is the JOHN
SHERWIN and it has not operated since 1981. Conversion to a self-unloader and repowering
was begun in 2008, but then halted when demand for iron ore crashed. It would probably take a
minimum of 18 months to make the vessel serviceable again. The project could well stretch out
to 24 months depending on availability of suitable engines.
New construction would take two years at a minimum, and could easily last 30 months, so if the
keel for a 1,000-footer was laid today, the vessel might not enter service until July 2014. Nor
could slowing loading times be offset by increasing the speed of vessels while underway (10 to
16 miles per hour depending on the vessel). The ships are already operating at their safe
continuous horsepower rating. A slight increase in speed is possible, but only for a short period
of time, and it would not be nearly enough to offset the slower loading (and discharge) times.
Slowing load and discharge rates would also create lengthy congestion-related delays at the
673
-------
busiest terminals. For example, Superior Midwest Energy Terminal in Superior, Wisconsin, is
the largest coal-loading dock on the Great Lakes. In periods of peak demand for electricity, the
dock has loaded more than 2.5 million tons of coal in a single month. That volume required more
than 50 vessels, or one ship every 14 hours. Double or triple load times and there will be several
vessels anchored off Duluth/Superior waiting their turn at the dock.
The same will hold true at the busiest receiving terminals. Ships will queue up waiting for dock
time. In both instances, the capacity of the system has been significantly reduced.
It is also not feasible to construct a new loading terminal to afford berths for more vessels, and
therefore accommodate the increased loading and unloading time necessary if flowrates were
reduced to accommodate ballast exchange technologies. This is especially true in the remote
regions surrounding Lake Superior. The cost - per dock - could approach $1 billion, especially if
rail connections must be significantly expanded or newly laid. We are told one mile of rail today
can cost as much as $4 million (and much, much more if a bridge must be built). The iron ore
mines on Minnesota's Mesabi Range are anywhere from 60 to 100 miles from the shores of Lake
Superior, so a new rail link alone could cost $400,000,000.
The SAB' s statement that voyages taken by Lakers average four to five days (which is relevant
because treatments that require holding times may not be effective on "short voyages") applies
mostly to Canadian Lakers that transit the Welland Canal and St. Lawrence Seaway. Given our
members' current trade patterns, the longest voyage made with any regularity would be from
Duluth/Superior at the western end of Lake Superior to Buffalo, New York. That's a voyage of
988 miles and assuming the vessel is not delayed by weather or a malfunction of the locks at
Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, the trip averages about 74 hours.
SAB's statement that many voyages are less than two days is correct and applies to both U.S.
and Canadian Lakers, but needs to be expanded to note that a significant number of voyages are
a matter of just a few hours. The limestone quarry in Marblehead, Ohio, ships large volumes of
aggregate to Cleveland, Ohio. The voyage is about four hours from breakwall to breakwall, and
then depending on the dock being serviced, the vessel could be tying up in another hour or so.
Some ships delivering stone to Cleveland then move to a salt-loading dock, a trip of maybe two
hours.
Port Inland on the northern shore of Lake Michigan is another port that ships significant volumes
of limestone to nearby destinations. Escanaba, Michigan, is but 78 miles to the west, or a 6-hour
voyage. Green Bay, Wisconsin, is 150 miles away, or an 11-hour voyage.
The iron ore trade out of Escanaba, Michigan, is another prime example of very short voyages.
In the past five years, shipments have averaged 4,500,000 tons, and the vast majority went to the
steel mills at the lower end of Lake Michigan, a voyage of less than 300 miles, or 19 to 22 hours
depending on the vessel.
The draft permit recognizes that Lakes Superior, Michigan-Huron, and Erie are effectively one
continuous body of water and so vessels that confine their operations to waters west of the
Welland Canal need not treat their ballast. We agree, but note that the natural flow of water is
674
-------
from west to east, so with this flushing effect, the boundary would most appropriately be drawn
at the eastern end of the Welland Canal. This would allow our members to continue to deliver
cargo to Thorold, Ontario, and utilize the drydock in Port Weller, all the time remaining within
what effectively constitutes an enclosed aquatic ecosystem.
The ability to transit the Welland Canal to Port Weller will decide whether or not the integrated
tug/barge unit PRESQUE ISLE will be able to remain in service. The tug PRESQUE ISLE was
designed specifically to push a barge of the same name. When the tug is in the notch, the
combined unit stretches 1,000 feet and has a per-trip capacity of 58,240 tons. In terms of rated
carrying capacity, it is the 13th largest vessel trading the Great Lakes.
Although there are four large drydocks west of the Welland Canal, the tug PRESQUE ISLE's
draft of 25' 09" is too deep to pass over the sill. The drydock in Port Weller is the only on the
Lakes that can accommodate the tug, and then only when it is flooded to its maximum water
level. The U.S. Coast Guard requires U.S.-flag Lakers to be drydocked every five years for an
out of water inspection. (Under certain conditions, the interval can be increased to six years.) If
for some reason the vessel can't be drydocked, its Certificate of Inspection will expire and it
would be illegal for the tug to operate.
When operating independent of the barge, the tug requires a minimum of 120,000 gallons of
ballast to maintain stability. We grant that is a relatively small quantity compared to the self-
propelled vessels in our membership, but from an engineering viewpoint, the tug presents
insurmountable hurdles. It is one of the most compact vessels ever built. There is absolutely no
physical space in which to fit a ballast water treatment system.
One must not underestimate the importance of this one vessel. When high water levels offset the
chronic lack of dredging, the PRESQUE ISLE can carry 2.5 million tons of iron ore, limestone,
and coal per year. Its most frequent trade pattern is loading iron ore in Duluth and Two Harbors,
Minnesota, for delivery to Gary, Indiana, and Conneaut, Ohio. Ore delivered to Gary feeds U.S.
Steel's Gary Works. The Conneaut ore is then railed to U.S. Steel's Edgar Thomson Works near
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Although water levels were down in 2011 and reduced the vessel's per-trip capacity, the
PRESQUE ISLE still delivered 20 percent of the iron ore consumed in Gary and Braddock.
Those cargos also represented 17 percent of the taconite pellets produced at Minntac, the largest
mine on Minnesota's Mesabi Range.
It would be technically possible to rail the ore the PRESQUE ISLE delivers all the way to Gary
and Braddock, but it would be considerably more expensive. Again to cite the 2009 U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers report, "The Great Lakes Navigation System saves approximately $3.6
billion per year over the next least costly mode of transportation." Further the Corps report, rail
delivery will result in a 70- percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions.
The PRESQUE ISLE's operator, Great Lakes Fleet / Key Lakes, Inc., has no other capacity to
put in service.
675
-------
We urge the EPA to carefully consider these facts. The ballast on the tug and any sediment in its
tanks originated in the Great Lakes. Nothing alien will be introduced or spread if it transits the
Welland Canal to Port Weller. The amount of ballast - 120,000 gallons - barely registers
compared to the estimated 64,000,000,000,000,000 gallons in the Lakes, and it's just being
moved from one area to another in a common ecosystem.
We anticipate that other respondents may recommend that that boundary be moved farther east
and they can advance many logical arguments. From a purely jurisdictional viewpoint, Massena,
New York, does represent the first point of entry into Great Lakes waters covered by this permit.
The water in the St. Lawrence River becomes saline at the Victoria Bridge in Montreal. Three
Great Lakes states, Wisconsin, Ohio, and New York, have designated Anticosti Island as the
eastern boundary of the Great Lakes in their water ballast water provisions. The U.S. Coast
Guard designates Anticosti Island as the easternmost point to which Lakers may sail on the
vessel's Loadline Certificate and Certificate of Inspection.7
While we favor the eastern end of the Welland Canal as the boundary defining "confined
exclusively to the Great Lakes," the language in this provision is unclear as written. One read is
that the vessel need not treat because it operates exclusively upstream of the Welland, but then
the text in parenthesis immediately following suggests the vessel's designation is based on the
fact it is too large to exit the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence Seaway. Twenty-six of the 56
vessels enrolled in LCA are too large to enter the Welland Canal and St. Lawrence Seaway, but
even those vessels small enough to transit those waters cannot legally operate on the oceans
because they are not built to the strength standards required for ocean service.8 To sail beyond
Anticosti Island would be in violation of the vessel's Loadline Certificate and Certificate of
Inspection and would result in legal action against the owner/operator. "Confined exclusively to
the Great Lakes" should be based on a physical boundary, the eastern end of the Welland Canal
in our opinion, not the vessel's size or ability to transit the Welland Canal and St. Lawrence
Seaway.
Concerning sediment in ballast tanks on Lakers, we ask the EPA to reconsider its ban on ballast
tank sediment discharge by Lakers. Nothing in the record establishes that the sediment in our
members' ballast tanks is harmful to the environment. If the EPA has information to the
contrary, it should be published for review and comment, and it should not (and may not) impose
this requirement without adequate support in the record.
There is no evidence that the sediment in our ballast tanks is harmful to human beings. The U.S.
Coast Guard has analyzed sediment in lakers' ballast tanks and found it non-toxic and allows its
personnel to enter ballast tanks without any extra precautions (see attached August 9, 1990
memo).
It is appropriate to ban discharge of ballast tank sediment from vessels entering from the oceans;
since the sediment in their tanks originates outside the Great Lakes it does have the potential to
harbor NIS. However, our members' vessels never leave the Great Lakes, so whatever sediment
is in their ballast tanks originated in the Great Lakes.
676
-------
As we did in our comments on the first VGP, we respectfully request the EPA to allow discharge
of Lakers' sediment in waters 13 miles offshore. This generally mirrors the requirements of the
U.S. Coast Guard's Interim Final Rule on Dry Cargo Residue and would ensure any biota would
be discharged into an environment in which they could not survive.
To again reiterate a point from our 2008 comments, the flushing of sediment does not happen on
a regular basis, perhaps instead only once or twice a year. The amount estimated on a 1,000-foot-
long vessel, the largest in the fleet - 318 cubic yards - pales in comparison to the 3.3 million
cubic yards of sediment naturally deposited in the Great Lakes each year.
The record does not support the ban on discharge of sediment from Lakers' ballast tanks.
Discharge should be permitted, at a very minimum, in waters 13 miles offshore.
6 Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems: A Report by the EPA Science Advisory Board, July 12, 2011,
pg. 40.
7
46 C.F.R. § 42.05-40 - Great Lakes: (c) In concurrence with related Canadian regulations, the waters of the St.
Lawrence River west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap de Rosiers to West Point, Anticosti Island, and west of a line
along 63 W. longitude from Anticosti Island to the north shore of the St. Lawrence River shall be considered as a
part of the Great Lakes. In addition, the Victoria Bridge, Montreal, Canada, is the dividing line between fresh water
and salt water in the St. Lawrence River.
g
That does not mean Great Lakes vessels are in any way unsafe. The stresses that are put on a hull are different on
the Great Lakes, so our members' vessels are built to strength standards that match those conditions.
Response: EPA notes that this excerpt gives details regarding the challenges faced by the
existing Laker fleet. For many of the reasons discussed in this comment and others like it, EPA
has not required numeric (concentration based) technology-based effluent limits for existing
Lakers. Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document for
further discussion. EPA respectfully notes that the Agency disagrees with several of the
characterizations presented by the commenter. Regarding cold temperatures, EPA notes that the
issues surrounding cold temperatures center around the degradatation or neutralization of ballast
water treatment system biocides. EPA agrees that uncoated tanks could theoretically face higher
rates of corrosion induced by the electrochemical corrosion effects of certain biocides (e.g.,
chlorine). EPA acknowledges that existing Lakers currently have high flow rates and that
installation of a sufficient number of systems currently on the market today may be problematic
due to power demands, space limitations, and the cost of many large systems. Once systems are
refined and mass produced, EPA expects these issues to become less significant. EPA notes that
the ability of shipyards to construct Lakers with similar design specifications to existing Lakers
or the need to construct new loading terminals is beyond the scope of the permit, and EPA does
not consider it germane to the BAT determination.
EPA agrees that ultra-short voyage times (e.g., a few hours) seriously complicates the issue of
whether ballast water treatment systems might work since some systems need additional time
for the biocides to degrade or for there to be sufficient contact time to ensure mortality. EPA
notes that the commenter raised the issue of the "Presque Isle," and that by changing the
applicability of vessels that are not mandated to meet the treatment limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of the
VGP to a broader class of Lakers, the Agency has addressed these concerns for this permit term.
Regarding the commenter's recommendation to move the boundary for defining the numeric
677
-------
treatment limit applicability for existing Lakers to eastern end of the Welland Canal or other
locations in the St. Lawrence River including either Massena New York, Montreal Canada, or
Anticosti Island, please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response
document.
With respect to sediment, please also see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment
response document.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 27
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question #15: Should "existing confined lakers" built before January 1, 2009 that
operate exclusively in the Great Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal be required to use a
ballast water treatment system to meet the ballast water discharge standards found in this permit
under the implementation schedule? Are there applicable and available ballast water treatment
systems for existing confined lakers built before January 1, 2009? Given the constraints noted by
the SAB, can the confined lakers implement the technologies evaluated by the SAB? Are there
unique technologies that are available or that would potentially be available during the permit
term for the confined lakers? Are there other treatment technologies and/or methods that can be
implemented by confined lakers that can reliably treat ballast water to reduce the concentration
of living organisms upon discharge?
LCA response: We have already explained why it is effectively impossible for our members'
vessels to comply with these ballast water treatment standards now and not likely during the
period covered by this permit. However, we recognize that technology will advance, so the
question that must be asked and answered is: "Should those Lakers currently not required to treat
their ballast be required to do so should a viable technology/system become available?" We
believe there are very compelling reasons to answer that question, "No."
Please recognize that our position that Lakers should not be required to treat their ballast is not
an abdication of our responsibility to operate in an environmentally sound manner. We think our
actions to date are testimony that we do acknowledge and fulfill our role in finding solutions to
this world-wide problem. As we have noted in earlier submissions to both the EPA and the U.S.
Coast Guard, LCA was the first maritime organization in North America to implement a ballast
water management program. That was almost 20 years ago - 1993 - and was in response to
discovery of the ruffe in Duluth/Superior and Thunder Bay harbors at the western end of Lake
Superior. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service hailed the program as being, "on the cutting edge of
ballast water management to prevent the spread of nuisance species."
We next partnered with the Northeast-Midwest Institute to conduct one of the very first tests of
ballast water filtration and an after-treatment such as UV light or irradiation (see The Algonorth
Experiment, Seaway Review, January-March, 1997 [attached]). Testing took place on a
678
-------
Canadian Laker as it traded in both fresh and salt water, but the expectation was any resulting
system(s) would be installed on ocean-going vessels, as it is they who introduce NIS, not U.S. or
Canadian Lakers. It is no exaggeration that the systems now coming into use owe at least some
of their existence to this groundbreaking research.
Other measures have included developing and refining Best Management Practices for Lakers, a
plan addressing a nascent ruffe population in Alpena, Michigan (which did not survive), and
steps to deal with an outbreak of Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia, should one occur.
Our members have taken initiatives on their own. One company has tested a system for
delivering and mixing a biocide with ballast water as a sort of "rapid response" to detection of a
new NIS. The result is an emergency guide for biocide introduction and mixing (although we
must note no biocide has been approved for such application).
In addition, some of our members are again collaborating with the Northeast-Midwest Institute to
install systems and assess methodologies for sampling ballast water. Nonetheless, we have to be
realistic about what is achievable. Those NIS that have established themselves in the Great Lakes
are now every bit as much a part of the ecosystem as a walleye or yellow perch. There is no
environmentally acceptable way to eradicate the ruffe, zebra mussel, round goby or other NIS.
Nor is there any way to stop the natural migration of a species, non-indigenous or native. The
ruffe, for example, is migrating along the southern shore of Lake Superior, reportedly at a rate of
about 25 miles per year. Once it reaches the St. Marys River, the path to the Lower Lakes lies
before it. The undisputable connectivity of Lakes Superior, Michigan-Huron, and Erie argues
against requiring Lakers treating their ballast. The Straits of Mackinac make Lakes Michigan and
Huron hydro logically one body of water. The St. Marys River connects Lake Superior to Lake
Huron. The Detroit/St. Clair River links Lake Huron to Lake Erie. While it may take years for
say the ruffe to reach Lake Erie, it will happen regardless of whether or not lakers treat their
ballast.
It bears repeating that ballast is only one of (at least) 64 vectors for introduction and spread
(again, see Appendix A). Is it really fair or meaningful that a commercial vessel should be
required to have a ballast water treatment system that can cost more than $20 million when a
largely un-policed bait bucket can harbor and introduce or spread an exotic?
In our comments to the U.S. Coast Guard on Standards For Living Organism In Ships' Ballast
Water Discharged in U.S. Waters (Docket USCG-2001-10486) we estimated that equipping
members' vessels with ballast water treatment systems would cost approximately $385 million.
Adjust that figure for inflation, and today the cost would be approximately $402 million.
In the intervening four years, the maritime industry has become more familiar with ballast
treatment systems and their requirements, so some of our members have done new, theoretical
cost estimates (theoretical because again, no system exists today and is not likely during the term
of this permit). The theoretical cost for a 1,000-foot-long vessel ranges from approximately $17
million to $20 million. There are thirteen 1,000-footers in LCA, so just that class of vessels faces
a cost of roughly $235 million.
679
-------
The theoretical cost for smaller vessels starts at $3 million and peaks at roughly $8.5 million.
Using an average of $5.75 million for the other 43 vessels enrolled in LCA produces a cost of
nearly $250 million.
In total then, LCA members theoretically would have to spend $485 million to retrofit their
vessels with ballast water treatment systems.
Those costs just reflect installation. One company estimates its fuel expense would increase by
more than $1.1 million per year because additional generators would be needed to meet the
electrical requirements of ballast water treatment.
Annual maintenance and replacement costs could be nearly $100,000 per year for some vessels.
Another cost is loss of revenue. As noted before, space is at a premium in these engine rooms.
One company projects building a room to contain the ballast water treatment system in a cargo
hold. Another company would carve a room out of a ballast tank on each side of the ship. Both
scenarios result in reducing cargo carrying capacity and so a loss of revenue. For some vessels
the loss is estimated to total millions of dollars.
There is no denying that ships and tug/barge units are capital-intensive assets. During the winter
of 2011/2012, LCA's members will spend more than $75 million maintaining and upgrading
their vessels. However, these are projects that have a positive cost/benefit ratio. The payback for
new engines is lower fuel costs. The return on renewing steel in cargo holds is extending the
vessel's serviceable life.
A ballast water treatment system does not reduce operating costs, increase carrying capacity, or
enable the vessel to service more docks. That statement is not cold-hearted economics. There are
times our members exceed the requirements of the laws and regulations governing safety and
operational equipment. The Coast Guard does not require defibrillators, self-contained breathing
apparatus, gas detection meters, or trauma kits on vessels, yet our members have them. Some
vessels are equipped with more radars than required, back-up gyros not mandated by regulation,
swing meters, and e-charts. We certainly agree that protecting the Great Lakes from additional
non-indigenous species is the right thing to do for the environment, but our vessels have never
introduced an exotic and are only one of 3-plus score vectors for spread.
Congress recognized that cost is a valid part of the Clean Water Act equation. "The Committee
believes that there must be a reasonable relationship between costs and benefits if there is going
to be an effective and workable program" (Clean Water Act of 1972, Pub. L No. 92-500, 1972
U.S.C.C.A.N. (86 Stat.) 3713).
In summation, our members do employ Best Management Practices to reduce the potential that
their ballast may spread NIS introduced by oceangoing vessels. They have and will continue to
explore other measures that will enhance those efforts. But treating their ballast will not banish
the zebra mussel from the Great Lakes. Filtering their ballast will not cleanse these waters of the
spiny waterflea. Requiring Lakers to treat their ballast would represent a tremendous expense
680
-------
that offers industry and the environment no payback and will in no way contain NIS introduced
to the Great Lakes by oceangoing vessels.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document
for discussion as to why EPA did not require existing Lakers to meet concentration based
numeric limits for living organisms in the 2013 VGP. The commenter notes here that existing
Lakers should never be required to meet numeric treatment limits. There is ample evidence that
Lakers can contribute to the spread and dispersal of invasive species throughout the lakes.
Should technology able to meet numerical limits become BAT for these vessels in future permit
terms, the Agency will then require these vessels to meet those limits. However, discussion as
to whether Lakers cannot accommodate future technology is beyond the scope of today's permit
issuance, and should the Agency propose those limits in a future VGP, the appropriateness of
such a proposed BAT determination would be subject to public comment.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 35
Late Comment? No
Comment: In closing, we want to stress that we share others' commitment to the Great Lakes
environment and have taken many steps to address our members' ballast water and its potential
to spread NIS introduced by ocean-going vessels. We may well develop additional Best
Management Practices in the future, and our members may implement measures unique to their
vessels and trades. But to treat Lakers' ballast water to the standard required in this draft permit
is beyond the technology available for installation on our members' vessels today and not likely
during the term of the next Vessel General Permit.
SEE TABLE IN ORIGINAL COMMENT
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document
and the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 21.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
7
No
Comment: BMPs for Lakers
EPA has developed and is proposing specific BMP requirements for confined Lakers. The BMPs
include sediment management, minimizing ballast uptake near shore, and sea chest inspections
and maintenance. Wisconsin DNR proposes additional BMPs such as a requirement to move
681
-------
seachests further up and forward on the vessel (during drydock) for all Lakers, when practicable.
Additionally, we request EPA to consider requiring freshwater flushing for Lakers, as feasible.
Furthermore, Wisconsin DNR believes that treatment systems need to be installed onboard
Lakers as soon as possible and supports EPA's proposal to re-evaluate this issue. Dosing has
already been tested onboard Lakers, and entire Laker fleets are currently making plans to install
treatment systems.
Response: Based on this and other comments, EPA has added an additional BMP to
requirements for all vessels, including Lakers, to Part 2.2.3.3 of the VGP. This comment is
based on existing voluntary BMPs implemented by some operators. Please see the response
essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document. EPA notes that the Agency did not
find that the specific BMPs recommended by Wisconsin here were reflective of BAT due to a
general lack of information about their feasibility or cost. However, EPA encourages Wisconsin
to explore these options to facilitate their use in the future. EPA acknowledges Wisconsin's
support for EPA's position that Lakers should be required to meet numeric concentration-based
living organism limits for their ballast water discharges as soon as technologies meeting BAT
standards are available.
Commenter Name: Nick Schroeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes
Environmental Law Center
Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Environmental Law Center
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0535-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: The draft VGP indicates the numeric concentration-based treatment limits for ballast
water discharges would not apply to some vessels. Specifically, it would not apply to "Lakers"
built before January 1, 2009 that operate exclusively in the Great Lakes. Though the US and
Canadian fleet of vessels that operate exclusively in the Great Lakes do not directly introduce
aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes system, they continuously move large volumes of
ballast water between ports within the Great Lakes. Lakers have been found to contain larger
volumes of water than oceangoing vessels. Further research and development needs to be done in
order to establish the most efficient technology-based treatment for Lakers. Moreover, the area
of ballast water technology is constantly changing and evolving. A numeric limitation would
serve as a catalyst in the development of ballast water technology for Lakers.
The present interim management measures should continue to be implemented. However, further
research is necessary in order to establish the best management practices for Lakers built before
January 1, 2009.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
EPA agrees that additional research regarding BMPs for Lakers built before January 1, 2009
would help EPA better quantify how those practices reduce the concentration of living
organisms in ballast water tanks.
682
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadiens)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadiens)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2
1
No
Comment: The CSA is supportive of many elements of the draft 2013 VGP, as discussed in
Annex A of this submission. Notwithstanding, certain aspects of the draft Permit, specifically
related to Article 2.2.3 - Ballast Water, are considered a serious threat to the commercial viability
of our members' companies, and a less than optimal approach to mitigating the risk of spread of
aquatic nuisance species (ANS) in the bi-national waters of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Seaway (GLSLS). Our specific concerns related to ballast water, which will be elaborated on
below, are as follows:
• Application of a ballast water discharge standard to CSA vessels at this time is
unachievable as there are no ballast water treatment systems (BWTS) that are both
suitable for our vessel operations and type-approved in the unique fresh water of the
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence. We propose that CSA vessels be recognized as a unique
sub-category of vessels for which an alternative risk mitigation approach is acceptable. In
addition, the EPA must recognize the difference in the introduction and spread of ANS,
and develop a regulatory framework that encourages the application of early mitigation
measures and a risk-based approach.
• Installation of BWTS on new CSA vessels currently under construction by the required
time frame of permit issuance is not possible. A pragmatic installation schedule that
includes adequate time to identify feasible systems that are USCG type-approved for use
in the Great Lakes and commercially available is required.
• The anticipated cost of BWTS, when they become commercially available, will be high.
There is a need for a regulatory framework that will promote this significant and
worthwhile investment through grandfathering of installed systems for the life of the
system/vessel.
Response: EPA notes that based on this and other comments, EPA has extended the
demarcation line for existing Lakers which must meet the treatment limits found in Part 2.2.3.5
to Anticosti Island. Please see the response essay in sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.4 of this comment
response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadiens)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadiens)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2
2
No
683
-------
Comment: Article 2.2.3. Ballast Water
In so much as the EPA must establish a ballast water discharge standard for vessels entering
North American waters from abroad, the CSA is supportive of a limit equivalent to the IMO D2
standard (Article 2.2.3.5). However, the CSA asserts that this standard cannot be met at this time
by CSA vessels. Just as the EPA has recognized certain vessels confined to operations above the
Weiland Canal as a unique sub-category of vessels (Article 2.2.3.5.3.3) for which systems are
not available and for which Best Management Practices can alternatively be applied, CSA
vessels must also be identified as such. Our specific comments on Article 2.2.3.5 are as follows:
i. Type-approved B WTS suitable jor CSA vessel operations are /lot available.
The EPA has recognized that BWTS are not available for "Confined Lakers". CSA notes that the
characteristics of most Great Lakes vessels are similar regardless of their trading patterns in the
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway System (GLSLS). Article 2.2.3.4 indicates a geographical
boundary to delineate between the ability to install an effective ballast water management system
(BWMS) on vessels that operate above or below the Weiland Canal. In the Permit's preamble,
the EPA acknowledges "the challenges of installing ballast water treatment systems currently
available on the existing confined Lakers, and the lack of currently available ballast water
treatment systems appropriate for these vessels." Likewise, in its 2011 report1 the EPA's Science
Advisory Board comments on the specific constraints that can greatly limit treatment options,
stating:
"Perhaps the most dramatic limitations are found with the Great Lakes bulk carrier fleet that
operates vessels solely within the Great Lakes with large volumes of fresh, and often cold,
ballast water ("Lakers")."
These constraints include large ballast volumes, high pumping rates, uncoated ballast tanks and
short voyages, all of which impose a number of limitations. The CSA confirms that these
limitations exist, however points out that they are common to all vessels that operate primarily in
the GLSLS and not only those confined above the Weiland Canal. CSA vessels are faced with
the same operational and technical obstacles, including:
• Large volumes of ballast and extremely high flow rates. This is a commercial reality of
short-sea-shipping in the Great Lakes region where the time spent in port is minimized to
the extent possible. CSA vessels require the capability to de-ballast at rates of up to 5,000
m3 per hour.
• Short voyage duration for many vessels, which can range from several hours to an
average of four days. BWTS employing active substances may require a minimum
retention time for disinfection or for neutralization prior to discharge that exceeds the
time available on a typical voyage. In addition, the IMO G8 testing protocol2 stipulates a
minimum of 5 days ballast water retention. Given this, a system that is approved by IMO
may not be effective under shipboard operations if the available retention time (i.e.,
voyage duration) is shorter than 5 days.
• The lack of space for retrofit installation of BWTS within the space limitations of an
engine room. Most CSA vessels were constructed deliberately to maximize cargo
capacity and efficiency based on the size constraints of the locks in the St. Lawrence
Seaway. Added to this, multiple treatment system modules may be required to be
684
-------
installed in order to meet the large ballast volume and high flow rates, further
exacerbating this installation constraint.
• Retrofitting BWTS on modem tankers would be exceedingly difficult. Most modem
tankers are not fitted with ballast pump rooms as virtually all of the piping and ballast
pumps are located in the ballast tanks. Significant engineering challenges associated with
the existing ballast piping configurations and the lack of available space would be
experienced.
• Retrofitting BWTS on Articulated Tug and Barges (A TB) would similarly be extremely
difficult, especially on the tugs. It would likely be more feasible for the barge of an ATB
to retrofit a system once they become commercially available.
• Insufficient electrical power to supply retrofit installation of BWTS. The BWTS will be
in operation during cargo unloading operations, at which time the self-unloading systems
also must be powered. In some cases, an additional generator would be required. An even
greater concern is associated with BWTS that employ ultra-violet light during treatment,
as the anticipated power demand would be greater than the supply capacity of most
vessels.
1 Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems: a report by the EPA Science Advisory Board, July 12, 2011.
2 MEPe 174(58) Guidelines far Approval afBallast Water Management Systems, IMO G8 Standard.
Response: Based on the information presented, EPA agrees with the commenter that meeting
the numeric treatment limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP is not BAT for vessels which operate
upstream of Anticosti Island. EPA notes that based on this and other comments, EPA has
extended the demarcation line for existing Lakers which must meet the treatment limits found in
Part 2.2.3.5 to Anticosti Island. Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment
response document. Additionally, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0527-A2, excerpt 14.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadiens)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadiens)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2
6
No
Comment: There is no basis for applying differing requirements to vessels operating above
and below the Welland Canal.
The EPA has recognized the limitations of applying BWTS to certain vessels confined to
operations above the Welland Canal (Article 2.2.3.5.3.3). However, the EPA does not provide
any rationale for this geographical demarcation at the Weiland Canal. In doing this, the EPA has
treated CSA vessels in a similar fashion to vessels entering the GLSLS system from international
destinations.
685
-------
It is our understanding that the basis for the implementation schedule at 2.2.3.5.2, Table 6 is a
determination as to when ballast water treatment becomes Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable for new and existing vessels of different ballast water capacity. The
EPA has correctly determined that for the class of vessels designated as Lakers at 2.2.3.4, that
best management practises presently constitute the Best Available Technology. Vessels fitting
the definition of Lakers at 2.2.3.4 are similar to those vessels which trade not only in the Upper
Lakes, but also downstream of the Welland Canal out to Isle de Anti Costi. Therefore, the EPA's
determination that the geographical boundary of the Welland Canal is a reasonable basis for
determining application of the Best Available Technology is arbitrary and not supported by any
obvious data.
Further to this, no scientific rationale is provided for applying these differing requirements.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Great Lakes
Aquatic Nuisance Species Information System (GLANSIS) ANS database' and Environment
Canada,8 the number of known AIS in each lake is as follows:
• Lake Ontario - 87
• Lake Erie-112
• Lake Huron - 67
• Lake Michigan - 77
• Lake Superior - 78
• St Lawrence River - 85
Based on this, the AIS load in Lake Erie exceeds that of Lake Ontario and therefore there
appears to be no basis from which to assume that the AIS risk associated with a ballast water
movement from Lake Erie to Lake Superior for example is any more or less of that from Lake
Ontario. Invasion risk is dependent on several factors, including propagule pressure and
environmental similarity. A more appropriate approach to management of the risk of transfer
would be an assessment of those species that are not common to individual lakes and application
of specific measures to address the risk of transferring the uncommon species. The CSA has been
leading a Transfer Risk Mitigation Project in collaboration with the Great Lakes Ballast Water
Collaborative aimed at understanding this risk and identifying appropriate management measures
such as enhanced Best Management Practises (BMPs) and the employment of alternative
technologies such as advanced filtration and the use of biocides.9 The installation and testing of
an advanced filtration system in a CSA vessel in concert with the Ballast Water Collaborative
and the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans is planned for 2012. The development of a
Risk Model that uses the real ballast water inventory from vessels trading in the GLSLS is
promising and can be a powerful tool to identify those vectors (trade routes) which present the
greatest risk of transferring organisms vulnerable to establishment in other parts of the GLSLS.
When the appropriate BMPs and alternative technologies are applied to counter the greatest risk
identified in the Risk Model, the potential for protection of the ecosystem of the GLSLS is
significantly increased. This is a system that is being developed now and could be significantly
enhanced in a short period of time.
The CSA is very optimistic that the combination of results from BMPs and alternate technologies
will provide promising solutions to the secondary spread of ANS, and that this represents a
pragmatic solution that is achievable in the near-term and a true representation of BAT. This type
686
-------
of approach should be recognized in the VGP as it provides practical solutions which are
implementable in the near-m. Indeed, the EPA has recognized the value of BMPs in the draft
permit through the application of mandatory BMPs for all vessels and additional BMPs for
"Confined Lakers".
7
http://www.gler!. noaa.gov/resIProgramsiglansisinas database.html.
8 http://www.ec.gc.calstUdefaulLasp?lang=En&n=OADE85C3-l.
9
http://www.greatlakes-seawav.com/en/environment/ballastcollaborativell09.html. Bruce Bowie. Robert
lewisManning, and Azin Moradhassel. Canadian Shipowners Association. "Secondary Spread Risk Mitigation
Project" Presentation
Response: EPA notes that based on this and other comments, EPA has extended the
demarcation line for existing Lakers which must meet the treatment limits found in Part 2.2.3.5
to Anticosti Island. Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response
document. EPA acknowledges the commenter's support for the BMPs found in Part 2.2.3.4 of
the permit. EPA notes that those existing vessels discussed by the commenter are now, for
regulatory purposes, being treated the same as the more narrowly and previously defined
"confined Lakers", and therefore, must meet the requirements found in Part 2.2.3.4 of the
permit. EPA acknowledges that the CSA has undertaken efforts to evaluate the risk posed by
their vessels in introducing and/or spreading invasive species into the Great Lakes. These
results, once peer reviewed by scientific experts in the field, may be considered in future
issuances of the VGP.
EPA also notes that the Agency did not base the geographical boundary, that separates those
vessels operating in the Great Lakes that must meet treatment requirements and those that are
not required to do so, on an assessment of which vessels present the greatest risk for nuisance
species transport. As discussed in the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response
document, that boundary is based on EPA's determination that treatment technologies do not
constitute BAT for vessels operating exclusively within that boundary because of their special
characteristics.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Raymond W. Johnston, President, Chamber of Marine
Commerce (CMC)
Chamber of Marine Commerce (CMC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0541-A2
7
No
Comment: iii. Exemptions for constrained lakers upstream of the Welland Canal.
With respect to the exemption for lakers upstream of the Welland Canal, the CMC refers the
EPA to the submission of the Canadian Shipowners Association.
Response: EPA notes that based on this and other comments, EPA has extended the
demarcation line for existing Lakers which must meet the treatment limits found in Part 2.2.3.5
to Anticosti Island. Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response
document.
687
-------
Commenter Name:
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
League's Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
4
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Second, we strongly oppose the exemption of Lakers from ballast water treatment
requirements. Lakers pose a great risk for transfer of aquatic invasive species among the Great
Lakes and need to be held to the same treatment standards as ocean-going vessels.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
Comment: 2.2.3.4 Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices for Existing Bulk Carrier
Vessels (Lakers) built before Jan 1,2009, confined to the Great Lakes west of Welland Canal.
We understand why the exemption for Lakers built before 2009 confined to exclusive use west
of the Welland Canal was suggested and appreciate EPA's willingness to re-open the issue as
soon as new technology comes on line. However, it implies exemptions may be warranted in the
future rather than providing a firm date or creating an incentive for treatment development. In
addition to the sodium hydroxide permanent shipboard treatment not having firm dates in the
future, mandating treatment processes means companies developing treatment from freshwater
or for meeting NY standards for the Great Lakes have disincentives to act. Setting a date 5 years
out will shorten capital outlays of technology developers and ensure companies will work with
developers to find options that suit their unique needs. It levels the playing field for industry.
In addition, we have been tracking the development of the NPS emergency treatment processes
and would ask that EPA take a lead in exploring whether this system could be implemented to
support treatment of risk ballast transfers by Lakers or salties entering or using the Great Lakes
prior to permanent treatment being installed.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
Additionally, EPA is aware of the work being led by NPS and others regarding treatment
options for Lakers, and these results, once peer reviewed by appropriate experts in the field,
Commenter Name:
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
League's Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
12
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
688
-------
may be considered in the future. As the commenter appears to recognize, these efforts are not
yet far along enough to provide a basis for permitting decision making at this time.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
League's Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
18
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.3.3 Lakers Built before January 1, 2009, confined exclusively to the Great
Lakes west of the Welland Canal are not required to meet the Ballast Water Treatment Schedule
compliance date. This is a significant exemption. It is risky to exempt ships operating in one
zone. All Vessels must have the capacity to treat as other vectors will introduce organisms, and it
is imperative to maintain implementation practices that avert the risk of spreading organisms
from those vectors. It is critical that Lakers be included in order to meet Ballast Water
management goals effectively.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Brian P. Smith, Program and Communications Director,
Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE)
Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0553-A1
3
No
Comment: Apply stronger regulations to "laker" vessels that travel only within the Great Lakes
basin but increase the risk of spreading invaders.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Edward L. Michael, Chairman, Illinois Council of Trout
Unlimited (ICTU)
Commenter Affiliation: Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited (ICTU)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0565-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: ICTU also objects to the exception in the proposed VGP (Sec. 2.2.3.5.3.3) to the
requirement to treat ballast water discharge for existing bulk carrier vessels confined to the Great
Lakes (Lakers) built before January 1, 2009. These vessels are established vectors for
689
-------
transferring aquatic invasive species beyond the confines of natural barriers of various kinds
within the Great Lakes, as well as accelerants for the spread of other non native organisms
around the Great Lakes Basin. There is no scientific rational for this exception and the scant
economic rational pales in the face of accomplishing the very objective of this permitting
process, namely to staunch pollution in accord with the Clean Water Act and EPA' court
mandated obligation to do so. Moreover, ICTU notes that the wording of this exemption relieves
any existing Laker built before January 1, 2009 that has voluntarily installed a BWTS from
compliance with the discharge requirements of Sec. 2.2.3.5.1.1 and its subsections.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
Additionally, EPA is unaware of any existing Laker built before January 1, 2009 that has
installed a ballast water treatment system, let alone one that is capable of meeting the limits
found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP.
Commenter Name: H. Clayton Cook, Jr., Counsel, Seward & Kissel LLP on
behalf of Joseph W. McHugh, Jr., Vice President & Chief
Financial Officer, Rand Logistics, Inc.
Commenter Affiliation: Rand Logistics, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0568-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: The Company is pleased that the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has
recognized that no ballast water management ("BWM)" technology exists that will enable
vessels in Great Lakes trades to meet discharge standards consistent with those of International
Maritime Organization Convention, and the consequent need for special treatment. However, the
Company believes that the EPA is in error in limiting this special treatment to only those vessel
operations within the four upper lakes as defined by the Welland Canal, rather than including in
their application the entire Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River system overall, and is also in
error in setting a January 1, 2009 build date for a situation in which there is little likelihood of
successful technology availability during the five year VGP period.
Part 2.2.3.5.3 of the VGP excludes certain vessels from having to meet Part 2.2.3.5's ballast
water management measures. Among the exceptions in 2.2.3.5.3 is the "Lakers Exception", in
Part 2.2.3.5.3.3, which states - "[ejxisting Lakers built before January 1, 2009, confined
exclusively to the Great Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal are not required to meet the
requirements of Part 2.2.3.5."
The EPA's selection of the Welland Canal as a point of demarcation for the exception in Part
2.2.3.5.3.3, (the "Welland Canal Exception") has created an environmental, economic, vessel
class and trade division that is not grounded in any scientific study or logic. The economic
detriment of this division line is enormous to the port cities and industries located east of the
Welland Canal and to the vessel owners that serve them.
690
-------
The VGP Fact Sheet does not support the basis for the selection of the Welland Canal as a
demarcation line for the exception. Instead, the EPA talks briefly about the challenges of
installing ballast water treatment systems on the "confined Laker fleet." The EPA quotes the
unique operational and design constraints faced by the Lakers in the Office of the Administrator
Science Advisory Board report regarding Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems: a Report
by the EPA Science Advisory Board, July 12, 2011 ("SAB Report"). Notably, the SAB Report
does not assign these unique operational and design constraints only to vessels that are confined
to the upper lakes, it does not define the upper lakes as a separate ecosystem, nor does it use the
Welland Canal to set forth a separate class of ships. In fact, the SAB Report does not mention the
Welland Canal at all.
For the reasons outlined in this comment letter, the Company recommends that the EPA consider
redrafting Part 2.2.3.5.3.3 to include vessels confined exclusively to the Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence River system east of longitude 63 West and Anticosti Island.
In conjunction with the above change, the Company recommends that the EPA consider
redrafting Part "2.2.3.4: Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices for Existing Bulk
Carrier Vessels (commonly known as Lakers) built before January 1, 2009, confined exclusively
to the Great Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal" to a definition that will include ships that
operate in the five Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River as far downstream as the longitude 63
West and Anticosti Island. We will refer to this as the "GLSLR" ecosystem.
SUMMARY
Our discussion is summarized as follows: 1. The GLSLR Ecosystem; 2. Aquatic Nuisance
Species; 3. GLSLR Economics; 4. BWM System Availability; and 5. Recommendations and
Conclusions.
1. THE GREAT LAKES SAINT LAWRENCE RIVER ECOSYSTEM.
SUMMARY:
EPA has proposed that Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron and Erie should be treated as an
ecosystem separate from Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, with the Welland Canal locks
as an appropriate boundary division. We believe that the five Great Lakes and a specified portion
of the St. Lawrence River should be considered as a single GLSLR ecosystem with a variety of
biological communities and that any exceptions to be adopted should be defined on this basis.
DISCUSSION:
EPA has provided no reference to any study in support of its Welland Canal position. And, the
Company cannot locate a single published study in support of this demarcation. The widely
adopted definition includes the freshwater ports of the Great Lakes and all connecting waterways
as far east as Sept-Iles-Pointe Noire.1
Two of the most recent and authoritative Canadian studies, "Domestic ballast operations on the
Great Lakes: potential importance of Lakers as a vector for the introduction and spread of non-
indigenous species" (the "2010 Report") and the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat,
691
-------
Research Document at 2011/104, "Risk Assessment of ship-mediated introductions of aquatic
non-indigenous species to the Great Lakes and freshwater St. Lawrence River", February 14,
2012 (the "2012 Report") have adopted some form of GLSLR ecosystem. The 2010 Report
chose Sept-Iles as its demarcation. The 2012 Report chose Quebec City as its demarcation, while
acknowledging that studies for locations further downstream are underway looking at the
biological communities sampled in domestic ballast water sourced from the remaining marine
parts of the St. Lawrence River - the upper estuary, the lower estuary, and the Gulf of St.
Lawrence - are being undertaken in the East Coast Risk Assessment, in order to address some of
the open questions.
Canadian and U.S. flag vessels, like those of Rand's Lower Lakes Shipping and Grand River
Navigation, operate across the Great Lakes St. Lawrence River system - from Duluth- Superior
to Sept-Iles and Anticosti Island - carrying U.S. and Canadian domestic and U.S. and Canadian
export -import cargoes. Many of these operations involve transits of the Welland Canal. The
Great Lakes fresh water technology problems exist for all five lakes. Accordingly, any vessel
operation on any of the Great Lakes must face this problem
The VGP purports to create a solution to the problem of aquatic nuisance species (ANS)2 transfer
using an environmental definition that has not been adopted by the research designed to study
this issue. To approach the GLSLR as two separate ecosystems separated by the Welland Canal
promotes the type of fragmented approach to the ANS issue that has been uniformly criticized.
To that end the 2011 Summary of Great Lakes Seaway Ballast Water Working Group states,
"[f]or any regulatory regime to be effective, all the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway
must be treated as a single system.3
1 Domestic Ballast Operations on the Great Lakes: potential importance of Lakers as a vector for introduction and
spread of nonindigenous species. Michael P. Rup, Sarah A. Bailey, Chris J. Wiley, Mark S. Minton, A. Whitman
Miller, Gregory M. Ruiz, and Hugh J. Maclsaac.
2
The VGP uses ANS in its terminology. This report will refer to ANS as well as nonindigenous species.
3
2011 Summary of Great Lakes Seaway Ballast Water Working Group (February 2012) (hereinafter "Working
Group Summary Report") at 9, http://www.piersvstem.com/external/content/document/443/1311351/1/dpi-bwwg-
2011 -summarvreport.pdf.
Response: EPA has extended the demarcation line for existing Lakers which must meet the
treatment limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 to Anticosti Island. Please see the response essay in
section 9.1.4 of this comment response document. EPA does note, however, that this permit
change was not based on this commenter's primary rationale, which was based on an attempt to
create a rationale environmental definition of what constitutes the Great Lakes Ecosystem. To
the contrary, EPA's approach was based on EPA's finding that treatment systems do not
constitute BAT for ships operating within the newly defined area of the Great Lakes due to
design and operational characteristics.
Commenter Name: H. Clayton Cook, Jr., Counsel, Seward & Kissel LLP on
behalf of Joseph W. McHugh, Jr., Vice President & Chief
Financial Officer, Rand Logistics, Inc.
Commenter Affiliation: Rand Logistics, Inc.
692
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0568-A2
2
No
Comment: 2. AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES.
SUMMARY:
More than 180 aquatic non-indigenous species (NIS) are believed to have become established in
the Great Lakes, causing the lakes to become one of the most seriously impacted ecosystems in
the world. The majority of the current species are believed to have resulted from vessels in
international trade discharging ballast waters containing NIS native to the East Asian and the
Caspian Sea region that had been established in secondary colonies in fresh and brackish waters
in the Baltic Sea and the lower Rhine River.
In a series of actions since the mid-1980s arrival of the Zebra mussel, the U.S. Coast Guard and
Transport Canada have worked together and the with the Great Lakes Seaway Development and
Management Corporations to craft Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System BWM
requirements that are today the most stringent in the world.4 The currently in effect Canadian
EEZ "mid-ocean" and Gulf of St. Lawrence ballast exchange and salt water flushing regimes
imposed by the Canadian and U.S. Federal governments and the joint Seaway Authorities have
achieved an apparent 100 percent success record with "no known introductions" since 2006.
DISCUSSION:
Vessels that operate entirely within the GLSLR must comply with the Voluntary Management
Practices adopted in January 2001, which will be made mandatory under the current EPA and
Coast Guard BWM rulemaking proceedings that are being conducted in "parallel", with the U.S.
Coast Guard rulemaking now under review at the Office of Management and Budget.
Current scientific study of ANS in the GLSLR does not purport to show an environmental risk
that is high enough to justify the cost of implementing a premature BWM treatment system
regime. Two recent studies by the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat - "Domestic ballast
operations on the Great Lakes as a vector for introduction and spread of non-indigenous
species", and its latest report - "Risk Assessment for ship-mediated introductions of aquatic non-
indigenous species to the Great Lakes and freshwater St. Lawrence River" - both show that the
risk of spreading new ANS in the GLSLR is not as great a threat as it once was.
Clearly, one of the chief concerns of the EPA is that foreign ANS introduced into the St.
Lawrence River by foreign or domestic vessels that operate outside the Great Lakes (Salties) will
be spread throughout the GLSLR by the ballast water discharge of domestic vessels operating
exclusively within the Great Lakes ("Lakers"). The GLSR non-indigenous species problem is
generally characterized as a fresh water to fresh water problem. It is a widely accepted fact that
saltwater ANS will not survive in freshwater.
In order for a Laker to spread an ANS among the GLSLR, an ANS must first be introduced into
the GLSLR from a foreign ecosystem. The introduction of foreign ANS has been largely
mitigated due to the coordination of U.S. and Canadian regulation and ballast water management
693
-------
best practices, the type of coordinated and system-wide solutions necessary to address the
environmental concerns of an ecosystem as large and complex as the GLSLR. Current ballast
water management regulations require all ships destined for the GLSLR from beyond the
Economic Exclusive Zone to exchange their ballast at sea > 200 nautical miles from land, in a
location where depth is not < 2,000 m. Empirical studies indicate that ballast water exchange
purges 80-100% of coastal planktonic organisms entrained at the source port and is "particularly
effective (>99%) in reducing the abundance of freshwater taxa."5 Ships declaring no ballast on
board, or "NOBOB" are required to flush their tanks to the extent they achieve a final salinity of
> 30 parts per thousand.6 In addition, the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation and
the USCG perform inspections of all vessels before they enter U.S. waters. The inspection
includes verification that the vessel's ballast water salinity is > 30 parts per thousand through an
inspector boarding program.7 The effectiveness of the above referenced procedures has largely
reduced, if not eliminated, the introduction of foreign ANS in the GLSLR. To that effect, the
2012 Report states:
Ballast water from international source ports must now be exchanged or flushed on the open
ocean, which dramatically reduces potential propagule supply to Canadian ports (Bailey et al.
2011). Therefore, ballast water discharged by international merchant vessels may no longer play
a prominent role in introducing NIS from foreign sources.8
Likewise, the 2012 report states, "[ejffective ballast management regulations coupled with an
intensive inspection regime for international vessels appear to have successfully reduced the
future risk of introduction of new NIS from foreign ports (Bailey et al. 2011)." Lakers that
travel the Great Lakes proper and, at least as far as longitude 63 west, are doing so within the
same aquatic interconnected ecosystem. While it is possible that Lakers will spread living
organisms among parts of the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes proper, it is important to
emphasize that such secondary spread is of organisms and species that are already native to an
interconnected ecosystem that has the potential for transfer through natural means as well as
through the many other unregulated vectors on the GLSLR. The 2012 Report emphasizes this
point, stating, "Lakers likely play a more prominent role in the spread of native nuisance species
and/or established NIS, rather than the introduction of new NIS from foreign sources (Carlton
and Hodder 1995; Lavoie et al. 1999).10 This is not an insignificant distinction. The movement of
ballast water over short geographic distances has been considered low risk for species invasions
under the assumption that closely located ports will be within the same bio-geographic region
and will contain similar biological communities.11 Many other vectors exist that transfer ANS
around the GLSLR ecosystem.
Finally, Lakers that take on Ballast at ports further east than Quebec City are taking on brackish
or saltwater ballast, and as referenced above, ANS brought on in saltwater would not survive a
subsequent discharge into freshwater. Indeed, the 2012 Report states that when measuring
environmental similarity between two locations, salinity is the most influential variable.1
In the absence of existing BWM systems that can function in the Great Lakes proper, or the
likelihood of such systems being developed for any installation during the current VGP term, all
proposed Great Lakes BWM regulations should be made subject to the "Lakers Exception" in
694
-------
Part 2.2.3.5.3.3 and attention should be directed to the enforcement of the existing regulatory
regime and the best practices provisions of part 2.2.3.4.
4
See generally, Working Group Summary Report,
http://www.piersvstem.com/external/content/document/443/131135 l/l/dpi-bwwg-201 l-summarvreport.pdf.
Bailey, S.A., Chan, F., Ellis, S.M., Bronnenhuber, J.E., Bradie, J.N., and Simard, N. 2011. Risk assessment for
ship-mediated introductions of aquatic nonindigenous species to the Great Lakes and freshwater St. Lawrence River.
DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2011/103. vi +224 p.4 (hereinafter "Bailey") (emphasis added).
6 Bailey at 4.
7
Working Group Summary at 6.
8 Bailey at at 20.
9 Id. at 23.
10 Id. at 21.
11 Michael P. Rup, Sarah A. Bailey, Chris J. Wiley, Mark S. Minton, A. Whitman Miller, Gregory M. Ruiz, and
Hugh J. Maclsaac, Domestic Ballast Operations on the Great Lakes: potential importance of Lakers as a vector for
introduction and spread of non-indigenous species (at 257).
12 Bailey at 15.
Response: EPA notes that based on this and other comments, EPA has extended the
demarcation line for existing Lakers which must meet the treatment limits found in Part 2.2.3.5
to Anticosti Island. Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response
document. EPA has concluded that vessels which operate downstream of Anticosti Island can
meet treatment limits as these vessels are SOLAS vessels and mirror their "Saltie" counterparts
much more so than the 1,000 foot Lakers confined to the upper Lakes. EPA received no
concrete information during the comment period suggesting that this is not so. For discussions
of existing interim ballast water management measures such as ballast water exchange, please
see Part 4.4.3 of the VGP fact sheet and sections 9.1.7 and 10.1.2 of this comment response
document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
H. Clayton Cook, Jr., Counsel, Seward & Kissel LLP on
behalf of Joseph W. McHugh, Jr., Vice President & Chief
Financial Officer, Rand Logistics, Inc.
Rand Logistics, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0568-A2
4
No
Comment: 4. BWM SYSTEM AVAILABILITY.
SUMMARY:
There is no BWM system currently available or expected to become available for installations
during the VGP permit period that will meet the IMO D-2 standard for vessels operating in the
Great Lakes. The insertion of such a BWM standard in VGP permits, based upon the
hypothetical availability of such a system will serve no useful purpose. It will bring confusion to
a complicated subject matter and serve to call into question the legitimacy of other VGP
provisions.
695
-------
DISCUSSION:
The Company understands that the Lakers Exception in part 2.2.3.5.3.3 has been proposed on the
basis that there is no BWM technology available for vessels that do not transit the Welland
Canal, and which present a combination of difficulties that include: (i) Great Lakes fresh water
with microorganisms and very low salinity; (ii) short voyage transit times; (iii) substantial
volumes, and rate of flow, of ballasting and de-ballasting; and (iv) uncoated ballast tanks.
We agree with the spirit of the Welland Canal exception, but disagree with its limitation to
vessels of a size such that they cannot transit the Welland Canal. The Company's situation with
its smaller River Class vessels (and that of every other U.S. and Canadian flag vessel owner with
respect to their vessels) that transit Welland, is identical in every respect but vessel size to the
Large US Lakers class of vessels being excepted, and is not sufficiently dissimilar that a different
rule should apply. Moreover, there is a direct correlation between vessel size and risk. Therefore,
the smaller River Class vessels, while still subject to the exact same environmental and
operational limitations - very cold fresh water, density of microorganisms and a high rate of flow
- actually pose less risk than their larger Bulk Carrier brethren. Such a vessel size based Welland
Canal exception cannot be justified and will be judged as anti-competitive.
Relying on the SAB Report, the EPA VGP set forth only five available ballast water treatment
technologies (hereinafter "BWMS") that met the IMO D-2 discharge standard, including:
1. Deoxygenation + cavitation;
2. Filtration + chlorine dioxide;
3. Filtration + UV;
4. Filtration + UV + Ti02; and
5. Filtration + electro-chlorination.
Similar to the difficulties described in the SAB report, the combination of operational and
environmental limitations for our vessels render each available technology useless on our
vessels. The fresh water of the Great Lakes eliminates the feasibility of options 2 and 5, which
require an adequate level of salinity to work. Our ballast tanks are uncoated, welded tanks that
are subject to corrosion. Therefore, any solution that requires the addition of brine will cause
significant damage to the steel of our tanks. The deoxygenation process itself takes
approximately 4 days to take effect. Our vessels average less than one day in ballast, which
eliminates option 1. Critical to the success of a UV technology system is the power of the lamp
and the clarity of the water. Our vessels contain 7,000 to 10,000 net tons of ballast water with a
flow rate of 3,000 to 5,000 tons per hours, and the water of the GLSLR contains a particularly
dense microorganism level, therefore options 3 and 4 will not work.
In addition to the limitations faced by our vessels that make the installation of currently available
ballast water technology impossible, the Company believes that a ballast water treatment
technology mandate is premature. As noted in the SAB Report, not one of the BWMS examined
consistently scored "zero" or "non-detectable" in its testing.20 In addition, the SAB report noted
"[i]n fact, it was not uncommon to find an increase in total bacteria after treatment."21 The SAB
report also noted that BWMS performance varies across target organisms, noting "all treatment
systems were limited in their ability to reach extremely stringent, proposed standards for total
696
-------
bacteria (understandable if they actually found an increase in total bacteria).. .and although they
met the IMO D-2 standards, some live organisms were found in either one or both of the > 10 to
< 50 um and > 50 um size classes."22 Finally, the SAB report states, "[i]n summary, these data
indicate that current technology is broadly challenged by bacterial counts and sometimes
selectively challenged by both> 10 to < 50 um and > 50 um size classes."23
It is these BWMS limitations, along with many other examples noted in the SAB Report that led
to the final recommendation of the Panel: However, the Panel's overarching recommendation is
that the EPA adopt a risk-based approach to minimize the impacts of invasive species in vessel
ballast water discharge rather than relying solely on numeric standards for discharges from
shipboard BWMS. The Panel found that insufficient attention has been given to integrated sets of
practices and technologies that could be used to systematically advance ballast water
management... .[t]he Panel recommended that a comprehensive analysis be done to compare
biological effectiveness, cost, logistics, operations and safety associated with shipboard BWMS
and onshore reception facilities.24
Finally, none of the approved systems have completed the United States Coast Guard ("USCG")
Type Approval process or undergone the required EPA Environmental Technology Verification
testing protocol ("ETV Protocol"). The VGP expressly allows vessels that have non U.S. Type
Approved BWM systems to use such systems to comply with the permit. The SAB Report notes
specifically, "[ajlthough no BWMS has yet been tested under the ETV Protocol, this protocol
provides much more detailed instructions for how to conduct BWMS tests that are scientifically
rigorous and statistically sound."25 The EPA is mandating the use of technology that could be
rendered useless should one of the technologies later fail ETV or USCG testing.
As noted in the Report to St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation regarding Ballast
Water Type Approval Process AND Obstacles Associated with Installation of Non-Coast Guard
Type Approved Ballast Water Management Systems, the VGP allows vessel owners to operate
their vessels in contravention of existing and proposed USCG regulations, and potentially, the
BWM Convention.26
There is uniform and unchallenged expert agreement that none of the currently available systems
can provide successful BWM treatment for vessels in the Great Lakes. Vessels that are confined
to the GLSLR will face enormous cost, environmental and operational limitations in order to
implement the EPA's approved BWMS. The BWMS have not passed ETV and USCG testing
and the EPA should not force class society acceptance of a cost prohibitive technology that may
not pass required testing standards once in the unique waters of the Great Lakes.
20 SAB Report at 37.
21 SAB Report at 37.
22 SAB Report at 57.
23 Id.
24
SAB Report, Cover Letter.
25 SAB Report at 32.
26 Croot, Gary, International Maritime Environmental & Safety Associates, Report to St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation Regarding Ballast Water Type Approval Process AND Obstacles Associated with
Installation of Non-Coast Guard Type Approved Ballast Water Management Systems, January 9, 2012.
697
-------
Response: EPA notes that based on this and other comments, EPA has extended the
demarcation line for existing Lakers which must meet the treatment limits found in Part 2.2.3.5
to Anticosti Island. Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response
document. EPA notes, however, that the Agency has established the applicability of the numeric
limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP as a technology-based requirement. EPA has considered
risk in establishing its water quality-based limits applicable to ballast water, which can be found
in Part 2.2.3.7 and 2.3 of the VGP. Please see sections 10, 10.1, 10.1.1, and 10.1.2 of this
comment response document for further discussion. Please see sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 in this
comment response document for discussion regarding ballast water treatment technologies,
AMS approval, and US type approval. For those vessels which must meet numeric treatment
limits, the VGP allows vessels to use a ballast water treatment system that is US Coast Guard
type approved or AMS approved in order to meet the end-of-pipe numeric limits expressed in
Comment: 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
Commencing at least as early as the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 and the creation of its
International Joint Commission, the U.S. and Canada have collaborated in the management of
jointly shared water systems. This has been a 102-year history that concerns the Great Lakes in
all of their aspects. No subject matter has evidenced greater government-to government
collaboration than the U.S. and Canada dealing with the problem of the Great Lakes aquatic
nuisance species. In a series of actions since the mid-1980's arrival of the Zebra mussel, the U.S.
Coast Guard and Transport Canada have worked together with the Great Lakes Seaway
Development and Management Corporations to craft Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System
BWM requirements that are today the most stringent in the world.27
If forced to implement the current BWM systems, the Company has estimated its total capital
expenditure to be approximately $80-90 million, a cost that will likely cause the Company to
reassess the affordability of its fleet and its ability to maintain certain customers.
Moreover, the Company believes that Anticosti Island would be the most widely accepted
demarcation for the exception. Wisconsin, Ohio, and New York use Anticosti Island as the
eastern boundary of their ballast water provisions. The USCG uses Anticosti Island as the eastern
boundary for lakers' Loadline Certificate and Certificate of Inspection.
The Company asks that EPA act to: (i) enlarge the Lakers Exception to include all U.S. and
Canadian vessels whose operations are within the generally recognized GLSLR geographical
the VGP.
Commenter Name:
H. Clayton Cook, Jr., Counsel, Seward & Kissel LLP on
behalf of Joseph W. McHugh, Jr., Vice President & Chief
Financial Officer, Rand Logistics, Inc.
Rand Logistics, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0568-A2
5
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
698
-------
zone; (ii) change the BWM build date from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2017 or such later date
as Great Lakes BWM technology can be expected to be available; (iii) ensure regulatory
consistency with the U.S. Coast Guard on subject matters for which a U.S. Coast Guard
rulemaking has been in progress since 2009 without yet having been finalized; and (iv) seek
solutions for Great Lakes problems in collaboration with Transport Canada, the St. Lawrence
Seaway Development and Management Corporations and the Canadian Government.
In closing, the Company expresses its appreciation, and that of its Grand River Navigation
Company and Lower Lakes Towing Ltd., subsidiaries, for the opportunity to provide these
comments in the current rulemaking
27
See generally, Working Group Summary Report (stating 100% of vessels bound for GLSLR from outside EEZ
received ballast management exams on each seaway transit).
Response: EPA notes that based on this and other comments, EPA has extended the
demarcation line for existing Lakers which must meet the treatment limits found in Part 2.2.3.5
to Anticosti Island. Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response
document. With respect to new build date for Lakers, please see section 9.1.6 of this comment
response document. EPA notes that Lakers built on or after Jan 1, 2009, will be treated as
existing vessels subject to the ballast water treatment limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of the permit. These
vessels, dependent on their size and their drydocking schedule, will have to install a ballast
water treatment system some time between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2021. (EPA
notes the commenter advocates an implementation date commencing in January 1, 2017). EPA
has maximized consistency with the US Coast Guard ballast water discharge regulations as
appropriate and insofar as permissible under the CWA. Please see section 9.1.19 of this
comment response document for further discussion. Regarding cooperation with other Agencies
and governments including Transport Canada and the St. Lawrence Seaway Development and
Management Corporations, though beyond the scope of this permit, EPA notes it intends to
continue to cooperate and coordinate with those Agencies and looks forward to productive
working relationships in the future with these entities.
Commenter Name: Scott Strand, Executive Director, MN Center for
Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.3.4 Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices for Existing Bulk Carrier
vessels (commonly known as Lakers) built before January 1, 2009, confined exclusively to the
Great Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal. We support the additional measures required for
Laker vessels.
Response: Please see the response essay in sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.4 of this comment response
document.
699
-------
Commenter Name:
Scott Strand, Executive Director, MN Center for
Environmental Advocacy, et al.
MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A2
13
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: 2.2.3.5.3.3 Existing Bulk Carrier Vessels (Commonly Known as Lakers) Built
Before January 1, 2009, Confined Exclusively to the Great Lakes Upstream of the Welland
Canal We strongly oppose the exemption of existing Laker vessels from ballast water discharge
standards. Lakers discharge nearly 20 times as much ballast water as Salties and must be held to
the same standards as Lakers to prevent the secondary spread of AIS within the Great Lakes. The
EPA has offered no sound justification why these intra Great Lakes vessels should be allowed to
continue to spread AIS to Lake Superior from the other Great Lakes. The EPA will fail in its
obligation under the Clean Water Act to prevent degradation of Lake Superior and Minnesota's
inland waterways unless it corrects this critical omission.
Minnesota is uniquely positioned to suffer a disproportionate impact from the failure to
adequately regulate Lakers. The Duluth-Superior harbor (located in the St. Louis River estuary)
and Two Harbor, MN harbor together receive nearly 7.3 billion gallons of ballast water
discharges per year. Approximately 95 % of these discharges are from Lakers.23 Although
Lakers may not introduce AIS to the Great Lakes ecosystem as a whole, they transport invasive
species to portions of the ecosystem where they were not found, dispersing them wider and faster
that those species could have spread on their own.24 Rup et al concluded that, "The volume of
ballast water moved by Lakers is 20 times the volume of local ballast transferred by Salties and
Coastal vessels combined, likely rendering Lakers the most important ballast mediated pathway
of secondary spread within the Great Lakes. With ballast transfers being overwhelmingly in the
upstream direction, the potential distance and speed of secondary spread of [AIS] are much
greater than would be achieved by natural, passive dispersal."25 Minnesota ports are the
overwhelming recipients of this "upstream" movement of AIS from the lower Great Lakes.
Lakers thus pose a great risk for transfer of aquatic invasive species among the Great Lakes and
must be held to the same standards as ocean-going vessels in order to adequately protect
Minnesota waters and water quality standards.26 We urge in the strongest terms that this
exemption be stricken from the VGP Permit.
We anticipate that organizations representing the Laker-based shipping industry will strongly
support this unjustifiable exemption. They have often claimed Lakers are not part of the problem,
that Lakers are constructed and ballast water discharged in such a way that it is impossible to
treat their discharges, and that any attempt to regulate Lakers will shut down the shipping
industry and several others. Recent testing of sodium hydroxide in bench tests and a practicality
review for a Laker vessel have demonstrated that this treatment option is likely to be a practical,
effective, and relatively low cost option for Lakers.27 Treatment costs were estimated between 16
and 19 cents per ton of cargo and this could be reduced by up to 70% if a pH of 11.5 is deemed
to meet the discharge standards. Surely an industry that is spending $75 million this winter
700
-------
(2011-12) to maintain and modernize its 56 vessels fleet ($1.34 million per vessel on average)
can find a way to put more pipefitters and other skilled craftsmen to work protecting our
resources by installing treatment technologies.28 Indeed, they must be required by the VGP
Permit to do so, in order to protect the 43,000 Minnesota jobs in the fishing industry alone which
are dependent upon preventing more AIS from reaching Minnesota waters via ballast water from
the lower Great Lakes.
MPCA, Fact Sheet for State Disposal System (SDS) Permit MNG300000 Ballast Water Discharge General
Permit, 2008, page 3.
24
Rup et al., Domestic Ballast Operations on the Great Lakes: Potential Importance of Lakers as a Vector for
Introduction and Spread of Nonindigenous Species, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 67(2): 256-268 (2010).
25 Id.
26 Id.
27
Sodium Flydroxide (NaOFl) Practicality Study. Prepared for the National Parks of Lake Superior Foundation. File
Number 09129.01. February 2010 available at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/953CCBEB820F0470852577920076316D/$File/NaOFl+Practicality+Stu
dy.pdf.
28
Lakes Carriers Association, Press Release December 13, 2011. Investment Averages $1.4 million Per Vessel
Maintaining and Modernizing U.S. Flag Lakers Will Keep Great Lakes Shipyards Busy This Winter.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document
and response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-055Q-A2, excerpt 12 for further discussion.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Late Comment? No
Comment: 15. Comment whether "existing confined Lakers" build before January 1, 2009,
should be required to meet numeric ballast water discharge standards.
The global transfer and introduction of aquatic invasive species is most frequently attributed to
the ballast water discharge. As such, it seems reasonable that all vessels that can contribute to the
transfer and/or introduction of invasive species be required to properly manage or treat their
ballast water before discharge.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain William C. Peterson, General Manager, Key
Lakes, Inc.
Key Lakes, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0613-A1
1
No
701
-------
Comment: We are a member of Lake Carriers' Association and are writing to endorse the
lengthy comments the Association has submitted on the referenced subject. We wish to
specifically highlight our support for LCA's comments on ballast water treatment systems on
lakers and the eastern boundary for "upstream of the Welland Canal."
Concerning ballast water treatment systems, we agree that there are no systems currently
available that can handle the flowrates and volumes of ballast water on our vessels and such
systems will not be available during the term of the next Vessel General Permit.
Further concerning ballast water treatment systems, we agree that when and if systems that will
work on lakers receive type approval from the U.S. Coast Guard, a benefit/cost analysis needs to
be done to determine if the considerable expense we and other operators will incur can be
justified given that the Great Lakes are interconnected and the non-indigenous species introduced
by ocean-going vessels are migrating independent of commercial navigation. Our ballast is but
one of at least 64 vectors for spread. It is difficult to justify an industry spending an estimated
$485 million (in 2012 dollars) to address introduction of non-indigenous species when its vessels
have never traded overseas.
We support LCA's request that the boundary for "upstream of the Welland Canal" be the eastern
end of the Welland Canal. The natural flow of water in the system is west to east, so this flushing
effect allows lakers to transit that far while remaining in what effectively constitutes an enclosed
aquatic ecosystem.
Our company only operates vessels on the Great Lakes and has done so for over one hundred
years, so this is where we work and live. Our commitment to the Great Lakes environment is as
strong as anyone's and we continually strive to operate our vessels in a manner that reflects that
dedication to clean and healthy "inland seas."
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
Although the issue of future actions is outside the scope of today's permitting action, EPA notes
that the Agency would conduct an analysis of costs as part of any future BAT determinations
that existing Lakers are able to achieve a given numeric discharge limit. EPA further notes that
it disagrees with the commenter's characterization that ballast water is merely one of 64 vectors
that can spread invasive species in the Great Lakes. The science is abundantly clear that
untreated or unmanaged ballast water is one of the primary vectors for introducing and
spreading ANS in large aquatic ecosystems with high vessel traffic.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
15
No
702
-------
Comment: 15. Comment whether "existing confined Lakers" build before January 1, 2009,
should be required 10 meet numeric ballast water discharge standards.
The global transfer and introduction of aquatic invasive species is most frequently attributed to
the ballast water discharge. As such, it seems reasonable that all vessels that can contribute to the
transfer and/or introduction of invasive species be required to properly manage or treat their
ballast water before discharge. While is has been widely stated that systems are not available for
Lakers, due to high volumes, lack of fresh water testing, and footprint, we are aware of one
company that has developed a solution that is suitable for Lakers.
Response: EPA disagrees that "a solution that is suitable for Lakers" has been developed and is
available. The commenter does not provide additional details regarding the company that has
developed a solution that is appropriate for Lakers. Assuming the commenter is referring to the
use of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) in ballast water tanks, studies are ongoing regarding the
efficacy and practicability of such an approach. Assuming the commenter is talking about
foreign-flagged type-approved ballast water treatment technologies, EPA has found that the
technologies are not available and their use is not economically achievable for Lakers at this
time. Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army
Corps of Engineers
Commenter Affiliation: US Army Corps of Engineers
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0632-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: Issue 6. Ballast Water
Reference: Vessel General Permit (VGP), Section 2.2.3.4 - Mandatory Ballast Water
Management Practices for Existing Bulk Carrier vessels (commonly known as Lakers) built
before January 1, 2009, confined exclusively to the Great Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal
Discussion: The permit in this section discusses the cleaning and inspecting the sea chest screen.
It requires repair/replacement of screens with wider openings than the screen design. The section
fails to provide guidance/requirements for an initial maximum screen size. In theory, my vessel
could have a screen with large size openings, allowing living organisms into my vessel, while
another vessel with very small size openings, but with some deterioration, even though the
deteriorated holes are still smaller than my large size openings, would have to repair/replace their
screen. With that theory, there is no environmental gain because my vessel is still transporting
living organisms.
Recommendation: US ACE recommends providing clear definition for the maximum allowable
sea chest screen size openings. This requirement should be based on scientific information
regarding uptake of living organisms.
Response: Though EPA appreciates the Corps' recommendation to provide clear guidance on
the maximum screen size, EPA did not provide a specific screen size because the Agency does
703
-------
not have an adequate record basis to do so; for example, it does not know to what extent smaller
screen sizes could adversely affect vessel operations. EPA agrees that a firm definition of
maximum allowable screen size openings should be based on scientific or other technical
information. However, EPA notes that information in the record shows that most, if not all,
Lakers have a sea chest screen mesh size of no more than Vi inch. Though a screen of this size
will not have a notable effect on most zooplankton, it will help to keep out larger fish and debris
and detritus which may have been colonized by other organisms. EPA notes that the smaller the
screen size, the greater the filtering effect on larger organisms which would extend to smaller
"large" organisms. EPA would encourage Laker operators to use the smallest screen mesh size
that allows them to meet their operational requirements while reducing the number of large
living organisms that can be taken up in their intake. EPA will take the Corps' advice on
developing guidance under advisement as the Agency implements the permit and for its
development of the next VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gary Rosenlieb, Acting Chief, National Park Service Water
Resources Division, United States Department of the
Interior
National Park Service, United States Department of the
Interior
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0742-A2
4
No
Comment: We request application of the ballast regulations to Lakers. The NPS appreciates the
clarification on the status of the exemption of Lakers until technology is further developed.
Concern over inter-basin transfers of biota via these freshwater ships has been documented in the
literature. The fresh water fleet has ships that last from 50-70 years, which may allow for
decades of inter-basin transfers in the great lakes. Assuming that the saltwater vessel vector is
eliminated via treatment, accidental introductions from other vectors necessitates all these ships
having the capacity to treat at a minimum. The NPS has developed treatment alternatives and
will continue to support technology development to inform the decision making process. We
appreciate EPA's willingness to review the data and make subsequent determinations or changes
as appropriate.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document in
regard to why EPA did not require existing Lakers to meet numeric concentration-based living
organism limits for their ballast water discharges and why the Agency requires new build
Lakers to meet the numeric treatment limits. As discussed in that essay, EPA has incorporated
mandatory non-numeric BMPs for Lakers that do not have to meet numeric treatment limits.
EPA further acknowledges the Park Service's efforts to develop treatment technologies for
Lakers, and the Agency is closely tracking these, and other efforts, to inform its future BAT
determinations. EPA welcomes the continued efforts of the Park Service to further the
development of ballast water management approaches for Lakers. As it has with this permit
issuance, EPA will consider results from such future efforts in the next issuance of the VGP.
704
-------
Commenter Name:
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
11
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: As previously stated, Lakers should not be exempt from the ballast water numeric
discharge limitations. While Lakers are not responsible for the initial introduction into the Great
Lakes, they certainly are responsible for the spread of invasive species from port to port and
from one Great Lake to another. While they are subject to saltwater flushing, this method is not a
substitute for ballast water treatment, just as these regulations are no substitute for federal
legislation requiring compliance with a stringent ballast water discharge standard. Flushing does
not remove all aquatic species from ballast tanks, nor does it remove those species that attach
themselves to vessel hulls, (page 26)
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document
in regard to why EPA did not require existing Lakers to meet numeric concentration-based
living organism limits for their ballast water discharges. EPA further notes that while Lakers are
subject to the technology-based requirements found in Part 2.2.3.1 through 2.2.3.4 of the VGP,
they are not subject to saltwater flushing as all Lakers never operate in a saltwater environment.
EPA further notes that ballast water treatment systems do not address hull fouling. For EPA's
hull fouling requirements, please see Part 2.2.23 of the permit and section 4.4.23 of the VGP
fact sheet.
Commenter Name: Stuart T. Theis, Executive Director, United States Great
Comment: CONFINED LAKERS EXEMPTION
There certainly appears to be an argument that due to size of vessel and volume of water which
would have to be treated during operations in the case of the 1000 foot Lake vessels makes it
currently impractical for this class of vessel to accomplish what, for example, a draft VGP
regulated international flag, Seaway sized cargo vessel in normal operations might be required to
do. The case becomes less clear, when considering exemption of confined Lakers with cargo
capacity one half to one third of the 1000 footers. There are many more of these smaller vessels
than the relatively few 1000 foot vessels trading in the Lakes. These smaller "confined Lakers"
are comparable to bulk carrier types which operate upstream of the Welland Canal and are
currently proposed to be subject to the draft VGP. While we do not presume to be marine
architects in filing these comments, space and installation difficulties would also seem to be
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Commenter Affiliation:
Lakes Shipping Association (USGLSA)
United States Great Lakes Shipping Association
(USGLSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0797-A1
2
No
705
-------
comparable for these bulk carriers operating upstream or downstream of the Welland Canal.
Thus, except for 1000 footers, the distinction between upstream and downstream of the Welland
which appears to define the exemption is not understood.
In the last five Navigation Seasons, for vessels entering the Lakes/Seaway System, there has
been required tank flushing and ballast water exchange at sea, coupled with rigorous inspections
at the entrance of the SI. Lawrence Seaway System which have been carried out and continue in
a cooperative effort between the Unites States and Canadian Coast Guard as well as the U. S. and
Canadian Seaway Authorities. The documented result of this remarkably cooperative regime is
that no new (or old) invasive species have been delivered into the Lakes via ballast water. Five
years since initiation of the regime and still counting. What this means is that, to quote some
commentators, "the door has been closed" and the regulatory shift regarding attacking aquatic
invasive species has moved from halting the introduction to a process directed at attacking and
reducing existing conditions within the Lakes by treating contaminated ballast water and
stemming transportation of species already in the Lakes and the ballast systems of all vessels.
The draft VGP, of course, will help, but it may be that the complete exemption of Lakers may be
broader than necessary given the majority of confined Lakers being smaller than the 1000 foot
class. Indeed, if all confined Lakes are exempted, it is suggested that hardly anything may be
accomplished in reducing the population or transportation of the invasive species in the Lakes.
Finally, as referenced above, the draft VGP proposes to regulate vessels of a similar size and
ballast capacity if they are not "confined Lakers" such as Canadian flag vessels which come into
the Lakes from upstream of the Welland Canal. We find this distinction to be a curious one
when, as stated earlier, the draft VGP's focus would appear to be now directed to be effective in
eliminating invasive species already existing within the Lakes. One might suggest that either this
type of vessel is regulated throughout the System or it is not without regard to the Welland
Canal.
Response: EPA notes that based on this and other comments, EPA has extended the
demarcation line for existing Lakers which must meet the treatment limits found in Part 2.2.3.5
to Anticosti Island. Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response
document. Please also see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response
document and response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0516-A1, excerpt 1 for a
discussion regarding the risk of spreading or dispersing invasive species posed by ballast water
discharges from Lakers.
9.1.5 Short Distance Voyage Vessels
Response Essay:
Section 2.2.3.5.3.1 of the VGP excludes vessels from the VGP's technology based numeric
ballast water management measures if (1) they operate exclusively in one Coast Guard Captain
of the Port (COTP) Zone, or (2) do not travel more than 10 nautical miles and cross no physical
barriers or obstructions (e.g., locks).
Some comments on this provision questioned the exclusion's use of the Coast Guard's Captain
706
-------
of the Port (COTP) zones, arguing that as these zones are administrative units and do not have a
biological basis, and/or similarly questioned use of a 10 mile limitation or not crossing physical
barriers in determining what constitutes a short distance voyage. Some such comments stated
that transporting untreated ballast water between different bays or estuaries, between other
distinct freshwater bodies, or upstream in a river system, poses a danger of spreading foreign
and invasive species. Some comments pointed to the San Francisco COTP as an example,
maintaining that it covers several distinct biological regions including SF Bay and Humboldt
Bay. In light of such concerns some of these comments suggested an ecosystem approach
would be more appropriate or requested the exemption be limited to downstream river travel or
travel confined within discrete or unique water bodies (e.g., within a bay or estuary). Please see
the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2, excerpt 11 for discussion of the
San Francisco COTP zone and limiting the exemption to downstream river travel.
Other commenters felt that the exemption was unduly constraining, noting that there are
discreet bodies of water in which there are more than one COTP zone and requesting the
exemption include a vessel operating in a physically discrete body of water, even if there is
more than one COTP zone. Other comments sought an increase in the exemption's 10-mile
limitation. Additionally, we received comments requesting that the exemption be modified from
vessels that "operate" exclusively in one COTP zone to instead apply to vessels that "take up
and discharge ballast water" exclusively in one COTP zone.
EPA continues to believe that some form of exclusion for short distance voyages from the
VGP's technology based numeric ballast water management measures is warranted for the
reasons stated in § 4.4.3.5.6 of the final VGP Fact Sheet. As explained there, there are factors
unique to short distance voyages that have led EPA to conclude that ballast water treatment to
numeric limits does not constitute BAT. With respect to use of COTP zones, EPA agrees these
are administrative units and not necessarily reflective of biological zones. Nonetheless, by
limiting distances over which ballast water may be transported, this provision helps limit the
exclusion to vessels that pose less of a risk of spreading ANS into areas where they did not
previously exist (giving the factors described in the facts sheet greater weight in the BAT
analysis). In addition, the boundaries of these COTP zones are well defined and familiar to
mariners (see 33CFR Part 3), and also are used by the Coast Guard for purposes of a similar
exclusion contained in their regulations (33 CFR 151. 2015(b) and (c)). Furthermore, EPA
could not identify any other implementable, preexisting approach which has clearly-defined
boundaries based on ecological criteria. While EPA also agrees that the 10 mile limitation is not
necessarily reflective of biological zones, we further note that this limitation is coupled to an
additional requirement that the vessel also not cross physical barriers such as locks (which can
serve as a barrier to movement of ANS).
In short, the provisions contained in VGP § 2.2.3.5.3.1 are tailored to apply the exclusion to
vessels on voyages that pose a lowered risk of spreading ANS while being formulated in
objective clear terms, measurable and understandable to mariners, thus enabling clear and
consistent implementation by vessels as well as providing a clear standard for enforcement if
violated. With respect to suggestions to formulate the exclusion in terms of movement between
bays and estuaries, for practical implementation it would be necessary to establish boundaries
defining where such waterbodies begin and end, nor is it clear that the resulting limitation
707
-------
would necessarily encompass smaller areas than most COTPs. With respect to suggestions to
formulate the exclusion in terms of "discrete" water bodies or ecosystems, there are no clear or
objective boundary lines for defining such areas in a permit that applies nationwide (for
example, with respect to ecological zones, there are numerous systems which vary in purpose
and scale). Commenters recommending such an approach did not indicate what criteria or
system to use to delineate ecosystems or "discrete" or "unique" waterbodies, nor is it apparent
how such boundaries can be set out in manner susceptible to implementation by mariners. In
short, EPA believes none of these approaches are practical for implementation with existing
data sets. Accordingly, EPA declines to make the changes suggested by these comments.
With respect to commenters who felt that the exemption was unduly constraining, some of these
comments recommended the exemption include a vessel operating in a physically discrete body
of water, even if there is more than one COTP zone. In this regard, EPA notes that such
suggestions did not offer criteria for determining when a waterbody is "discrete," nor is it
apparent how such boundaries can be set out in manner susceptible to implementation by
mariners. EPA further notes that the second bullet of the VGP's § 2.2.3.5.3.1 exclusion already
addresses situations where more than one COTP zone is involved. With respect to comments
seeking extension of the 10 mile limitation, some of which suggested use of a 50 mile limitation
instead, EPA believes that extensions of that limitation would increase the risk of the spread and
introduction of ANS and the commenter provided no evidence to the contrary; EPA thus
declines to make such changes. Lastly, with respect to comments suggesting the exclusion be
modified from vessels that "operate" exclusively in one COTP zone to instead apply to vessels
that "take up and discharge ballast water" exclusively in one COTP zone, EPA notes that the
operate exclusively in one COTP zone exclusion reflects an exemption found in the Coast
Guard regulations at 33 CFR 151.2015(b)(2). EPA further notes that the Coast Guard
regulations also have an exclusion for vessels that take on and discharge ballast water
exclusively in one COTP Zone at 33 CFR 151.2015(c)(3). In light of that, and the comments
received convincing the Agency that the reasoning supporting the proposed approach holds for
the commenters' suggested approach as well, EPA has modified the first bullet in the exclusion
at VGP § 2.2.3.5.3.1 to also include vessels that take on and discharge ballast water exclusively
in one COTP Zone. EPA notes that if a vessel were to uptake and discharge ballast water in one
zone, and then move to another zone as a No Ballast On Board vessel (NOBOB), where it then
takes up or discharges ballast water (even if exclusively in that new zone), numeric treatment
limits would apply. As discussed in the fact sheet and elsewhere in this response to comments
document, residual ballast water and NOBOBs pose risks.
Commenter Name: January 11, 2012 Public Hearing Oral Comments by PVA's
Jennifer Wilk and Ed Welch
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: Draft VCP - The exemption from ballast water management measures for vessels
engaged in short-term voyages should be preserved but clarified.
708
-------
The whole purpose of having ballast water management measures is to prevent the transfer of
nuisance aquatic invasive species to waters which are currently free from them. If a vessel does
not present a possibility of such a transfer, there is no need for ballast water management
measures. The "Short Term Voyage" exemption in the proposed revised VGP recognizes this
fact. This provision should be retained.
However, there are discreet bodies of water (certain rivers or lakes) in which there are more than
one Captain-of-the-Port zones. For example, each Great Lake (other than Lake Ontario) is
divided between two Captain-of-the-Port zones. The aquatic invasive species can move
throughout such a waterbody on its own; it has no need of transfer by vessel ballast water. The
"Short-Term Voyage" exemption should be altered to include a vessel operating in a physically
discrete body of water, even if there is more than one Captain-of-the-Port zone.
Also, with regard to a vessel that operates between two Captain-of-the-Port zones, the 10-mile
limitation in the proposed VGP is too restrictive. This distance should be increased to at least 50
miles.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Public Hearing Oral Comments by AWO's Jennifer
Carpenter. January 11, 2012
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: Second, AWO urges that towing vessels be exempt from the numeric ballast water
discharge limitations of the draft VGP, alongside other enumerated classes of vessels such as
barges and confined Lakers. Like barges and Lakers, tugboats and towboats have unique
operational and design characteristics that make the installation of ballast water treatment
technology impractical. A substantial majority of U.S. towing vessels operate exclusively in
fresh water, for which few, if any, ballast water treatment systems have been developed. In
addition, towing vessels have very small ballast water capacities compared to other classes of
commercial vessels, ranging from 20,000 to 70,000 gallons. Flow rates for ballast water
discharged from towing vessels are also very low, ranging from 20 to 250 gallons per minute
(which would require the installation of additional pumps).
For all of these reasons, AWO is aware of no ballast water treatment system on the market today
that has been designed for, tested, or approved for installation on towing vessels. The installation
of ballast water treatment systems on towing vessels is also complicated by the limited size of
tugboats and towboats. Many towing vessels are less than 125 feet long, with small engine rooms
averaging between 900 and 1300 square feet. In a towing vessel engine room, there is virtually
no space not already dedicated to machinery or walkways. Keeping these areas clear and leaving
709
-------
enough room for the engineer to maintain the vessel's equipment is critical to the safe operation
of tile vessel.
It's important that towing vessels be exempted from the numeric discharge limitations for ballast
water (and not simply from the requirement to install a treatment system) because many towing
vessels are not able to use the alternative ballast water management measures provided as
options under the draft penn it. Like EPA, AWO is aware of no onshore treatment facilities
capable of meeting the ballast water standards of the VGP currently operational in the United
States. In addi tion, using water from a public drinking water supply for ball ast is economically
and operationally infeasible for some towing vessels that routinely carry ballast water to
maintain trim as fuel is burned during a voyage. As an example, a towboat pushing loaded barges
northbound on the Mississippi River must take on 3,000 to 5,000 gallons of ball ast water a day
to compensate for fuel burn. It is not operationally practicable to make the frequent stops that
would be required to use only public drinking water for ballast. It is likewise infeasible for these
towing vessels to stop using ballast water. AWO therefore urges EPA to exempt towing vessels
from the requirements of section 2.2.3.5 during the term of the 2013 permit.
Response: With respect to unmanned unpowered barges, please see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 33. With respect to towing vessels, EPA believes
that the vast majority, if not all, towing vessels are under 1600 GRT and notes that, as explained
in the Final VGP Fact Sheet § 4.4.3.5.6.4, inland and seagoing vessels less than 1,600 GRT are
not subject to the VGP's ballast water numeric technology based limits.
Commenter Name: Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Commenter Affiliation: Ingram Barge Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Late Comment? No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.5.3.1 - Vessels Engaged in Short-Distance Voyages - the definition of
"short-distance voyage" in this section should be modified from vessels that "[Ojperate
exclusively in one Coast Guard Captain of the Port Zone ... "to instead apply to vessels that
"[tjake up and discharge ballast water exclusively in one Coast Guard Captain of the Port Zone."
Such a modification to the definition of the rule would allow for identification of geographic or
ecological zones that present a low risk of invasive species introduction and spread, thus meeting
the intent of the rule without creating unreasonable burden on the industry.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Christian LaPense, Dann Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation: Dann Marine Towing
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
710
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: Change the Definition of "Short-Distance Voyage"
Dann Marine Towing recommends that EPA amend its definition of "short-distance voyage" in
Section 2.2.3.5.3.1 from vessels that "operate exclusively in one Captain of the Port (COTP)
Zone" to vessels that take up and discharge ballast water exclusively in one COTP Zone. Vessels
that operate in more than one COTP Zone, for various operational reasons, may only take up and
discharge ballast water in a single COTP Zone. This change to the proposed permit language will
allow these vessels to utilize the exemption for short-distance voyages without compromising the
environmental protections found in the current exclusion. Dann Marine Towing notes that it
would be pleased to work with EPA to identify other definitions for short-distance voyages based
on geographic boundaries or ecological criteria that would present a low risk for the introduction
and spread of aquatic invasive species.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
7
No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.5.3.1 - Vessels Engaged in Short-Distance Voyages - the definition of
"short-distance voyage" in this section should be modified from vessels that "[Ojperate
exclusively in one Coast Guard Captain of the Port Zone ... "to instead apply to vessels that
"[tJake up and discharge ballast water exclusively in one Coast Guard Captain of the Port Zone."
Such a modification to the definition of the rule would allow for identification of geographic or
ecological zones that present a low risk of invasive species introduction and spread, thus meeting
the intent of the rule without creating unreasonable burden on the industry.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
9
No
Comment: Change the Definition of "Short-Distance Voyage "
AWO also recommends that EPA amend its definition of "short-distance voyage" in Section
2.2.3.5.3.1 of the draft permit from vessels that "operate exclusively in one Captain of the Port
711
-------
Zone" to vessels that take up and discharge ballast water exclusively in one COTP Zone. Vessels
that operate in more than one COTP Zone, for various operational reasons, may only take up and
discharge ballast water in a single COTP Zone. This change to the proposed permit language will
allow these vessels to utilize the exemption for short-distance voyages without compromising the
environmental protections intended by the current exclusion. AWO would also be pleased to
work with EPA to identify other criteria for defining short-distance voyages based on geographic
boundaries or ecological criteria that present a low risk for the introduction and spread of aquatic
invasive species.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
14
No
Comment: The level of risk associated with short-distance voyages, for example, could benefit
from further study. Certain short distance voyages are thought to be relatively low risk (e.g.
cross-river ferries, voyages between Detroit and Windsor). In other cases, however, vessels
travelling relatively short distances without obstruction between major bodies of water could
pose a risk of spread of non-native species, especially on upstream voyages. In other cases,
bioregions may be quite small, non-native species may be of particular concern or a newly
established small population may pose a high risk for local spread.
Canada is aware that Great Lakes shipowners are studying alternative measures to reduce the risk
that their vessels will spread aquatic invasive species. Should these measures be demonstrated to
be effective through peer-reviewed scientific research, they could provide additional options for
risk reduction on short-distance voyages. One promising option in this regard is the use of only
the filtration step from a BWMS (as opposed to the full system); this approach is to be evaluated
in summer 2012. It may be that filtration is appropriate for short distance voyages where full
ballast water treatment is too onerous or infeasible due to short voyage times.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.5 of this comment response document.
With respect to filtration, EPA notes that, as far as the Agency is aware, the results of the study
referred to are not yet available.
Commenter Name: Gregg A. Thauvette, Vice President, Operations, The Great
Lakes Towing Company and Great Lakes Shipyard
Commenter Affiliation: The Great Lakes Towing Company and Great Lakes
Shipyard
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0520-A1
712
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: 13. New definition of "short distance voyage." Are these the appropriate definitions
of such a voyage? Are these definitions workable for vessel operators? Are there alternative
suggestions? For instance, is there an existing approach to defining geographic boundaries based
upon ecological criteria which would be appropriate? If so, why are these appropriate? Please
provide any supporting data and rationale with your comments.
We support the new definition of "short distance voyage" in 2.2.3.5.3.1 and further suggest that
the definition be added to Appendix A - Definitions.
Response: Commenter's general support for the definition of short distance voyage is noted;
with respect to inclusion of the definition in VGP Appendix A, EPA believes that for ease of
reference by permit users it is preferable to keep the definition within § 2.2.3.5.3.1 so that the
exemption and information on its scope appear in the same place.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 25
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question #13: Is the new definition of "short distance voyage" appropriate? That
definition is:
• Vessels stay within a single U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) zone, and
• Vessels which do not travel more than ten nautical miles and cross no physical barriers
or obstructions (e.g., locks), whether or not they operate within one COTP Zone.
LCA Response: The new definition of "short distance voyage" is not appropriate. Defining a
short distance voyage as one where a vessel travels ten nautical miles or less, does not cross a
COTP Zone, or transit a lock has no biological basis and does not determine the possibility that
an invasive could be transported from one ecosystem to another by ballast water. An ecosystem
approach is more appropriate. Many vectors can transport invasives within an ecosystem and
COTP boundaries are simply jurisdictional boundaries designed to facilitate the exercise of Coast
Guard authority. This permit has used an ecosystem approach in defining Lakers confined
exclusively to the Great Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal and should employ those
parameters to define a short distance voyage on the Great Lakes.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Holley Horrell, Mills Legal Clinic on behalf of Northwest
Environmental Advocates
Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates
713
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2
11
No
Comment: E. The exemption for vessels engaged in short-distance voyages is overbroad.
The Draft VGP's exemption for vessels on voyages within a single COTP Zone or voyages of
ten nautical miles or less that cross no physical barriers like locks77 is overbroad and unjustified.
A vessel confining its voyage to within a bay, estuary, or lake might not spread organisms within
these confined systems any more than the water currents in those systems would accomplish
naturally. Similarly, a vessel that travels only downstream within a river system for a reasonable
distance might not cause any incremental harm since the river itself may be transporting aquatic
invasive species downstream. In contrast, transporting untreated ballast water between different
bays or estuaries, between other distinct freshwater bodies, or upstream in a river system, poses a
real danger of spreading foreign and invasive species. Some COTP Zones are large enough that a
vessel operating even within one Zone could spread invasive species between several different
bays and estuaries. For example, the San Francisco COTP Zone spans four states and contains
within it several bays and estuaries that could be significantly harmed by receiving some of the
exotic organisms that are established in the San Francisco Bay.78
EPA explains that the purpose of the exemption is in part to accommodate "vessels such as cross
river ferries that might cross a US Coast Guard COTP boundary" even though "EPA is not aware
of any specific vessels which currently meet these criteria."79 This hypothetical justification is
unwarranted. Absent any factual basis, the exemption is arbitrary and capricious. It is also
overbroad - EPA could easily accommodate this anticipated need by an exemption that does not
exempt untreated ballast water transport between different bays, estuaries, water bodies or
watersheds, or significant distances upstream. Moreover, EPA's additional concern that the non-
water quality environmental impacts of ballast water treatment may outweigh the benefits of
treatment on short voyages since vessels travelling short distances are "less likely to pose risk in
widely dispersing living organisms,"80 ignores the reality that unique water bodies, even if within
a single COTP Zone like the San Francisco Zone, could have different establishments of
organisms. Transporting water from one water body to another could threaten the second water
body's ecosystem. Even vessels that go on these "short distance voyages," can spread foreign
invasive species.
EPA should limit this exemption to downstream river travel or travel confined within unique
water bodies (within a bay, for example, or within an estuary, but not from one bay to another).
A downstream river travel exemption would make biological sense since the river itself is
already transporting water downstream in greater quantities. Even then, however, the exemption
only makes sense if the vessel started out on the downstream river voyage with an empty and
clean ballast water tank; otherwise, the vessel will discharge water from wherever it has been
last. Thus, whether or not EPA modifies the geographic boundaries of this exemption, the Draft
VGP should also require vessels to empty and clean their ballast tanks of any ballast water before
starting on a short-distance voyage as defined under this exemption.
77 See Draft VGP, Part 2.2.3.5.3.1, at 36.
78
See Michael Shumaker, The New Sector Commands, 28 fig.2 (2008), available at
https://homeport.uscg.mil/mvcg/portal/ep/home.do (follow "CG Sector Commands" hyperlink; then follow "View
714
-------
Document") (last visited Feb. 20, 2012). For example, nearly fifteen times as many invasive species have been
established in San Francisco Bay as in Humboldt Bay, meaning that ballast water travelling from San Francisco to
Humboldt Bay may carry numerous new invasive species. See Gregory M. Ruiz, et al., Marine Invasion History and
Vector Analysis of California: A Hotspot for Western North America, 17 Diversity & Distributions 362, 366 fig.4
(2011). Both of these articles are attached.
79 Fact Sheet, Part 4.4.3.5.6.1, at 109.
80 Id. at 110.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.5 of this comment response document
Additionally, EPA disagrees with the commenter's characterization of the San Francisco
COTP zone. The San Francisco COTP zone (generally aligned with Sector San Francisco),
effectively covers the coastal regions of Northern California. Though it geographically spans
four states, most of those states are inland states which have very few ballasting operations.
EPA further notes that the Agency is unaware of navigable hydrological connections
connecting these States to San Francisco as the Sierra Nevada mountains pose a barrier to
significant inland vessel traffic. Hence, as presented, EPA believes the commenter has
mischaracterized the practical impact of the size of the San Francisco COTP zone. See the
figure below.
As discussed in the YGP fact sheet, EPA considered the BAT factors and determined that the
715
-------
numeric treatment limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP do not reflect BAT for short distance
voyages. EPA lays out the reasons for this determination in the VGP fact sheet. Hence, EPA's
science based determination is neither arbitrary nor capricious as claimed by commenters.
EPA does not agree it is reasonable to limit the exclusion to downriver travel. EPA notes that
this is a technology-based limit, and the ability for technologies and vessels to meet treatment
limits on short distance voyages is not based upon which direction the river flows. While EPA
acknowledges that some invasive species will have more difficulty migrating upriver, others
can migrate equally well upstream or downstream. EPA notes that vessels subject to the short-
distance exclusion still must meet the non-numeric TBELS in Part 2.2.1 through 2.2.3 of the
VGP whether or not they move upstream or downstream in the water body, and the Agency
believes these provisions assist in reducing the dispersal of established invasive species.
Additionally, EPA notes that vessel owner/operators are not required to meet VGP's part
2.2.3.5 numeric limits only if they meet the VGP's definition for short distance voyages. If a
vessel owner/operator takes on and discharges ballast water in one COTP zone, sails to another
COTP zone, and then takes on and discharges ballast water in that other zone, they must meet
the treatment limits found in the VGP for that discharge. With respect to cleaning of tanks,
EPA notes that the exclusion is limited to vessels that operate or take on and discharge ballast
water in on COTP zone or travel less than 10 miles and do not cross physical barriers; EPA
does not believe it reasonable to require such vessels to clean their tanks each time they set out
on a voyage as this would not be an available management practice (ballast water tanks are not
easily accessible on a regular basis when a vessel is operating among other things). In addition,
such vessels remain subject to the obligation under VGP §§ 2.2.3.3 to regularly clean their
tanks.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law Division, New
York City Law Department
New York City Law Department
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0598-A2
7
No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.5.3 Vessels Not Required to Meet Part 2.2.3.5 Treatment Standards.
pg^.35
This section states that any vessels that operate exclusively in one COTP zone are not required to
meet treatment standards; however, it is unclear whether this exemption includes other parts of
Section 2.2.3 Ballast Water for vessels operating exclusively within one COTP zone. Please note
that per 33 C.F.R. § 151. 2010(b)(1) vessels that operate exclusively within one COTP zone are
exempt from the requirements in §§151.2040 (mandatory ballast water management
requirements for vessels equipped with ballast tanks that operate in the waters of the United
States and are bound for ports or places in the United States) and 151.2045 (mandatory
recordkeeping requirements for vessels equipped with ballast tanks that are bound for a port or
place in the United States). Thus, the City requests that EPA revise the language in the draft
VGP to be consistent with the USCG regulations regarding ballast water management and to
make clear that the exemptions in the USCG regulations are also included in the VGP.
716
-------
Response: EPA notes that with respect to vessels that operate exclusively in one COTP zone,
the USCG regulations (33 CFR 151.2015(b)(2)) exempt such vessels from those USCG ballast
water management requirements as specified in 33 CFR 151.2025, reporting requirements of 33
CFR 151.2060, and recordkeeping requirements of 33 CFR 151.2070. (Note - the citations in
this response are to the current codification USCG regulations (which were amended in March
2012), and thus differ from citations in the comment which pre-dated those revisions.)
With respect to ballast water management, EPA notes that the text of VGP § 2.2.3.5.3 excludes
vessels operating exclusively within one COTP zone from the ballast water management
measures of VGP § 2.2.3.5, which sets out the VGP's numeric technology based ballast water
discharge limits. The exclusion therefore already is similar in scope to that in the USCG
regulations. See, 33 CFR 151.2015(c), 33 CFR 151.2015(c)(3), 33 CFR 151.2060, and 33 CFR
151.2070. EPA further notes that, like the scope of the USCG exclusion, the VGP's exclusion
does not extend to the requirements of VGP §§ 2.2.3.1 (training), 2.2.3.2 (ballast water
management plans), 2.2.3.4 (ballast water management practices). See, 33 CFR
1515.2015(b)(2); 151.2025; 151.2050.
With respect to ballast water recordkeeping and reporting requirements, EPA notes that the
VGP counterpart to USCG regulatory provisions on those points is in VGP § 4.3. In order to
avoid mariner confusion by aligning with the USCG exclusion for vessels that operate
exclusively in one COTP zone, EPA has added text to make clear that VGP § 4.3 does not apply
to such vessels.
EPA further notes that the Coast Guard regulations also have an exclusion for vessels that take
on and discharge ballast water exclusively in one COTP Zone at 33 CFR 151.2015(c)(3). Based
on comments received and to maintain consistency with the USCG regulation where possible,
EPA has modified the first bullet in the exclusion at VGP § 2.2.3.5.3.1 to also include vessels
that take on and discharge ballast water exclusively in one COTP Zone; however, consistent
with those requirements, these vessels are not exempt from recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Late Comment? No
Comment: 13. New definition of 'short distance voyage'.
We have no supporting data to provide but would recommend that EPA use great caution related
to distance traveled as it relates to ballast water treatment vessel discharge permits. The objective
to arrest the spread of invasive aquatic species may not be a function of distance traveled,
particularly for voyages of short duration that cross locks or other natural barriers to species
migration.
717
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
13
No
Comment: 13. New definition of 'short distance voyage'.
We have no supporting data to provide but would recommend that EPA use great caution related
to distance traveled as it relates to ballast water treatment vessel discharge permits. The objective
to arrest the spread of invasive aquatic species may not be a function of distance traveled.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2, excerpt 12.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
10
No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.5.3.1: Vessels Engaged in Short-Distance Voyages - We encourage
EPA to rethink the biological consequences of allowing vessels that operate exclusively within
one COTP Zone to not have to comply with Part 2.2.3.5 ballast water management measures. In
California, Sector San Francisco covers several distinct biological regions including SF Bay and
Humboldt Bay. These areas do not have the same abundance and diversity of non indigenous
species and therefore vessels should not be permitted to move from one bay to the other without
conducting ballast water management. California state law prevents such movement and
therefore should address the situation, but we encourage EPA to take a second look at sector
boundaries around the country to ensure that the artificial designation of COTP zones does not
create opportunities for organisms to be moved within one COTP zone but between different
biological zones.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.5 of this comment response document.
For further discussion on the San Francisco COTP Zone, please see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2, excerpt 11. For the VGP's savings provisions and
incorporation of State 401 certification requirements, please see section 12 of this comment
response document.
718
-------
9.1.6 New Lakers
Commenter Name: William Creal, Chief, Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0450-A3
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: New vessels covered under the draft next VGP should be required to comply with
the final BWDLs immediately upon the date of issuance of a certificate of coverage. However,
Michigan recognizes the need to use the "triad" permitting strategy described above to regulate
the >10 - <50 um and >50 um minimum dimension live organism size categories in ballast water
discharges from new vessels also.
Response: EPA acknowledges that Michigan believes that vessels should install ballast water
treatment systems as soon as possible and that those systems should reach limits as stringent as
possible. Please see section 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 of this comment response document for EPA's
discussion regarding ballast water treatment schedule installation, including the installation
schedule for new vessels. EPA notes that any applicable new build constructed on or after
December 1, 2013 must meet the numeric limits found in 2.2.3.5 of the permit: the permit
effective date is December 19, 2013. Please see sections 9.1, 9.1.1, 9.1.2 of this comment
response document and part 4.4.3.5 of the VGP fact sheet for discussion regarding how EPA
established the numeric limits in today's VGP.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Late Comment? No
Comment: Before addressing the specific difficulties of treating Lakers' ballast, we'd like to
explain why we believe the date of construction of vessels subject to this provision should be
changed to January 1, 2012. Vessels constructed prior to that date have been designed and built
to standards and arrangements which are identical to those of vessels constructed before January
1, 2009, making the adoption of yet-to-be established ballast water treatment equipment just as
impossible to meet, given the unavailability of equipment. Vessels built after January 1, 2012,
will have significantly greater opportunity to incorporate the added generator as well as piping
and equipment space for future installation of treatment equipment if/when it becomes available.
As with ships constructed before January 1, 2009, the designs of more recently constructed
vessels simply do not incorporate sufficient space for future installation of treatment equipment.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document
which also discusses the use of the January 1, 200,9 versus January 1, 2012, date to define
which vessels will be subject to numeric ballast water treatment limits. Additionally, with
719
-------
respect to commenter's unsubstantiated statement that "As with vessels constructed before
January 1, 2009, the design of more recently constructed vessels [those constructed between
2009 and 2012] simply do not incorporate sufficient space for future installation of treatment
equipment," as discussed in the VGP fact sheet, vessel owner/operators were aware that ballast
water discharge standard regulations were being actively considered before 2009 and prudent
members of the shipping industry would be expected to have their new vessels built to
accommodate treatment See also, § 4.4.3.5 of Fact Sheet for June 2008 proposed VGP; 66 Fed.
Reg. 21807 (May 1, 2001); 69 Fed. Reg. 44,955, col 3 (July 28, 2004); Regulations B-3 and D-
2 of the International Convention for the Control and Management Of Ships' Ballast Water And
Sediments, 2004. Additionally, EPA notes that, contrary to commenters' contention, the major
company currently building new Lakers has been leaving room for the addition of ballast water
treatment equipment. In its 2011 Environment Report (available as of the writing of this
response at http://www.algonet.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5m3XVNrp7Fs=&tabid=189).
the Algoma corporation notes that in the new series of vessels it was building " t]he design
allows space for the installation of future ballast water treatment solutions. Tank design and
coating maximize ballast flow and minimize the build-up of sediment in the tanks" (see Page
20). Hence between 2009 and 2012, vessel owner/operators were designing their vessels with
sufficient room for later installing ballast water treatment systems. If a vessel built between
2009 and 2012 believes they cannot install a ballast water treatment system, nor can they meet
one of the other ways to comply with numeric ballast water treatment limits given in the permit,
they may file an application with EPA for an individual permit for their ballast water discharge.
9.1.7 Interim Requirements
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Chamber of Shipping of America
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
12
No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.6.2 at page 37 contains provisions for vessels engaged in Pacific
nearshore voyages. CSA strongly recommends deletion of all references to "Pacific" nearshore
voyages as any vessel engaged in nearshore voyages regardless of location will have the same
challenges in conducting exchange as those engaged in the Pacific coastwise trade. This seems to
be addressed in the second bullet of this section where "vessels engaged in Pacific nearshore
voyages is defined in part as "all other vessels that sail from foreign, non-US Pacific, Atlantic
(including the Caribbean Sea), or Gulf of Mexico ports..." but the current structure of this
section is confusing and could be significantly clarified with the deletion of "Pacific" in the title
and all references in the text of this section.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter's assertion that references to "Pacific" should be
deleted. The provision's exchange requirements apply only to those vessels that are engaged in
"Pacific nearshore voyages" as specifically defined within VGP § 2.2.3.6, not other nearshore
voyages. As the second bullet in this VGP section already clearly states, vessels that sail from
720
-------
non-Pacific ports are included within "Pacific nearshore voyages" only if they discharge ballast
water into the territorial sea or inland waters of Alaska or off the U.S. west coast. Commenter's
suggestion to remove the word "Pacific" from this term does not actually provide additional
clarity, but instead could create the misimpression that all coastal voyages (e.g., purely Gulf
Coast or Atlantic voyages) are subject to the exchange requirements of § 2.2.3.6, which is not
the case. Given that this provision and the attendant "Pacific nearshore voyage" terminology
were included in the 2009 VGP, EPA is further concerned that removal of the term "Pacific"
will create the misimpression among mariners already familiar with the term and its meaning
that the 2013 VGP was substantively changed to expand its applicability to all nearshore
voyages. In light of the foregoing, EPA declines to make the suggested change.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Algis Vanagas, Senior Vice-President Technical, Algoma
Central Corporation
Algoma Central Corporation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1
9
No
Comment: 2.2.3.6.6. - Exemptions (to ballast water exchange (BWE))(in Part 2.2.3.6 - Interim
Requirements until BWTS are required)
This part of the draft permit states that"Additionally, except for vessels entering the Great Lakes
or into Appendix G waters, a vessel is not required to deviate from its voyage, or delay the
voyage to conduct BWE or saltwater flushing." As written, this appears to overturn the current
exemption from deviating to 200 nm from shore that is afforded vessels on near-shore coastal
voyages which has not come in from outside of the Exclusive Economic Zone (33 CFR 151 Sub-
part D). It also appears contradictory to the exemption contained in the Canadian Ballast Water
Control and Management Regulations (SOR 2011-237), S 7(1), Non-transoceanic Navigation
and requires clarification.
Response: EPA notes that the provision in question does not have the effect of overturning the
existing exemption from deviating to 200 nm from shore that is afforded vessels on near-shore
coastal voyages which has not come in from outside of the Exclusive Economic Zone. Except
for vessels on "Pacific nearshore voyages" as defined in VGP § 2.2.3.6.2 , vessels on near-shore
voyages are not subject to the VGP's exchange requirements, thus, the issue of deviating to
conduct exchange by vessels on near-shore voyages simply does not arise except for "Pacific
nearshore voyages." In addition, for those vessels that are engaged in "Pacific nearshore
voyages," by virtue of VGP § 2.2.3.6.6, those vessels are not obligated to deviate from their
voyage to conduct exchange. In short, the VGP does not have the effect commenter asserts of
somehow overturning current exemptions from deviating to 200 nm from shore that is afforded
vessels on near-shore coastal voyages.
Commenter Name: Anonymous Public Comment
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1
721
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.3.6.2 Vessels Carrying Ballast Water Engaged in Pacific Nearshore Voyages
Commercial fishing vessels operating in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska generally do not
venture very far offshore during transit. Requiring these vessels to transit beyond 50 nm in order
to perform saltwater flushing or an exchange would therefore be impracticable. The VGP should
state that commercial fishing vessels engaged in continuous RSW tank recirculation and flushing
that remain within the three nautical mile boundary are not subject to this requirement.
Response: EPA notes that 2.2.3.6.2 would not have the effect of requiring commercial fishing
vessels that "do not venture very far offshore... to transit beyond 50 nm in order to perform
saltwater flushing or an exchange." Section 2.2.3.6.2 states that its requirements apply "unless
the vessel meets one of the exemptions in Part 2.2.3.6.6 " of the VGP, and that provision in turn
states; "except for vessels entering the Great Lakes or into Appendix G waters, a vessel is not
required to deviate from its voyage, or delay the voyage to conduct ballast water exchange or
saltwater flushing." Accordingly, EPA believes this exception addresses commenter's concern.
EPA also notes that, in fact, this exception is actually broader in scope than commenter's
suggested text (which would have excepted only those commercial fishing vessels engaged in
RSW recirculation within the three nautical mile boundary).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
22
No
Comment: 2.2.3.6.2: Vessels Carrying Ballast Water Engaged in Pacific Nearshore Voyages
We recommend that the word "Pacific" be removed so that the requirement can also apply to
ships engaged in near shore voyages in the Atlantic.
2.2.3.6.4: Vessels Engaged in Pacific Nearshore Voyages with Unpumpable Ballast Water and
Residual Sediment (including NOBOBs)
We would reiterate our comment made for part 2.2.3.6.2.
Response: With respect to the request for removal of the word "Pacific" from VGP §§
2.2.3.6.2 and 2.2.3.6.4, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1,
excerpt 12.
Commenter Name: Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
722
-------
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
6
No
Comment: Ballast Water Exchange or Flushing
The proposed permit will require some oceangoing vessels to perform mid-ocean ballast water
exchange or saltwater flushing before entering the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway system.
Ballast water exchange or saltwater flushing is an important intermediate step that will reduce
the risk of release of A1S into the Great Lakes and other ports and waterbodies in the United
States. Vessels crossing the Atlantic fully loaded with cargo frequently have no ballast on board
(NOBOB). The threat posed by NOBOBs is that they contain small amounts of ballast water,
generally from their last port of departure. Even if the vessel last took on ballast over 30 days
ago, Wisconsin DNR proposes that NOBOBs still be required to do saltwater flushing. Organic
material may survive for longer than 30 days in a ballast tank and pose a significant threat of
invasion once it is discharged in the Great Lakes. To decrease risk and provide an increased level
of protection to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway ecosystem, Wisconsin DNR proposes
that the VGP2 require BWE or saltwater flushing as a standard BMP for all VGP2-eligible
vessels transiting from beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that enter the Great Lakes -
St. Lawrence Seaway system, whether treatment systems are installed or not, and regardless of
when the vessel last ballasted in freshwater ports. The argument can be made that BWE in
addition to treatment can provide protection that is greater than the IMO standard for freshwater
ballast water organisms which are of greatest risk.
Response: EPA notes that the final VGP continues to contain provisions in § 2.2.3.7 requiring
oceangoing vessels entering the Great Lakes and that utilize a ballast water treatment system to
also conduct ballast water exchange or saltwater flushing in addition to treating their ballast
water. While commenter is generally supportive of such provisions, commenter recommends
removal of language in VGP § 2.2.3.7 limiting this requirement to vessels that have taken on
ballast water with a salinity of less than 18 ppt from a coastal, estuarine, or freshwater
ecosystem "within the previous month." EPA declines to remove that one month (30 day)
limitation because the Agency is trying to target those vessel voyages which pose the greatest
risk to the Great Lakes. While it is true that some diapausing eggs can lay dormant in the
benthos, EPA expects higher risk freshwater organisms contained within the ballast tank will
either experience higher mortality as a result of being held in the tank for 30 days or more,
and/or face an osmotic shock as water from a saltwater port is brought into the ballast tanks. As
for diapausing eggs, they have been documented to show resistance to the osmotic shock caused
by ballast water exchange and flushing, so even if EPA were to require exchange after the 30
day period, the benefits would be more limited than those realized with the freshwater fauna. As
for why EPA is not requiring exchange plus treatment for vessels taking up ballast water in
Marine ports, see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Therefore, EPA declines the commenter's suggestion. For additional discussion of osmotic
shock and why EPA targeted the voyages it did, please see Reid (2012) and response essay in
section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Division of Water, Water
Quality Section, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC)
723
-------
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0534-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.3.6.2 - Vessels Carrying Ballast Water Engaged in Pacific Nearshore Voyages
The permit does not define 'Inland Waters of Alaska'. The Department requests that EPA define
Inland Waters of Alaska or change the wording to reflect the EPA's actual meaning. 33 CFR
80.1705 does not prescribe demarcation lines for Alaska; therefore there are no inland waters in
Alaska.
Response: EPA notes the regulation cited in this comment is for purposes of identifying waters
subject to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) vs. those
waters subject to Inland Navigation Rules, not establishing jurisdictional boundaries under the
Clean Water Act. See, 33 CFR 80.01(a). As discussed in VGP Fact Sheet § 3.1, unless excluded
by Part 6 of the permit, the VGP applies to "waters of the U.S." (as defined in 40 CFR 122.2),
including the territorial sea. EPA's use of the term "inland waters" refers to those waters lying
inland of the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured. See e.g., 33 CFR 2.26 (Coast
Guard regulations.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadians)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadians)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2
11
No
Comment: 111. Article 2.2.3.6 - Interim Requirements until BWTS are required, Article
2.2.3.6.6. - Exemptions (to ballast water exchange (BWE)). This article states that "Additionally,
except for vessels entering the Great Lakes or into Appendix G waters, a vessel is not required to
deviate from its voyage, or delay the voyage to conduct BWE or saltwater flushing. As written,
this appears to overturn the current exemption from deviating to 200 nm from shore that is
afforded vessels on near-shore coastal voyages which has not come in from outside of the
Exclusive Economic Zone (33 CFR 151 Sub-part 0). It also is contradictory to the exemption
contained in the Canadian Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations (SOR 2011-237),
S 7(1), Non-transoceanic Navigation.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1, excerpt 9.
Commenter Name: Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Commenter Affiliation: Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
724
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A2
17
No
Comment: 2.2.3.6 Interim requirements for vessels not meeting the ballast water management
measures in Part 2.2.3.5.
This part states, in part:
Conversely, vessel owner/operators meeting the numeric effluent limits in Part 2.2.3.5 before
they are required to do so by the implementation schedule in Part 2.2.3.5.2 are not required
to meet the exchange and flushing requirements of this subpart
The intent of this clause appears to be to encourage early installation and operation of ballast
water management systems. We presume that "meeting the numeric effluent limits in Part
2.2.3.5" means all of the other subparts, paragraphs and subparagraphs contained there under. If
not, this appears to conflict with proposed Coast Guard regulations and existing policies
inasmuch as unless a vessel is enrolled in STEP, it may not use an installed BWMS to comply
with the ballast water management requirements contained at 33 CFR Part 151 Subparts C and
D. EPA should clarify its intent of this clause to avoid confusion and potential conflict with
Coast Guard proposed regulation and policy.
Response: Due to the comment's broad and non-specific concern over the need to clarify VGP
§ 2.2.3.5 "to avoid confusion and potential conflict with Coast Guard proposed regulations and
policy," EPA had difficulty understanding from this comment the precise concern or why the
change to the VGP being sought is necessary. Based on the comment's specific mention of
STEP vessels, EPA interprets this comment as seeking clarification of the VGP so as to avoid a
potential conflict with then-existing and proposed USCG regulations which provided that unless
a vessel is enrolled in the STEP program, it may not use a treatment system in lieu of ballast
water exchange. Since the time of this comment, however, the USCG has promulgated its final
ballast water rulemaking (77 FR 17254 (March 23, 2012)). That now-final rule's exceptions to
ballast water exchange are no longer limited to vessels enrolled in the STEP program. Similar to
final VGP §§ 2.2.3.5, the USCG March 2012 regulations also allow for use of a USCG type-
approved treatment system, a treatment system that has received an AMS determination from
the USCG, onshore treatment, use of a PWS, or no discharge. See, 33 CFR 151.2025. In light of
this, EPA believes the potential for a conflict between the VGP and USCG regulations as
suggested by the comment no longer exists and thus further clarification of the VGP on this
point in either §§ 2.2.3.5 or 2.2.3.6 is unnecessary. Additionally, EPA notes that VGP § 2.2.3
expressly provides that all discharges of ballast water must also comply with applicable USCG
in 33 CFR Part 151, thus further reducing the potential for a conflict. Lastly, EPA notes that if
the concern related to the need for the VGP to include an exception for STEP vessels similar to
that in the USCG regulations, the VGP does contain a counterpart exception in final VGP §
2.2.3.8.
725
-------
Commenter Name: Scott Strand, Executive Director, MN Center for
Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.3.6 Interim requirements for vessels not meeting...
We strongly support the continued use of ballast water exchange to reduce the risks of
introducing AIS to the Great Lakes region. In review of the literature, open ocean ballast water
exchange has proven effective at reducing the concentration of coastal organisms compared to
ballast water which has not been so exchanged.29
29
National Research Council. Assessing the Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast
Water. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2011; Ruiz, G.M., & Reid, D.F. (Ed.). (2007). Current
state of understanding about the effectiveness of ballast water exchange (BWE) in reducing aquatic Non-indigenous
species (ANS) introductions to the Great Lakes Basin and Chesapeake Bay, USA: synthesis and analysis of existing
information (NOAA Technical Memorandum GLERL-142). Ann Arbor, MI: NOAA.
Response: Commenter's support for continued use of exchange to protect the Great Lakes
region is noted; the final VGP continues to contain provisions in § 2.2.3.7 for oceangoing
vessels entering the Great Lakes and that utilize a ballast water treatment system to also conduct
ballast water exchange or saltwater flushing in addition to treating their ballast water. Please see
the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document for additional
discussion.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Pamela Parker, Vessel Discharges, Division of Water
Quality Management, Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (MEDEP)
Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0628-A2
6
No
Comment: 2.2.3.6 Interim requirements for vessels not meeting the ballast water management
measure in Part 2.2.3.5
MEDEP strongly supports the statement "Ballast water exchange may not be used in lieu of
meeting the numeric effluent limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of the permit once a vessel is required to meet
these limits." MEDEP agrees that BWE as practiced, while reducing risk to some degree, falls
short of the necessary standard of protection which is required to substantially reduce the threat
of the discharge aquatic invasive species.
Response: Commenter's support for § 2.2.3.6 of the VGP is noted; this language continues to
appear in the final VGP.
726
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Brent Paine, Executive Director, United Catcher Boats
(UCB) and Glenn Reed, President, Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
United Catcher Boats (UCB) and Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0630-A2
5
No
Comment: 2.2.3.6.2 Vessels Carrying Ballast Water Engaged in Pacific Nearshore Voyages
While not explicitly referenced, the definition of vessel engaged in Pacific nearshore voyages
includes much of the Seattle-based North Pacific commercial fishing fleet. While these vessels
travel through more than one Captain of the Port zone and cross international boundaries as well
as leave the waters subject to this permit, they do not as a rule travel beyond 50nm from any
shore and therefore cannot comply with the requirement to exchange ballast water beyond 50nm.
An exemption for fishing vessels, fish tenders, and fish processing vessels active in the
commercial fishing industry or an allowance to exchange ballast water within 50nm but beyond
the waters subject to the VGP needs to be provided.
Response: please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1, excerpt 8.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
3
No
Comment: Furthermore, if a Canadian or U.S. vessel has traveled outside the EEZ and returns
to the Great Lakes with residual ballast, it should meet the same requirements as a foreign vessel.
Ownership of the vessel makes no difference in the species that could be picked up by a vessel in
its travels, or the risk it poses to the Great Lakes. We strongly urge the EPA to ensure that their
finalized permit does not exempt any vessels including Lakers from meeting the same
performance standards as all other vessels traveling within the Great Lakes. Specifically, Laker
vessels take up and discharge billions of gallons of ballast water every year as they travel from
port to port within the Great Lakes, playing a significant role in spreading invasive species after
they have been introduced. Therefore, we recommend that the EPA develop stringent numeric
effluent limits for Lakers.
Response: With respect concerns about Canadian or U.S. vessels that have has traveled outside
the EEZ and return to the Great Lakes with residual ballast, EPA notes that the relevant VGP
requirements do not make a distinction between such vessels vs. foreign vessels. See final VGP
§2.2.3.6 and §2.2.3.7. With respect to numeric effluent limits for "Lakers," see, final VGP Fact
Sheet at §§ 4.4.3.4 and 4.4.3.5.6.3 and section 9.1.1, 9.1.4, and 9.1.6 of this comment response
727
-------
document.
9.1.8 Additional Data Sources
Response Essay:
EPA notes that some commenters submitted bibliographies or different data sources for the
Agency to consider. This section contains the list of sources submitted or separately referenced
by two commenters - an environmental group consortium and the California State Lands
Commission. The Agency notes that most of these sources were already considered by EPA in
developing the draft VGP, with many being cited in the draft VGP fact sheet and/or already
added by EPA to the docket for the draft (for today's permit).
In general, these sources can be broken down into three groups. The first group characterizes the
impacts that past invasions of ANS have had on U.S. waters (e.g., annual losses to the Great
lakes Region by Ship-Borne Invasive Species at least $200 million). EPA recognizes that
invasive species have negatively impacted U.S. waters and the documents submitted by
commenters lend further support to that conclusion Hence, the Agency has finalized today's
permit with appropriate TBELs and WQBELs to minimize the risk of future invasions. The
second group discusses technical information (e.g., how ballast water treatment systems might
perform (e.g., Dobroski et al), how we can monitor low concentrations of organisms in ballast
water discharges, or how to set appropriate NPDES limits. EPA believes that the information in
the record supports EPA's permitting decisions today, including establishment of the VGP's
TBELs and WQBELs. For more discussion on the California Standards and the Dobroski et al.
report (and related documents), please see the sections 9.1, 9.1.1, and 9.1.9 of this comment
response document, and section 4.4.3.5.8 of the VGP Fact Sheet. The third group includes
correspondence between third parties and EPA or vice versa. These additional data sources
submitted referenced in this section contain no new information not already contained in the
EPA's record at permit proposal, and as discussed above, most are already contained in the
bibliography for the VGP fact sheet or in the docket for today's permit issuance.
Commenter Name: Alliance for the Great Lakes, Great Lakes United, Nat'l
Wildlife Fed'n, Nat. Res. Defense Council, Nw. Envtl.
Advocates
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0578
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Annual Losses to Great Lakes Region by Ship-Borne Invasive Species at Least $200
Million. Ecological and Economic Impacts and Invasion Management Strategies for the
European Green Crab.
Email to Jim Lecky, NOAA from USEPA 11/29/2011
728
-------
NPDES Permit Writers Manual
NAS - Non-indigenous Aquatic Species
Patterns of Invasion in the Laurentian Great Lakes in Relation to Changes in Vector Activity
The attachment is restricted to show metadata only because it contains copyrighted data.
• Enumerating Sparse Organisms in Ships Ballast Water.
• NOAA - Great Lakes Aquatic Non-Indigenous Species Information System.
• Assessment of Transoceanic NOBOB Vessels and Low-Salinity Ballast Water Draft
NPDES General Permits Federal Register for OW-2008-0055 and 0056
• Zebra Mussels Cause Economic and Ecological Problems in Great Lakes Isolation of
Vibrio cholerae 01 from Oysters, Mobile Bay, 1991-1992
• Aquatic Nuisance Species Impacts
• Assessing the Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast
Water
• Invasive Non-Native Species
• Predicting Future Introductions of Nonindigenous Species to the Great Lakes
• Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and Water Lettuce (Pistia stratiotes)
• Letter to USEPA from Joseph Martens, New York State DEC 10/20/2011
• Letter to USEPA from Scott Crisafulli, New York State DEC 3/11/2011
• The Zebra Mussel Invasion
• Ballast Water Treatment Advisory
• Florida Crop Pest Management Profile: Aquatic Weeds
• The World is Becoming a Smaller Place for Microbes
• Identifying...and Establishing Options for Best Management Practices
• Reproduction and Developmental Characteristics of an Alien Soft Coral in Hawaii
• Musseling Out Algae
• Great Lakes Aquatic Invasive Species
• Update on the Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-Indigenous
Species
• Standards for Living Organisms in Ships Ballast Water Discharged in US Water
• Lower Columbia River Aquatic Non-Indigenous Species Survey 2001-2004
• Invasion Biology: Global Spread of Microorganisms by Ships
• Watchlist of Potential Great Lakes Aquatic Invasive Species
• Transport of Diatom and Dinoflagellate
• Domestic Ballast Water Study - Phase 2
• Biological Evaluations for the USEPA General Permit for Discharges
• Exhibit 1: Settlement Agreement between USEPA and 12 Environmental Organizations
• National Atlas - Zebra Mussel
• Report on Performance Standards for Ballast Water Discharges in California Waters
• Letter to USEPA from William R. Adriance, New York State DEC 12/17/2008
• Potential Microbial Bio-Invasions via Ships Ballast Water, Sediment, and Biofilm
• Domestic Ballast Operations on the Great Lakes
• Hyde GUARDIAN Ballast Water Treatment System
729
-------
• Why Choose Marenco Technology Group
• Evaluating the Effectiveness of Ballast Water Exchange Policy in the Great Lakes
• Zebra Mussels and Quagga Mussels
• Chapter 18: Plant, Animal, and Microbe Invasive Species in the United States and World
• Report to the Maritime Safety Committee
• MDEQ Response to Comments 12/5/2008
• Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) Fact Sheet
• Great Lakes: Resource At Risk
• Evaluations of a Ballast Water Treatment to Stop Invasive Species and Tank Corrosion
• Availability and Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Technology
• Marine Biofouling and Invasive Species
• Spiny and Fishhook Water Fleas
• Ship Ballast Tanks: How Microbes Travel the World
• Water Quality Handbook - Chapter 1: General Provisions
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.8 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
22
No
Comment: California State Lands Commission. 2010. 2010 Assessment of the Efficacy,
Availability and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Use in
California Waters. Produced for the California State Legislature.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.8 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
24
No
Comment: Dobroski. N, C. Scianni. and L. Takata. 2011. 2011 Update: Ballast Water
Treatment Systems for Use in California Waters. Prepared for the California State Lands
Commission by the Marine Invasive Species Program.
730
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.8 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
26
No
Comment: Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEl'C). 003. International Maritime
Organization. Comments on draft regulation E-2. Concentrations of organisms delivered in ships'
ballast water in the absence of any treatment: Establishing a baseline for consideration of
treatment efficacy. ME PC 49/2/1, Annex 1.
Minton. Mark S., Emma Veiling. A. Whitman Miller, and Gregory M. Ruiz. 2005.
Reducing propagule supply and coastal invasions via ships: effects of emerging strategies.
Frontiers in Ecology. 3: 304-308.
NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Assessing the relationship between propagule pressure
and invasion risk in ballast water. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.8 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
28
No
Comment: SAB (Science Advisory Board). 2011. Efficacy of ballast water treatment systems: a
report by the EPA Science Advisory Board. EPA-SAB': 11-009.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.8 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
Commenter Affiliation: California State Lands Commission
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
731
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 30
Late Comment? No
Comment: Water Board (State Water Resources Control Board). 2009. California Ocean Plan.
Water Quality Control Plan. Ocean Waters of California. 50 pp.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.8 of this comment response document.
9.1.9 California Performance Standards
Response Essay:
This essay is in response to whether EPA should impose the California Performance Standards
(California Standards) for ballast water as technology based effluent limits for the VGP. EPA
directs commenters to the VGP Fact Sheet, which includes extensive discussion on the
appropriateness of today's VGP standards, and why the Agency does not believe the California
Standards are appropriate TBELs for today's permit. EPA received comments both in support
of using the California Standards and comments opposed to their use. Environmental groups
and some States tended to support their adoption, while industry and the Government of Canada
opposed their adoption. Furthermore, EPA acknowledges the introduction provided by the
California States Lands Commission in their comments, which describes the scope and goals of
their program. EPA notes that we share California's goals of substantially reducing the risk of
new ANS introductions to our waters. EPA has proposed a numeric technology-based ballast
water discharge limit in today's permit which reflects what the Agency has concluded current
ballast water treatment systems can achieve. California's limits are established by their state
legislature under state law and are not based on the BAT factors specified in CWA
304(b)(2)(B). As discussed below, and elsewhere in this response to comment document, EPA
does not believe the status of today's ballast water treatment systems and associated reliable
data from performance tests of such systems supports adoption of BAT limits expressed as a
no-detectable living organism standard or standards more stringent than the IMO regulation D-
2 standard.
Some commenters noted that States, including New York and California, have engaged in
efforts to evaluate whether existing treatment systems can meet numeric limits more stringent
than the IMO Regulation D-2 standard, which EPA has included in the final VGP as
representing BAT. EPA is aware of these efforts, but the Agency does not believe this work
enables establishment of a Clean Water Act technology-based effluent limit for ballast water
more stringent than that finalized today. As discussed in the Fact Sheet and the response essay
in section 9.1.1 of this comment response document, California explored whether systems have
the "potential" to meet their "no detectable living organism" standard. A system was deemed to
have that potential if a single replicate had "no detects." However, as discussed in the Fact
Sheet and in responses to comments in section9.1.1 and elsewhere in this comment response
document, this does not mean that the systems will regularly meet a zero living organism
standard; merely that on any given discharge event, ballast water discharges treated with that
treatment system potentially would not have detectable living organisms. Moreover, because
732
-------
the detection limit for living organisms is significantly higher than zero, the fact that data for a
given discharge event indicate no detectable living organisms does not mean that discharge had
zero living organisms. EPA further notes that recent testing reports collected on some of the
systems that California states have the "potential" to meet their no detectable standard, show
that these systems may have discharges significantly higher than zero (see testing results
available on the web pages of testing organizations such as Great Ships Initiative (GSI)
(available at http://www.nemw.org/gsi/documents.htm) and the Maryland Environmental
Resource Center (MERC) (available at http://www.maritime-enviro.org/Reports.php).
Furthermore, although one commenter noted that EPA should adopt the more "stringent" limits,
as discussed in Lee et al. (2010) and the VGP Fact Sheet, EPA does not believe that
California's "no detectable limit" for larger size classes actually is more stringent in practice
than the limits finalized in today's permit, as the limits finalized today are roughly at the current
detection limits. EPA does acknowledge that the California numeric limits for smaller size
classes are more stringent than those finalized today; however, the Agency does not have - and
no commenter provided -- data with a sufficient detection limits to demonstrate that
technologies are available which regularly meet these limits.
In regard to New York, EPA notes that although that State provided a 401 certification on the
first VGP that contained limits more stringent than the IMO D-2 standards, the state
subsequently delayed implementation of those more stringent standards due to lack of available
treatment technologies (see Tierney (2012) available at:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/vesselgpletter.pdf). Moreover, for today's VGP, the
State has certified the limits included in today's VGP, with additional management practices.
EPA does not believe that the work conducted by New York - which focused on a single
treatment system -- warrants establishing a technology-based limit more stringent than the IMO
D-2 standard. Please see section 9.1.2 of this comment response document for more discussion
of New York's analysis (the Vaughn Analysis) and use of the Poisson analysis. Furthermore,
EPA notes that the vendor identified by New York has yet to conduct testing using more
rigorous and accurate protocols for evaluating treatment system performance in achieving
standards more stringent than the technology based ballast water standards in today's VGP.
EPA would need verifiable data from such testing before the Agency could determine this
system regularly achieves discharge limits more stringent than those finalized today. EPA is
confident that the manufacturers of this technology, and other ballast water treatment
technologies, will engage in such testing in time for the Agency's evaluation for the next VGP
(VGP 2018).
Another commenter, the government of Canada, disputes claims by other commenters that
reports prepared by the State of California are more rigorous than EPA's Scientific Advisory
Board. EPA notes that the SAB report was based on the most reliable available data, was well-
supported and reasoned, and involved numerous highly qualified scientists, transparency, and a
rigorous peer review process. Hence, the Agency believes that this report provides a sound
basis for informing EPA's TBEL determination. Please see section 9.1.1 and other responses in
this response to comment document for additional discussion of the SAB report.
Another commenter referenced a Wisconsin report which found that the limits finalized in
today's permit are what technologies could currently achieve. EPA notes that this Wisconsin
733
-------
report was one of the many pieces of information EPA used to determine its TBEL limits, and
that EPA generally agrees with this report's findings regarding the ability of existing treatment
systems to meet today's VGP's final numeric limits, and that information on existing, available
systems have not demonstrated that they can meet more stringent limits at this time.
Another commenter stated that there is no scientific basis for finalizing limits more stringent
than the IMO D-2 standard. The commenter then characterizes findings in the Lee et al. (2010)
paper as supporting the position that there is no scientific basis for establishing limits more
stringent than IMO in the future. For reasons discussed above, elsewhere in this response to
comment document, and in the VGP Fact Sheet, EPA believes establishing technology-based
limits similar to the IMO D-2 standards in today's permit is appropriate and that available data
do not support establishing a more stringent technology-based limit. The Agency also believes
that the commenter in part has mischaracterized the findings in Lee et al. (2010). Lee et al.
(2010) noted that, because it has no defined monitoring protocol, the "no detectable living
organism" standard was fundamentally no more stringent than the IMO standard. However, Lee
et al. (2010) did not support the supposition that there is no scientific evidence for moving
beyond IMO in the future.
Some comments pointed to the SAB Report in support of the need to include numeric limits
specific to protists, viruses and pathogen indicators such as total heterotrophic bacteria. EPA
agrees that these organisms can pose risks to human health and the environment. See e.g., SAB
report at pp 65 and 77. EPA will consider including numeric technology-based limits specific to
protists and viruses, as recommended by the SAB, in the next iteration of the VGP as
appropriate, based on new information to inform development of either technology based
effluent limits or water quality based effluent limits. EPA is unable to do so now, as this will
first necessitate the identification of suitable standardized test organisms and/or surrogate
parameters to determine treatment system performance at removing or eliminating viruses and
protists and which also can be used in establishing technology-based discharge limitations.
Once the ability to test for these organisms is realized, EPA would need to see that treatment
systems are capable of removing these organisms. See generally, SAB Report at pp. 8, 60, 77,
and 95. If EPA were to establish numeric limits for protists and viruses, the Agency would need
to better estimate or quantify the risk posed by these organisms on human health and the
environment in a ballast water context. EPA believes that, at this time, there is not sufficient
data for establishing such a limit as a TBEL or whether it is needed as a WQBEL. Additionally,
in regards to total heterotrophic bacteria, EPA notes that some bacteria regrow after treatment
(they use the dead organic material post treatment as an energy source, and in some cases, after
regrowth exceed bacterial concentrations before treatment). As discussed in the VGP and VGP
fact sheet, EPA is requiring total heterotrophic bacteria monitoring to better understand how
bacterial communities react after treatment.
With respect to onshore treatment, please see sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.18 of this comment
response document.
Please also see section 9.1.1 for further discussion about the ballast water effluent limits
finalized in today's permit, the California Standards, and the information EPA used to establish
today's concentration-based numeric ballast water limits.
734
-------
With respect to comments urging adoption of more stringent numeric standards due to concerns
that the numeric TBEL does not provide enough water quality protection, please see sections
10.1 and 10.1.1 of this comment response document and VGP Fact Sheet section 4.4.3.9.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
15
No
Comment: In addition, a number of states including California and New York are actively
engaged in efforts to verify the performance of treatment systems for standards two to three
orders of magnitude more stringent than IMO standards.24 In a recent report, the California State
Lands Commission finds that there are now at least eight (8) commercially available treatment
systems that have the potential to meet California's standards, and that the technology continues
to develop rapidly.25 According to the report, "Commission staff believe that sufficient evidence
exists to demonstrate that systems will be available to implement the [California] performance
standards for new vessels with a ballast water capacity greater than MT 5000 in 2012."26
24
The standards being implemented by California under its state law, and by New York for new vessels under its
Section 401 certification of the VGP, are:
• Organisms 50 or more micrometers in dimension - no detectable living organisms.
• Organisms less than 50 and more than 10 micrometers in dimension - less than 0.01 living organism per
milliliter
• Indicator microbes - all ballast water discharges shall contain:
Less than 1 colony forming unit of toxicogenic Vibrio cholera per 100 milliliters or less than 1
colony forming unit of than microbe per gram of wet weight of zoological samples;
Less than 126 colony forming units of Escherichia coli per 100 milliliters; and
Less than 33 colony forming units of intestinal entercocci per 100 milliliters.
• • Any ballast water discharge shall contain less than 1,000 bacteria per 100 milliliters and less than 10,000
viruses per 100 milliliters.
25
California State Lands Commission, 2010 Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability and Environmental Impacts of
Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Use in California Waters iii-v (Aug. 2010), available at
http://www.slc.ca.gov/Spec Pub/MFD/Ballast Water/Documents/2010TechReportFinal 23Aug2010.pdf.
26 t •
Id. at vi.
Response: Please see the response essay in Section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, New York Department
of Environmental Conservation
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0449-A1
3
No
735
-------
Comment: Toward that end, New York has been working with Michigan and other states and
respectfully suggests that EPA adopt VGP that incorporates the following standards:
• a 100 times IMO discharge standard implemented by June 1,2016;
• a voluntary discharge standard of 10 times IMO by June 1,2014;
• grandfather until 2026 vessels deploying 10 times IMO systems prior to 2016;
• continue to require ballast water exchange and flush now and into the future; and,
• require use of any reasonable and effective management practices to limit aquatic
invasive introductions prior to 2016.
New York's proposed strategy would allow vessels to install anyone of the ten technologies
evaluated by California that demonstrated the clear ability to meet and exceed a 10 times IMO
level of treatment. (The current IMO discharge limit is equivalent to salt water exchange during
ocean voyage, a useful but limited management practice.) By grandfathering until 2026 those
vessels that implement technology early, technologies would be brought to market, reduced in
cost through mass production and otherwise scaled-up for implementation at an accelerated rate.
Such an approach fosters the more immediate installation of ballast water treatment technology
to greatly abate the introduction and spread invasive species. The benefits of a stronger national
standard are substantial and justify the proposal.
Given the damage caused by aquatic invasive species and the clear demonstration of the efficacy
of numerous control technologies, it would be extraordinarily troubling if EPA proposed a status
quo standard in its VGP. EPA should independently review the California report along with the
detailed test data referenced therein, including the extensive land- based or shipboard test data
reviewed by California. We believe that the comprehensive efforts of California to identify and
understand available ballast water treatment technology and associated test data was far superior
to the recent efforts of EPA's Science Advisory Board and thus should be considered in the
development of the new VGP.
There is technical acceptance that finding zero living organisms in a total sample volume of three
cubic meters of treated ballast water would demonstrate compliance with the 10 times IMO
standard at 95% confidence level. Each of the 10 systems identified above have test data
documenting that at least three tests meeting California's standards for organisms >50 microns in
size (zero detectable living organisms) and between one and sixteen tests meeting those
standards for organisms 10-50 microns in size (0.01 living organisms per ml). These findings are
consistent with the European Maritime Safety Agency 201 0 Report (enclosed) which stated that:
"On average systems are achieving 1 order of magnitude lower than the D2-Standard" (that is,
they are achieving a 10 times IMO level of treatment).
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
With respect to the assertion that existing systems can achieve limits more stringent than IMO
(e.g., 10 times IMO), please see section 9.1.2 of this comment response document. With respect
to California's analysis of treatment system performance, please also see Part 4.4.3.5.1 of the
VGP fact sheet. Regarding the IMO D-2 standards being no more stringent than BWE, EPA
disputes this assertion. Please see VGP Fact Sheet section 4.4.3.9.2 discussing reductions in
736
-------
discharge concentrations of living organisms compared to the reduction in the numbers of
living organisms with exchange as discussed in Minton et al. (2005), Ruiz and Ried (2007) and
others. EPA further notes as explained in Section 4.4.3.9.3 of the VGP Fact Sheet that the
information before the Agency indicates treatment is more effective at reducing the numbers of
living organisms discharged than exchange alone. Please also see section 10.1.1 of this
comment response document.
Regarding New York's citing of the "European Maritime Safety Agency 2010 Report" EPA
assumes the commenter means the European Maritime Safety Agency (2010) Workshop report:
EMSA workshop on ballast water sampling and the development of a joint European ballast
water sampling strategy (23rd and 24th February 2010). As discussed by Canada in comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479, the report is based on workshop notes and not a rigorously
peer-reviewed work such as the SAB report (2011). Secondly, the SAB report, ETV guidelines,
Miller et al. (2011), and Frazier et al. (ecological applications, in press), discuss why there are
issues associated with using existing sampling data to prove that systems can achieve limits
more stringent than IMO. Please also see section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Finally, as also discussed by commenter EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479, the quote attributable
to EMSA is a partial quote of the sentence. The sentence continues with "however numbers of
organisms can vary significantly in the discharge within the compliance limits of the [IMO]
standard". As discussed elsewhere in this comment response document, the VGP limit is an
instantaneous maximum. Hence, EPA made its BAT determination based on what performance
limits treatment systems could reasonably meet as a maximum limit, which inherently considers
issues such as variance that may be present over the course of treatment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2
2
No
Comment: 2. The comprehensive efforts of California to identify and understand available
ballast water treatment technology and associated test data was far superior to the recent efforts
01 EPA's Science Advisory Board.
Canada places far greater weight on the findings of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) report.
Two principal considerations inform this conclusion: the process by which the reports were
produced and the robustness of reported conclusions.
The rigorous SAB process stresses transparency, public engagement and multiple levels of peer-
review. The SAB consists of SO recognized experts who are independent of the EPA. For the
report in question, the SAB appointed a 21-member panel, which included recognized ballast
water experts. The panel considered data from type approval testing, system manufacturers,
journal and conference publications and publically available data. As a part of its deliberations,
the panel considered New York's input and perspective as part of a public comment process.
737
-------
Four written peer reviews of the draft report, available for public scrutiny, were then considered
by the SAB as a whole before conclusions were presented as recommendations for the EPA
administrator's consideration.
By contrast, the process for preparation of agency staff reports, such as the California State
Lands report, is not normally associated with the intense transparency and peer-review
requirements of the SAB's process. As Canada is not aware that this report has received the same
level of scientific scrutiny as the SAB report, deference to the SAB report is justified.
The strong scientific process associated with the SAB report also gives Canada confidence in
accepting its more definite conclusions. The SAB report was able to definitively answer whether
certain BVVTS types are capable of reliably meeting the I MO standard and higher standards such
as 10 x I MO. lOOx I MO and lOOOx I MO.* By contrast, the California report was unable to
overcome "limitations of testing data and the variable conditions present in the 'real world.'" and
consequently restricted itself to describing only the potential performance of BVVTS. The
implications for the letter's arguments of the distinction between potential and reliable adherence
to proposed standards is further discussed below item 4.
* In referring to ballast water performance standards in this document, the term IMO standard means regulation D-2
of the IMO convention; the terms lOx IMO, lOOxfMO and lOOOx IMO mean standards that are, respectively, ten
times, one hundred times or one thousand times more stringent than the IMO standard.
Response: EPA agrees with the observations and reasoning of this commenter and, as
explained elsewhere in this response to comment document, did not establish numeric
technology based ballast water limits that are more stringent than IMO D-2. EPA also notes this
comment is part of Canada's Technical Review of October 20, 2011, Letter from the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) (see the full comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2 for context), rather than being
a direct comment on the VGP itself. Commenter thus is also referred to EPA's responses to the
issues raised in the October 20, 2011, New York DEC letter as set out elsewhere in this
response to comments document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2
4
No
Comment: 4. [The California State Lands Commission] found that 10 treatment systems have
demonstrated the Npotentiar to comply with California's discharge standards that are
approximately 1000 times more stringent than the IMO standard. These ten systems include A I/a
Laval. Ecochlor, Hyde. JFE, NK-03, OptiMarin, Quingdao, RWO. Severn Trent and Techcross.
738
-------
This statement does not provide support for an argument that 10 x I MO or lOOx I MO standards
are achievable. Canada notes that the EPA has recently come to the same conclusion.'' Canada's
three main concerns relating to this statement are as follows:
1. Regulatory decisions cannot be based on the concept of potential compliance, as enforcement
can only proceed on the basis of definitive compliance or non-compliance. The regulatory
onus is on ships to ensure that no ballast water discharge ever exceeds allowable organism
concentrations, regardless of the characteristics of the water and the number of organisms at
the source. Potential to comply is not sufficient as ships require certainty that treatment
systems will achieve this result on every discharge.
2. Even if potential compliance was relevant, the full context from California's report7 makes it
clear that no BVVTS has yet demonstrated the potential to meet California's standard on a
reliable basis. Five of these ten systems have only succeeded in demonstrating the potential
to comply during a single land-based or shipboard test. Canada has clarified with California
that the test results considered were only adequate to demonstrate performance at the I MO
standard with statistical confidence at or approaching 95 percent. None of the tests analyzed
large enough volumes of water to allow 95 percent statistical confidence in system
performance under California's standards.
3. Even results indicating compliance with California's requirements would not support claims
of BVVTS performance above the I MO standard. This is because California's standard for
large organisms is not lOOOx I MO. but rather no detectable living organisms. As noted, the
test results described by California only demonstrate IMO-standard performance, and so the
report can only conclude that systems have the potential to perform better than the I MO
standard. The methods do not address how much more performance can be expected beyond
I MO. and could as easily indicate potential for 2x I MO performance as potential for lOOOx
I MO performance or beyond. Based on the SAB's assessment of treatment system
availability, however. Canada is of the view that potential to perform beyond the I MO
standard is limited.
It is also important to ensure that systems will protect ships, crews and the environment under
cold, freshwater conditions. Of the ten listed systems, only one has demonstrated this
performance according to guidelines G8 and G9. Of the remainder, four are known to be
inappropriate for use under these conditions and. to Canada's knowledge, five have not yet been
tested.
6 Environmental Protection Agency (2011) National pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) Vessel
General Permit (VGP) for discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels: Draft fact sheet.
7
Dobroski, N.. Scianni, C., Takata. L. (2011) 2011 Update: Ballast Water Treatment Systems for use in California
Waters, pp. 37-38.
The complete context reads as follows: "Ten treatment systems have demonstrated the potential (in at least one
land-based or shipboard test) to meet all of California's performance standards (Table 4). A more stringent review
indicates that five systems have demonstrated the potential to meet California 's standards greater than 50% of the
time over multiple tests. One system met California's standards 100 percent of the time in shipboard testing,
although no system has yet met California's standards 100% of the time in land-based testing."
Response: As discussed in response essay in section 9.1.9 and elsewhere in this response to
739
-------
comment document, EPA agrees that the California State Lands Commission evaluations do not
support a conclusion that standards more stringent than IMO D-2 are attainable. EPA also
generally agrees with the technical discussions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this comment. With
respect to assertions in paragraph 1 related to enforcement and the need for ships to have
certainty, EPA notes that such matters are outside the scope of the VGP and further notes EPA
has not adopted numeric technology based standards more stringent than the California
standards or other standards more stringent than IMO for the reasons given in the Fact Sheet
and elsewhere in this response to comment document. With respect to commenter's discussion
of treatment systems for cold freshwater environments, EPA notes that although ambient water
salinity (e.g., ability to treat freshwater) and temperature (e.g., ability to work effectively in
cold water) are factors affecting the performance of ballast treatment systems, EPA agrees with
the U.S. Coast Guard that treatment systems using processes (e.g., filtration, U.V.) that will
function in such an environment are available. See, 77 Fed. Reg. 17272 at col. 1 (March 23,
2012).
Lastly, EPA notes this comment is part of Canada's Technical Review of October 20, 2011,
Letter from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (see the full comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-
0479-A2 for context), rather than being a direct comment on the VGP itself. Commenter thus is
also referred to EPA's responses to the issues raised in the October 20, 2011, New York DEC
letter as set out elsewhere in this response to comments document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2
10
No
Comment: 8. There is technical acceptance that linding zero living organisms in a total sample
volume of three cubic meters of treated ballast water would demonstrate compliance with the
10 times IMO standard at 95 percent confidence level. Each of the 10 systems identified above
have test data documenting that at least three tests meeting California's standards for organisms
>50 microns in size (zero detectable living organisms) and between one and sixteen tests meeting
those standards for organisms 10-50 microns in size (0.01 living organisms per ml).
As details are not contained within the letter. Canada does not have enough information to
evaluate New York's proposal that finding zero living organisms in a total sample volume of
three cubic meters of treated ballast water would demonstrate compliance with the 10 times IMO
standard at a 95 percent confidence level. Such a proposal would need to be accompanied by a
complete testing protocol (including sampling methodology) and be peer reviewed by experts to
determine its statistical and biological validity.
The results cited in the California State Lands Commission report, however, do not demonstrate
consistent compliance with the proposed testing protocol. This is because, of the systems
740
-------
conducting more than three land-based tests for larger organisms, every system discharged one
or more living organisms over 25 percent of the time. As noted above, reliability across tests and
a range of environmental conditions is key to ensuring that any ballast water management
practice consistently provides the best protection.
Response: EPA agrees that the data discussed in the California State Lands Commission report
does not provide enough transparency, QA information, or raw data to evaluate systems beyond
10 times IMO. Please see the essay in this section and response to comments in section 9.1.2 of
this comment response document for discussion regarding New York's evaluation that systems
can meet standards more than 10 times IMO. Lastly, EPA notes this comment is part of
Canada's Technical Review of October 20, 2011, Letter from the New York Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (see the
full comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2 for context), rather than being a direct
comment on the VGP itself. Commenter thus is also referred to EPA's responses to the issues
raised in the October 20, 2011, New York DEC letter as set out elsewhere in this response to
comments document.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? No
Comment: B. Technology capable of achieving better than IMO standards is available and
economically achievable The States of California and New York have invested considerable
resources and analysis in justifying numeric concentration-based effluent limits for ballast water
two to three orders of magnitude more stringent than IMO standards.70 As noted above, in
February 2011, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation found that at
least one treatment system was "at or near the confidence level needed to demonstrate
compliance" with New York's Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality based requirements
that vessels meet standards equivalent to lOOx IMO.71 In addition, in a recent report, the
California State Lands Commission found that there are now at least ten (10) commercially
available treatment systems that have the potential to meet California's standards, and that the
technology continues to develop rapidly.72 According to the report, the Commission staff
believes that developing detailed compliance protocols will allow for verification that these
treatment systems are able to meet California's standards, and the Commission intends to engage
in a rulemaking in the near future to establish these protocols.73
We urge EPA to take advantage of the efforts of New York and California and use their
discharge standards and technology assessments as the starting point for developing technology
based effluent limits for the next VGP. We believe that EPA should not propose or adopt any
technology-based effluent limitations for ship-board ballast water treatment systems that are less
stringent than the stringent discharge standards that New York and California have already found
to be achievable.
741
-------
70
The standards being implemented by California under its state law, and by New York for new vessels under its
Section 401 certification of the VGP, are:
Milliliter
• Organisms 50 or more micrometers in dimension - no detectable living organisms
• Organisms less than 50 and more than 10 micrometers in dimension - less than 0.01 living organism per
Indicator microbes - all ballast water discharges shall contain:
Less than 1 colony forming unit of toxicogenic Vibrio cholera per 100 milliliters or less than 1 colony
forming unit of than microbe per gram of wet weight of zoological samples;
Less than 126 colony forming units of Escherichia coli per 100 milliliters; and
Less than 33 colony forming units of intestinal entercocci per 100 milliliters.
• Any ballast water discharge shall contain less than 1,000 bacteria per 100 milliliters and less than 10,000
viruses per 100 milliliters.
71
Letter from James M. Tierney, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Water Resources, New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (Feb. 7, 2011).
72 California State Lands Commission, "2011 Update: Ballast Water Treatment Systems For Use In California
Waters," at 33, available at
http://www.slc.ca.gov/spec_pub/mfd/ballast_water/Documents/2011TechUpdateFinal_lSep2011.pdf (last visited
Feb. 5, 2012).
73 Id. at 4.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Abby Schneider, Federal Legislative Representative,
Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)
Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0498-A1
1
No
Comment: ACWA supports California's ballast water discharge standards and encourages EPA
to adopt numeric limits on discharge standards rather than the technology based effluent limits
proposed in the draft VGP. As noted in EPA's proposal, "ballast water is one of the primary
sources for the spread of aquatic invasive species".1 ACWA believes the stricter California
standards are both technologically feasible and necessary to protect our nation's water resources
from invasive species. This issue is of critical importance to water users in California. As noted
in draft document, a new invasive species enters the San Francisco Bay approximately every 14
days and already there are almost 234 non-native species living in the Bay.
EPA indicates that its Science Advisory Board concluded that California's standards are not
achievable. However, the SAB's charge was limited to the question of whether shipboard
treatment systems could meet certain specific sets of standards.2 Given this limitation, the SAB
concluded that the standards proposed by the EPA are the most stringent that shipboard treatment
systems can meet. However, the tests cited by the SAB show that at least some shipboard
systems can meet more stringent standards including limits on total bacteria, protists under 10
micrometers in size, and indicator microorganisms. In addition, the SAB found that onshore
treatment is technically feasible, possibly cheaper, easier to monitor and enforce, and capable of
742
-------
meeting standards that are far more stringent than the EPA's proposed standards, across all
organism groups.
ACWA fears EPA's proposal will undermine California's existing law and weaken protections
against invasive species. Technical issues related to implementing California's standards are
being overcome and it would be premature to weaken them at this point in time. Thank you for
considering our comments. If you have additional questions please feel free to contact me at
202-434-4760 or Dave Bolland, Senior Regulatory Advocate, at 916-441-4545.
1 U.S. EPA. 2012. Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit, pg. 71.
2
Ecological Process and Effects Committee of the Science Advisory Board. 2011. Efficacy of Ballast Water
Treatment Systems: A report by the Science Advisory Board. (Available at http://vosemite.epa.gov/ sab/
sabproduct.nsf/6FFFlBFB6F4E09FD852578CB006E0149/$File/EPA-SAB-ll-009-unsigned.pdf).
Response: With respect to commenter's support for California standards, please see the
response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document. EPA does not agree with
commenter's characterization that "tests cited by the SAB show that at least some shipboard
systems can meet more stringent standards including limits on total bacteria, protists under 10
micrometers in size, and indicator microorganisms. With respect to protists and viruses, please
see the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document. With respect to
onshore treatment, please see section 9.1.18 and the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this
comment response document. Lastly, EPA notes that nothing in today's final permit limit's
California's authority to impose its own standards on vessels discharging into its waters.
Commenter Name: Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Comment: Reject California's "No Living Organism" Standard. AWO strongly agrees with
EPA that the California State Lands Commission's 2009 report cannot "be used to support the
assertion that technologies are available to meet a limit 100 or 1000 times" the International
Maritime Organization D-2 standard for ballast water discharges, equivalent to the standard
proposed in Part 2.2.3.5 of the draft permit.33 The SAB, which employed a much more rigorous
methodology than CSLC in its report, found that "none of the systems evaluated by the Panel
performed at 100 times or 1000 times the IMO standard," and further "concluded that it is not
reasonable to assume that [ballast water treatment systems] are able to reliably meet or closely
approach a 'no living organism' standard. Available data demonstrate that current [ballast water
treatment systems] do not achieve sterilization or the complete removal of all living
organisms."34 As the National Research Council wrote in its 2011 report on the relationship
between the concentration of living organisms in ballast water and invasion risk, the criterion on
which CSLC based its conclusion that several systems "have the potential to meet their
standards" - at least one test for which no living organisms of the largest class sizes were
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
8
No
743
-------
detected - is flawed because "the absence of live organisms in a sample or set of samples does
not provide sufficient information to accurately assess densities, and there is always a non-zero
probability that organisms are present below some threshold (defined by the specific sampling
effort imposed)."3 The SAB agreed, stating:
[Cjurrent methods (and associated detection limits) prevent testing of [ballast water treatment
systems] to any standard more stringent than [IMO] D-2/[U.S. Coast Guard] Phase 1 and make it
impracticable for verifying a standard 100 or 1,000 times more stringent. New or improved
methods will be required to increase detection limits sufficiently to statistically evaluate a
standard lOx more stringent than IMO D-2.36
AWO does not believe that EPA can reasonably adopt standards that the SAB has found to be
unachievable, and which both the SAB and the NRC have concluded are unverifiable and,
therefore, unenforceable. We strongly urge EPA to reject such "fantasy standards."
33 Ibid, Part 4.4.3.5.1.
34 U.S. EPA SAB 2011, p. 4.
35
United States National Research Council of the National Academies (U.S. NRC). 2011. Assessing the
Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast Water. Committee on Assessing Numeric
Limits for Living Organisms in Ballast Water, U.S. NRC, Washington, DC. p. 118.
36 U.S. EPA SAB, p. 3.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Additionally, EPA agrees that the NAS and SAB reports support EPA's conclusions regarding
the limitations of the California Report.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Berge, Vice President, Pacific Merchant Shipping
Association (PMSA)
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0508-A1
6
No
Comment: f) Comment on Best Available Technology. Our organization has been active
participants in the development and debate over California's ballast water treatment standards,
with the States of Washington and Oregon following developments in California closely. We
strongly support EPA's conclusion, based on the substantive work done by the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) and the National Academy of Science (NAS), that the IMO D-2 discharge standard
accurately represents the treatment abilities of the Best Available Technology and the testing and
monitoring capabilities of existing protocols.
California has pointed to the same technologies reviewed by the SAB, and suggests that contrary
to the finding of the SAB, those systems can meet a discharge standard 1,000 times more
rigorous. These findings by the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) are unsupported by
critical data and are arrived at by extrapolation of data developed with the D-2 resolution. We are
pleased to see the US EPA point out these shortcomings in CSLC's analysis and assumptions, as
744
-------
stated in the VGP Fact Sheet. Furthermore, CSLC staffs assertion that the "no detectable living
organism" standard is more rigorous than the IMO D-2 standard was appropriately debunked in
the VGP Fact Sheet, and in fact the State Lands Commissioners expressed their skepticism in
CSLC staffs assertions at a public hearing in September of 2011.
CSLC staff continues to state that systems can meet their standard, and are in the process of
developing testing protocols for the determination of compliance under these standards. Initial
review of these protocols suggest that they will not provide resolution beyond the IMO D-2
standard, which would of course mean that they would not provide validation that discharges
would have a lower concentration of invasive species than the D-2 standard. None the less,
CSLC's assertion that systems can meet the California standard continues to perpetuate this
myth. We encourage the US EPA and the USCG to formally communicate their scientific
findings to the California State Lands Commissioners, The Secretary of the California Resources
Agency and the Governor of California. The confusion resulting from the scam being
perpetuated on policy makers in California that the Best Available Technologies can treat ballast
water significantly beyond their capabilities is a disservice to the people and environment of
California, and confuses and clouds the discussion. The California State Water Board's
incorporation of the California ballast water discharge standard in their Section 401 certification
of the existing VGP, with the assumption that the 2013 VGP will include similar 401
certification requirements, means that these standards will be enforced under the Clean Water
Act (CWA). This will place vessel owners in legal jeopardy under the CWA with no remedy
available. The perpetuation of this myth also politically undermines the validity of the VGP
ballast water discharge standard.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Based on the comments received from CSLC staff, it is apparent that they are already aware of
the SAB report. With respect to 401 certification matters, please see section 12 of this comment
response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
3
No
Comment: Canada also believes that the 0-2 standard is the most stringent that should be
applied at this time, being unaware of any data that reliably substantiates efficacy of B WMS
under more stringent standards; for more on this point, please see Canada's response to New
York State's recent proposal for more stringent treatment standards.4 In particular, California's
state standard should not be included or referenced in the VGP for three reasons:
1. Qualitative requirements in this standard (no detectable living organisms) present significant
challenges for compliance and enforcement. Also, a shipowner attempting in good faith to
745
-------
meet this requirement faces a real risk that advancements in testing science will subsequently
demonstrate non-compliance.
2. California's requirements are not compatible with those of the Convention, which is guiding
the world fleet's installation of BWMS.
3. A recent report by the California State Lands Commission concluded that "no system has yet
met California's standards 100% of the time in land-based testing"5 and the SAB report
concludes that entirely new types of BWMS would need development to meet such a
standard.6
4
Both New York's proposal and Canada's response are available in EPA docket EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141. New
York's proposal has Document ID EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0449. Canada's response to these comments has
Document ID EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479.
Oobroski, N., Scianni, C. and Takata, L. (2011) 2011 Update: Ballast water treatment systems for use in California
waters, (p. 3)
6 "The Panel concludes that moderate adjustments or changes to existing combination technologies are expected to
result in only incremental improvements. Reaching the Phase 2 standard, or even lOOx IMO 0-2/ Phasel, would
require new treatment systems ... These new approaches likely will achieve higher performance, but will require
time to develop and test in order to determine their practicality and cost." EPA Science Advisory Board (2011)
Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems, (p. 5)
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Commenter Affiliation: Shipping Federation of Canada
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: Because of this existing potential for a patchwork of regulations, we would strongly
advise the EPA against adopting the performance standards that are included in the California
regulations, as this would add another layer of confusion and regulatory fragmentation to the
VGP. In this respect, we would recommend that the EPA consider the work of the Great Lakes
Ballast Water Collaborative1 in its report entitled "Wisconsin Ballast Water Treatment
Feasibility Determination", which examines the aftermath of the Wisconsin 401 certification
process, under which ships were required to fit ballast water treatment systems that were 100
times more stringent than the IMO standard. The report cites a number of reasons for the State's
ultimate decision to revert back to the IMO standard, including the fact that current technologies
were unable to meet the 100 times IMO standard, the fact that the necessary technologies were
commercially unavailable, and the lack of testing protocols to confirm compliance with such a
standard. As the Wisconsin experience makes all too clear, the inclusion of the California
standard (or any standard higher than the IMO) would be counter-productive, as it would create
further confusion in the market, delay the installation of already compliant technologies, and
746
-------
eventually cause trade disruptions by compelling ships to avoid areas where they could be found
to be non-compliant.
1 http://www.greatlakes-seawav.com/en/pdfAVisc DNR Report Dec 2010.pdf.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 44
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 82 EPA solicits comment on whether to adopt the California Standards... - We
begin by reiterating CLIA's long held belief that EPA should regulate in a manner consistent
with the international requirements of the IMO. Furthermore, in some respects it is difficult to
understand why EPA is posing the question at all? Within this section of the Fact Sheet itself,
EPA states that it considers that the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) methodology
was not consistent with EPA methods when it states:
In its analysis of the data presented in the CSLC report, EPA concludes that those data are
not adequate to determine whether any of the treatment systems can meet a significantly
more stringent limit than that proposed for this permit term.
EPA later states,
Av noted by the SAB [Science Advisory Board], "current methods (and associated detection
limits) prevent testing of BWTS to any standard more stringent than D-2 and make it
impracticable for verifying a standard 100 or 1000 times more stringent."
Thus, in this single paragraph, EPA answers its own question: CLIA members do not believe it is
appropriate for EPA to adopt a more stringent standard in the face of an inadequate
demonstration of technology to achieve such limits, and an inadequate methodology to verify
whether that technology was actually meeting the limits.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 49
Late Comment? No
747
-------
Comment: P. 113, Part 4.4.3.5.8 EPA's request for comment on the "California Ballast Water
Treatment Standards" - we have commented on this with respect to p. 82 of the Fact Sheet and
refer EPA to those comments above, while re-iterating our commitment to working within the
IMO timeframes established for ballast water treatment systems.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Nick Schroeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes
Environmental Law Center
Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Environmental Law Center
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0535-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: In addition, the state of California, in the California Marine Invasive Species Act of
2003 directed the California State-Lands Commission to move expeditiously toward elimination
of the discharge of non-indigenous species into the waters of the state based on the best
available, economically achievable technology that should protect the beneficial uses of
California waters. California's interim discharge standards set a limit 1000 times more restrictive
than the proposed IMO standard for the draft VGP. Similar to New York, California concluded
the proposed IMO standards would only provide a marginal improvement, and are not restrictive
enough.6
6 http://www.maritimeprofessional.com/Blogs/Martm-Rushmere/August-2011/California-goes-awrv-over-ballast-
water-treatment.aspx
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadians)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadians)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A3
7
No
Comment: 17. Issue: The appropriateness of including alternative treatment limits used by
other regulatory agencies, specifically limits promulgated by the State of California.
CSA Response: The addition of including treatment limits used by other regulatory agencies is
not supported. A patchwork of different regulatory standards is a disincentive to ship owners and
operators to make the necessary investment in new, USCG type-approved, and commercially
available technology. Moreover, a fragmented framework discourages short sea shipping and
748
-------
would lead to a modal shift and ultimately create a worse environmental footprint through
increased rail and truck traffic.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
Leagues Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
5
No
Comment: Third, we urge EPA to include more stringent ballast water discharge standards for
all vessels. The IMO standards are too week. The final rule should require ballast water
treatment standards that mirror the New York standard (100 times IMO) as an interim measure
and that implement the California standard (1,000 times IMO) as soon as possible.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
Leagues Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
8
No
Comment: 2.2.3.3 Discharge Standards: The IMO standards are too weak to protect the Great
Lakes and inland waters from invasive species transported through ballast water. The final rule
should require ballast water treatment standards that mirror the New York standard (100 times
IMO) in the interim and California standard (1000 times IMO) as soon as the later can be
measured. Following the IMO standards means that the bar for treatment standards is not set high
enough and there will be little incentive for industry to be innovative in their efforts to meet
higher standards that may be set by individual states or the federal government in the future.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Additionally, regarding the statement that standards are not sufficiently protective of the Great
Lakes water and other inland waters, please see the response to comments sections 10.1, 10.1.1,
and 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
749
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
Leagues Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
11
No
Comment: Following the California approach would provide adequate protection. As reported
in the SAB report, the "interim" and "final standards" of California are "no detectable
organisms" and "zero detectable organisms".
Achieving a higher discharge standard is way over due. In the 7 to 9 years prior to 100%
treatment EPA should evaluate whether interim shore station treatment systems could be
implemented after a risk based assessment. Companies should not be allowed any extensions for
dry docking during the implementation period for ballast water treatment installs. All ships must
be in compliance with discharge standards by 2016 with no extensions.
Much has been said relative to the economic costs of individual treatment processes to ships.
However, economic analysis rarely extends to the fact that cheap shipping results in cheaper
goods coming into the US and a direct loss in manufacturing jobs. This leaves the burden of
protecting the environment primarily to states to ensure that aquatic invasive species don't
overwhelm native fisheries and biota.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
EPA considers several factors in its economic analysis, but the direct loss of U.S.
manufacturing jobs as a result of shipping being "cheap" is beyond the scope of this permit.
EPA believes this permit is protective of water quality standards: please see the response to
comments sections 10, 10.1, and 10.1.1 of this comment response document. With respect to
the States' role under the VGP, please see section 12 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A3
6
No
Comment: 17. Issue: The appropriateness of including alternative treatment limits used by
other regulatory agencies, specifically limits promulgated by the State of California.
Response: As stated in our response to Issue 16, the inclusion of any alternative treatment limits
or discharge standards has no scientific basis and therefore should be rejected. This conclusion is
supported by Lee, et al (2010) in which the EPA's own research ecologist concluded that the zero
750
-------
detectable California standard "not be used at the national level as an approach for deriving
environmentally protective limits on concentrations of living organisms in ballast water."
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
As discussed in that essay, EPA disagrees with commenter's characterization of Lee et al.
(2010).
Commenter Name: Scott Strand, Executive Director, MN Center for
Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: Furthermore, the IMO standards do not take advantage of today's improved
technologies. The IMO standards are based on a 10-year old perspective on ballast water
treatment technologies. Much has changed since the IMO drafted these standards in 2004, yet the
VGP Permit fails to account for these changes. In contrast, both New York and California have
established far higher standards than IMO (lOOx IMO and l,000x IMO respectively) for their
state ballast water discharge permits, and both have recently reviewed available technologies.
The California State Lands Commission reviewed 60 ballast water treatment systems and
determined that 18 systems had sufficient data to test for potential compliance with California's
more stringent ballast water quality standards.14 In February 2011, the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) found that the performance of at least one
treatment system, made by Ecochlor, was "at or near the confidence level needed to demonstrate
compliance" with New York's Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality based requirements.15
The New York DEC has since identified an additional ten treatment systems that have
demonstrated the potential to comply with discharge standards that are lOOx more stringent than
IMO.16 In addition to these state based reviews of available technology, ongoing research in the
Great Lakes region shows great promise, including a federally funded NaOH practicality study,
NaOH shipboard trials, and applied research being conducted in collaboratively by the National
Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the American Steamship Company.17 Bench testing of
NaOH treatment and other technologies to meet standards more stringent than the IMO standard
is showing great promise.18 The Great Ships Initiative has also produced a guidebook for
monitoring ballast water discharges to ensure compliance with standards.19
14
California State Lands Commission, "2011 Update: Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Use in California
Waters." at 33. See also
http://www.slc.ca.gov/spec_pub/mfd/ballast_water/Documents/2011TechUpdateFinal_lSep2011.pdf.
15 Letter from James M. Tierney, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Water Resources, New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (Feb. 7, 2011).
16 Letter from Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, to
Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Oct. 20, 2011).
17
Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) Practicality Study. Prepared for the National Parks of Lake Superior Foundation. File
Number 09129.01. February 2010. Available at
751
-------
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/953CCBEB820F0470852577920076316D/$File/NaOH+Practicality+Stu
dy.pdf; National Parks of Lake Superior project fact sheet available at
http://www.nplsf.org/documents/NPLSFBallastTreatmentProjectsOverview.pdf.
18
See http://www.nemw.org/GSI/outcomes.htm.
19
See http://www.nemw.org/GSI/BallastDischargeMonitoringGuidebook.pdf.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
New York has neither submitted information nor commented to EPA that New York has
identified 10 treatment systems with the potential to comply with 100 times IMO, nor is EPA
otherwise aware of any such assertion by New York. It may be that commenter is confusing
New York with assertions made by California. New York has relied on California's work to
help inform its decision making.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Late Comment? No
Comment: 17. Comment on the appropriateness of including alternative treatment limits used
by other regulatory agencies, specifically limits promulgated by the State of California and
whether the numeric limits as requested by the State of California should be included in the final
VGP.
It is our recommendation that a 'national standard' be implemented. To do otherwise would lead
to the creation of a regulatory patchwork that would discourage and disrupt shipping routes
resulting in constrained commerce, high costs of operation for vessel owners/operators, and
economic disincentives.
We encourage EPA to avoid citations and/or requirements of standards that have been
independently proven to be impossible to verify. Based upon the results of the EPA sponsored
studies (EPA Science Advisory Board Study and National Academy of Science Report 2011),
there is no evidence to support verifiable standards in excess of IMO standards and there is no
stated need to increase standard in comparison with other forms or invasive species transfer
(such as hull fouling). Inclusion of these 401a requirements only confuse the national standard
and create confusion among stakeholders as to the generator of these arbitrary standards.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Commenter Affiliation: Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
752
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Late Comment? No
Comment: 17. Comment on the appropriateness of including alternative treatment limits used
by other regulatory agencies, specifically limits promulgated by the State of California and
whether the numeric limits as requested by the Slate of California should be included in the final
VGP.
It is recommended that a 'national standard' be implemented. To do otherwise would lead to the
creation of a regulatory patchwork that would discourage and disrupt shipping routes resulting in
constrained commerce, high costs of operation for vessel owners/operators, and economic
disincentives.
We encourage EPA to avoid citations and/or requirements of standards that have been
independently proven to be impossible to verify. Based upon the results of the EPA sponsored
studies (EPA Science Advisory Board Study and National Academy of Science Report 2011),
there is no evidence to support verifiable standards in excess of I MO standards and there is no
stated need to increase standard in comparison with other forms or invasive species transfer
(such as hull fouling). Inclusion of these 401 a requirements only confuse the national standard
and create confusion among stakeholders as to the generator of these arbitrary standards.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
1
No
Comment: California has been and remains a national and world leader in the development of
effective science-based management strategies for preventing species introductions through
vessel vectors. California's initial legislation, the Ballast Water Management for Control of Non-
indigenous Species Act of 1999 (Assembly Bill 703), addressed the ballast water invasion threat
at a time when national regulations were not mandatory. The Marine Invasive Species Act of
2003 enhanced and re-authorized the initial legislation and established the MISP at the California
State Lands Commission. The MISP aggressively pursues the prevention of NIS release from
commercial vessels into California through a holistic, multi-pronged approach to vessel vector
management including the following components: 1) Sound policy development in consultation
with a wide array of scientists, state and federal regulators, non-governmental organizations and
the maritime shipping industry: 2) Ballast management tracking, compliance, and enforcement of
more than 900 vessel arrivals every month: 3) Funding and coordination of targeted, applied
research that advances the development of strategies for NIS prevention from the commercial
ballast water and vessel biofouling vectors: and 4) Outreach designed to bridge the knowledge
753
-------
gaps between scientists, legislators, the regulated industry, non-government organizations and
regulating agencies.
The MISP continues to pursue aggressive strategies to limit the introduction and spread of non-
indigenous species (NIS) including the establishment of protective performance standards for the
discharge of ballast water in 2007 and the current development of requirements for the
management of vessel biofouling on ships entering California waters. California's ballast water
discharge performance standards, in particular, serve to force the regulated industry to develop
techno logy-based strategies to manage NIS in ballast water discharges.
Response: EPA acknowledges California's efforts to reduce the introduction of aquatic
invasive species to its waters. Please see the response essay in section 9.1.9 of this comment
response document.
9.1.10 Monitoring
Response Essay:
EPA received comments from 27 commenters categorized in this section on the ballast water
monitoring requirements of the draft permit (EPA notes that some ballast water monitoring
related questions are categorized in other sections). EPA agrees with several commenters that
believe there are inherent difficulties in monitoring and enforcement of ballast water limits for
shipboard systems; however, as described below and in the permit fact sheet, the Agency
believes it has taken appropriate steps to address these concerns (i.e., to develop a credible
system to monitor and assess system performance) given the current state of technology and
monitoring techniques currently available to the universe of vessels subject to these
requirements. EPA expects equipment, procedures, records, and reports required for monitoring
these systems will provide the Agency with the necessary information to assess adequacy of
system performance both from a regulatory and pollutant control standpoint. Similarly, EPA
agrees with commenters that development of practical tools for compliance is critical for ballast
water discharges and the Agency believes that the permit, as written, provides a practical
approach for demonstrating compliance with permit requirements. A number of commenters
supported including monitoring and reporting requirements for ballast water treatment systems
(BWTS) to be able to ensure these treatment systems are being operated properly once installed
on a vessel and to assess compliance with the ballast water effluent limitations. The final VGP,
consistent with the draft VGP, contains such requirements and specifies the parameter(s) to be
monitored and the frequency of such monitoring.
Measures of treatment performance for ballast water systems can include a variety of
techniques ranging from collection of ballast water effluent samples for analysis of target
organisms to monitoring operational parameters for the treatment technologies to verify they are
within predetermined limits. Monitoring systems may also include features that provide
selection and approval of appropriate treatment systems, automated system operation, system
sensing (with alarms), plus reporting and recordkeeping to ensure treatment systems are
continuously operating according to the manufacturer's specifications (Hurley et al., 2001). The
VGP includes three categories of compliance monitoring for ballast water:
754
-------
• Treatment equipment performance monitoring;
• Biological indicator monitoring; and
• Residual biocide and biocide derivative monitoring.
Treatment Equipment Performance Monitoring (Parts 2.2.3.5.1.1.2 and 2.2.3.5.1.1.3 of the
permit) is required to verify that the BWTS is operating according to the manufacturers'
specifications. Most BWTSs have control and self diagnostic equipment such as sensors that
continuously measure treatment parameters to verify performance. A BWTS may also include
testing meters or kits, such as portable chlorine and dissolved ozone monitors, to verify
adequate levels of treatment chemicals are being maintained within the ballast tanks. The final
permit requires vessel operators to monitor and record certain key data on a monthly basis and
make adjustments, maintenance, or repairs to the BWTS to ensure the equipment is functioning
properly. The permit also requires that control equipment and sensors be calibrated on a regular
basis.
Biological Indicator Monitoring (Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 of the permit) is required to estimate the
number of living organisms or biomass in the ballast water effluent following treatment,
regardless of species. The intent of biological indicator monitoring is to measure the number of
living organisms or biomass in a small volume of treated ballast water. If there are significant
levels of living organisms or biomass in a small volume of ballast water, then the ballast water
treatment system is likely ineffective. The permit requires analysis of concentrations of E. coli
and enterococci bacteria as these tests are based on methods that are well developed. They are
also affordable. Biological indicator sampling of ballast water effluent is required to be
conducted over multiple sampling events to verify the system is operating properly although
vessels that enter U.S. waters on only a limited basis (e.g., one time per year), must only
conduct ballast water effluent monitoring within the previous three months and upon discharge
into U.S. waters. EPA notes that based on comments received, for systems for which high
quality data are available, the Agency has reduced the frequency of biological monitoring to
once per year for the second and subsequent years of permit coverage, provided systems meet
the permit's effluent limits.
Residual Biocide and Biocide Derivative Monitoring (Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 of the permit) is
required to assure that vessels are not discharging harmful quantities of biocides and their
derivatives for any vessel with a BWTS that either adds or generates biocides for treatment
(e.g., chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone, etc). Some ballast water treatment systems generate or
use biocides (e.g., chlorine dioxide) to reduce living organisms present in the ballast water tank.
A discussion of comments on ballast water monitoring and EPA's response to those comments
follows.
Basis of Ballast Water Monitoring Frequencies and Parameters
A number of commenters suggested different monitoring frequencies than included in the draft
permit for the full range of parameters with some commenters arguing that the frequencies were
too high and others arguing that they were too low. The permit requires different monitoring
frequencies for different parameters ranging from monthly monitoring for some parameters to
less frequently for others. One commenter argues that the monitoring frequency is inadequate to
755
-------
assure compliance with effluent limitations with the commenter suggesting monthly monitoring
(and semi-annual reporting) is more appropriate; however, the commenter provides no basis for
more frequent monitoring. Another commenter states their belief that data management is the
primary issue preventing reporting of more robust monitoring and that the frequency of
monitoring and reporting seems lax compared to municipal markets; however this commenter
also provides no basis for these conclusions (and EPA disagrees with these beliefs). A
commenter also notes that a more robust monitoring framework is needed for biocides and
derivatives, given the current lack of data for this relatively new application, to ensure that
additional pollutants are not discharged while solving the invasive species problem. The
Agency contemplated specific monitoring requirements for each specific parameter regulated in
the final permit and, after considering comments, continues to believe the frequencies contained
in the final permit are appropriate (and necessary) to assess compliance with the effluent
limitations in the permit for this class of dischargers and are consistent with NPDES
regulations. They also are not unduly burdensome. EPA believes that this level of monitoring
will assist in assuring that any ballast water treatment system is being maintained and
performing to reduce the concentration of living organisms in the discharge as necessary to
meet the effluent limitations contained in the permit. Also, without specific reasons why more
frequent monitoring is necessary for biocide and derivatives monitoring, the Agency disagrees
that more frequent monitoring is necessary to characterize these discharges and demonstrate
compliance with effluent limits and ensure water quality is protected. As discussed elsewhere,
the Agency did reduce monitoring frequencies for ballast water management systems that have
high quality data. EPA believes monitoring requirements of the permit provide information
necessary to demonstrate adequate performance of these controls.
Functionality monitoring is to be done at least monthly and requires monitoring of parameter(s)
found to be most appropriate to assess system performance for the different type(s) of system(s)
in use. The permit requires equipment calibration at least annually unless manufacturer
specifications dictate a more frequent timeframe in which case more frequent calibration is
required. EPA believes the amount of functional monitoring and calibration is appropriate in
that many ballast water treatment system manufacturers require that the BWTS monitoring and
recordkeeping be operated continuously to assure the system is functioning as designed and that
equipment be calibrated pursuant to manufacturer's specifications. Pursuant to Part 2.2.3.5.1.1
of the permit, following installation of a BWTS, the master, owner, operator, agent, or person in
charge of the vessel must maintain the BWTS in accordance with all manufacturer
specifications and as such, in many instances would be required to operate monitoring
equipment for system functionality continuously. Thus, EPA views functional monitoring as
providing added insurance that any BWTS is being operated and maintained in a manner to
meet discharge limitations. Similarly, EPA notes that annual calibration is generally consistent
with Regulation E-l of the Ballast Water Convention which requires an annual survey, among
other things, to assess whether equipment is maintained and operating as intended.
For all ballast water treatment systems, the minimum time period between ballast water
sampling events for residual biocides cannot be less than 14 days. EPA has required a minimum
time of 14 days between sampling events to assure that the system is performing over time
during a given a year. EPA is not requiring monitoring on specified schedule (e.g., once per
quarter) because ballast water discharge events might be episodic for some vessel
756
-------
owner/operators, and EPA wanted to provide flexibility to vessel owner/operators as to when
they could collect samples. For vessels that only enter U.S. waters on a limited basis (i.e., one
time per year or less), the vessel must have conducted ballast water monitoring for residual
biocides within the previous year and upon discharge into U.S. waters. If any of the initial or
maintenance samples exceed the effluent limits specified in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 of the VGP, the
vessel owner/operator must immediately cease discharging from the treatment system and
undertake steps necessary to achieve compliance (although, EPA notes Part 1.13 of the permit,
which incorporates by reference 40 CFR 122.41(m)(4)(A), provides for bypasses that would
allow for discharges in emergency situations that endanger the safety of the vessel or its crew,
specifically the provisions regarding the "diversion of waste streams from any portion of the
treatment facility" where unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property
damage).
One commenter does not support EPA's rationale for functional monitoring and argues that if
functional monitoring is required for any BWTS, logically, it should also be required for other
treatment systems as well (e.g., oily water separators). EPA disagrees with commenter in part
and points out that unlike other vessel treatment systems, BWTSs are relatively new, direct
measurement of living organisms is impractical for reasons described elsewhere in this essay
and the permit fact sheet, and additional monitoring is appropriate for these newer systems to
demonstrate that not only are these being designed properly but they also can be operated and
maintained at a level and duration such that high quality discharges (i.e., controlled discharges
of living organisms, for which EPA is not including direct measurement) can be achieved
during operation on a vessel. As such, EPA retained the requirement for functionality
monitoring in the final permit. Additionally, EPA notes that the Agency is requiring some oily
water separator data, consistent with the VGP proposal, to be submitted to the Agency to get a
better sense how oily water separators are performing during operation on a vessel and that
these systems on new vessels are, in fact, meeting effluent limits.
Another commenter stated that the VGP micromanages system operation in that real-time
sensor monitoring is more commonly used to assist operators with system demands and fine
tuning and that fluctuations in parameter values are not necessarily indicative of a lesser
effluent quality. Also, the commenter notes that this approach inappropriately deviates from
EPA's typical approach to sampling discharges at end-of-pipe and may improperly halt
discharges or disrupt safe ballasting operations. EPA acknowledges the approach taken in
today's VGP is somewhat atypical for NPDES permits, although, the Agency believes this
approach is appropriate for the unique nature of the discharge being covered under the permit,
the use of this monitoring as a component of an overall approach to control discharges of living
organisms in lieu of direct monitoring of those organisms, and the relatively newness of the
systems used to treat these discharges. In addition, EPA acknowledges that many manufacturers
are building functionality monitoring and calibration (with alarms) into their systems; however,
EPA believes it is appropriate to identify the minimal functionality monitoring (and calibration)
requirements to ensure that all systems are capable of demonstrating adequate system
performance of key parameters. EPA is unaware of how these requirements might improperly
halt discharges or disrupt safe ballasting operations as indicated by the commenter, who
provides no information to support this assertion. However, EPA also notes that most of the
sampling is either taken when the ballast water treatment system is actively treating the ballast
757
-------
water, or immediately before the end-of-pipe discharge. EPA has limited the biological
monitoring due to logistical constraints of conducting such monitoring as described elsewhere
in this essay. EPA believes requiring this monitoring will further promote and ensure that
manufacturers include such functions as a part of any BWTS.
EPA also disagrees with commenters that the sampling, monitoring, and recordkeeping
requirements are overly burdensome for those vessels that do not undergo voyages to foreign
ports or waters containing many invasive species of concern. First, while the aforementioned
types of voyages may not present the highest risk of invasion in U.S. waters, EPA believes
monitoring of discharges from these vessels imparts minimal burden but provides reasonable
additional assurance that discharges are adequately controlled. Regarding overall burden of
monitoring requirements of the permit, a detailed assessment supporting EPA's finding that the
requirements are not overly burdensome is provided in the Economic and Benefits Analysis of
the 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
One commenter suggests that a larger concern is the presence of pathogenic organisms, rather
than the indicator organisms, which are the focus of the monitoring requirements. EPA
acknowledges that monitoring actual pathogenic organisms would be ideal; however, direct
testing for all pathogens is impractical if trying to identify every possible pathogen that may be
a concern for any discharge from any vessel. Most disease-causing microbes are difficult to
detect. For this reason, EPA's currently recommended water quality criteria for bacteria use
"indicator" species—so called because their presence indicates that contamination may have
occurred. The two indicators most commonly used are e. coli, and enterococci—both of which
are bacteria that are normally prevalent in the intestines and feces of warm-blooded animals. As
such, the final permit retains the monitoring requirements for indicator organisms rather than
direct measurement of pathogenic organisms.
One commenter states that "only" testing for two indicator organisms is inadequate to monitor
the overall efficacy of permittees' ballast discharge treatment. In their view, monitoring for
these indicator organisms will accomplish little as a practical matter because these organisms
are almost always present in untreated ballast water discharges at concentrations below the
Draft VGP's discharge limits, and measuring for these two species or groups of bacteria may
indicate the presence of certain human pathogens, but it will not indicate the overall abundance
of living organisms in the discharge. EPA disagrees; the permit establishes monitoring
requirements for these two organisms consistent with Coast Guard regulations promulgated in
33 CFR Part 151 (77 FR 17254) which underwent a rigorous process including three separate
expert panel workshops, public scoping meetings, and cooperating agency participation. See 77
FR 17254 (March 23, 2012) for details on accessing the USCG docket for additional details on
that rulemaking effort. Contrary to the commenter's statements, the presence or abundance of
the selected indicator organisms is not intended to verify the composition or abundance of other
potential invasive microbes in the ballast water but, rather, their purpose is to indicate their
presence, at which the Agency believes the two indicator organisms are effective.
EPA notes that with the exception of indicator organisms, living organism monitoring of vessel
ballast water discharges, by mass or any other measure, is not required in this permit due to
758
-------
practical constraints on the ability to collect and analyze the volumes of ballast water necessary
to directly detect and quantify such organisms at the levels of concern. For today's permit, EPA
has required monitoring of organisms in discharged ballast water, but has limited the scope of
the organisms monitored to the bacterial indicators specified in the discharge standard. EPA has
limited the scope of biological monitoring due to logistical constraints of conducting such
monitoring. In particular, the collection of adequate representative samples for analysis of larger
organisms, which can involve significant volumes of water (3-5 cubic meters), are likely to be
beyond the ability of for a ships' crew given their lack of training in this area of specialized
experience to conduct the monitoring and analysis during the intensive activities associated with
conducting cargo operations (including the management of ballast water to adjust for changes in
the amount and distribution of cargo within the ship), during relatively limited times during
which vessels are at dock. Though designed for land-based testing, the ETV protocol (EPA
2010) indicates the complexity and specialized knowledge needed for accurately enumerating
living organisms with existing monitoring approaches. EPA is also developing a shipboard
technology verification protocol; however, that protocol is still in development, and methods
developed may not be appropriate for widespread use for the reasons described above.
Nonetheless, validated EPA shipboard sampling protocols do not yet exist for enumerating
living organisms in ballast water discharges, and inclusion of monitoring with such practical
constraints, absent validation, would not be appropriate for today's permit.
Also, one commenter argued that use of e. coli and enterococci are problematic in that these are
commonly found in untreated grey water and grey water tanks may share common ancillary
equipment (e.g., pipes, pumps, etc.) and result in cross contamination and hence a false
indication of inadequately treated ballast water. EPA expects that vessel owner/operators will
take necessary precautions to ensure that samples collected of ballast water are representative of
ballast water discharges and not indications of contamination from other sources.
In addition, two commenters suggest that the requirement for only a low (in their opinion)
frequency of ballast water monitoring (2-4 times per year) will allow vessel operators to
choose ideal conditions for measuring the efficacy of their ballast water treatment systems and
testing thus will not provide a true indication of the efficacy of the system under more
challenging conditions. EPA disagrees with this assertion and notes that vessels are required to
meet the mandatory ballast water management practices and operate their management systems
at all times, with regular functionality monitoring and equipment calibration, to assess system
performance. It is this combination of practices that the Agency believes will demonstrate
whether a system is capable of meeting effluent limitations regardless of the location of this
monitoring. EPA also notes that effluent monitoring must be representative of the discharge per
40 CFR 122.41(j)(l).
A couple of commenters suggested that monitoring requirements should be based on a risk
assessment of environmental considerations of water quality (e.g., salinities, temperatures) in
which a vessel operates to ensure performance of any BWTS in these various conditions and to
"prevent unnecessary sampling and testing." While EPA does not disagree with the concepts
identified by the commenter, the Agency believes those concepts would be very difficult to
implement in the VGP for a number of reasons (e.g., the range of vessels covered, locations of
voyages, and the range of water quality parameters that affect transport of invasive species). In
759
-------
addition, the commenter did not provide concrete information to the Agency showing that such
an approach is necessary and appropriate. EPA expects to analyze data submitted for this permit
and based on that analysis the Agency may identify the need for and develop a more tailored
risk-based approach for subsequent permits. Thus, EPA has adopted a more straightforward
approach for this permit that relies heavily on system type approvals or alternative management
system approvals from the U.S. Coast Guard to establish monitoring frequencies and
parameters. The Agency believes this approach provides the appropriate level of monitoring
while being simple for permittees to understand and that will not change depending on the
specific voyage. EPA may, in subsequent permits, adopt a different monitoring approach should
data gathered for this permit indicate alternative monitoring approaches may be better
representative of discharges.
One commenter believes the value (and expense) of biological indicator compliance monitoring
is dubious at best as it will likely only detect gross violations of the ballast water discharge
standard (i.e., those situations in which the BWMS is not operating in the manner in which it
was designed) and that the monthly functionality monitoring would indicate a system
malfunction far more expeditiously than a semi-annual biological indicator compliance
monitoring. EPA disagrees with commenter in that the demonstrated performance of these
relatively new systems is not well established and without additional information supporting the
commenter's claim, EPA believes additional data, particularly correlating functionality
monitoring with biological indicator monitoring, will provide the necessary assurances to the
Agency that these systems are operating properly and to the level necessary to control
discharges. Additionally, EPA notes that even if biological indicator compliance monitoring
was only able to indicate gross noncompliance, that such information is better than not having
this information at all. As discussed elsewhere in this essay, more sophisticated methods for
enumerating living organisms in the larger size classes are not currently available for use by
permittees.
Monitoring Requirements Conditional on Type-Approval
EPA received a number of comments on the Agency's proposed approach to base ballast water
monitoring frequencies on whether a vessel has a device for which high quality data are
available. EPA expects that the vast majority of vendors will either get their systems type
approved by the US Coast Guard, receive Alternate Management System determinations from
the US Coast Guard or at minimum, will share their full type approval data packages with the
US government during this permit term. For those systems, EPA established a nominal
monitoring requirement for the treated ballast water. This monitoring is required to demonstrate
that discharges are in compliance with the permit effluent limits Each sample must be tested
independently and the individual results must be reported and not averaged. Samples must be
tested as soon as possible after sampling, and may not be held longer than recommended by the
test method for each tested constituent.
Several commenters suggest that monitoring twice a year is either excessive or unnecessary for
these systems with type-approvals when coupled with the requirement that these systems also
be regularly inspected, calibrated, etc. Also, a commenter notes that BWTS manufacturers are
building in automatic and frequent functionality monitoring and calibration functions which
provide alarm capability to indicate if or when the BWTS is not operating properly. Given these
760
-------
automated functions, rather than provide the current detail e.g. monthly functionality
monitoring, annual (or more frequent) calibration checks, commenter's believe these sections
should simply require the vessel to operate and maintain the BWTS in accordance with the
manufacturers' instructions (guidance and manuals), including system shut-down in the event of
malfunctions. Commenters believe this approach addresses the wide variety of BWTS expected
to be used. In the event of malfunctions, one commenter suggests that the vessel owner would
be required to take corrective action and possibly include sampling and analysis. Commenters
also note that per discussions with system developers, independent testing laboratories, and
regulatory agencies, the consensus is that systems will either work as certified, or they will be
obviously faulty; a condition that will be evident based on system sensors, self-diagnosis, and
crew oversight and as such monitoring schedules (which evaluate serviceability of systems)
should not be based on the underlying type approval data (which is based on suitability of
systems).
EPA disagrees with commenter that vessels with high quality data should be exempt from
monitoring and instead rely on manufacturer's instructions. However, in light of the automated
functions described above commonly found on these BWTS, EPA has reduced the monitoring
frequency for biological parameters from twice per year to once per year for vessels with high
quality data after the first year of sampling if biological monitoring results are below permit
limits. Whether a system meets ETV testing or is a system with "high value data" or "low value
data" only demonstrates whether a system is designed to meet the necessary treatment
performance requirements. Individual type-tested systems can be defective or experience a
failure during operation and because of these things, routine monitoring is appropriate to ensure
that these systems are operating as designed. In other words, regardless of the level of initial
treatment system performance, EPA believes routine monitoring is necessary to assess the
operation and maintenance of these systems and to ensure harmful quantities of residual
biocides or byproducts are not discharged and has retained the permit requirement for such
monitoring. EPA is requiring more frequent monitoring for systems that have not been type-
approved as having not been demonstrated to meet applicable standards, acknowledging that in
addition to the Agency having less information on the effectiveness of these systems as tested,
these systems may similarly also be defective or experience a failure. Thus, contrary to one
commenter's suggestion, even for type approved systems with alarms, EPA still believes
routine monitoring is necessary to demonstrate that the system continues to adequately control
discharges. EPA, in response to comments that the frequency of monitoring for systems with
high quality data is excessive, did reduce monitoring from twice a year to twice in the first year
and once a year thereafter. Systems without high quality data will continue to be required to
monitor four times a year.
Another commenter suggests that for functionality monitoring, vessels "consider the need" of
Appendix J but EPA should instead rely on manufacturer's instructions. EPA disagrees and
notes that the Agency selected parameters to be monitored that are representative of the types of
parameters that BWTS manufacturer's typically include as part of the functionality of the
system; however, the Agency is requiring these to ensure systems include these key operational
sensors.
One commenter suggested that BWTSs should only be spot checked (at the first port of call and
761
-------
then annually) by Port State authorities if the system is believed to be non-functional with other
systems (without high quality data) tested at each port of call until sufficient data demonstrate
that EPA and USCG can elevate the system to one with high quality data. The commenter notes
that this approach would not burden the ship owners and test facilities and provide incentive for
owners and manufacturers to test systems in accordance with ETV. The Agency disagrees with
the commenter who suggests that this monitoring be performed by Port State authorities (or for
that matter, by Federal agencies) in lieu of the vessel operators monitoring their own discharges.
The NPDES framework considers self-monitoring to be a fundamental component of
demonstrating compliance with permit limits and the logistics of establishing such a monitoring
oversight program with Port authorities or other federal agencies at this point in time is
impractical.
Several commenters expressed confusion regarding the high quality data criteria with some
commenters noting they did not believe any vessels would be able to meet the high quality data
criteria. Commenters noted that there are currently no ballast water treatments systems that have
been type-approved by the U.S. federal government, nor have any foreign type-approved
systems undergone the EPA ETV protocol. The commenter notes that this effectively means
that there are no systems that have "high quality type approval data" as per the EPA VGP and
thus, the usefulness of the inclusion of unattainable standards in the permit is questionable,
unless the EPA can guarantee that 1) the ETV protocol shipboard testing guidelines will be
published before the VGP is finalized and 2) systems that have been type approved by a foreign
administration can undergo testing under the ETV protocol before the VGP implementation
date of December 13, 2013. EPA acknowledges commenter's concern; however, based on
clarifications provided in the final permit as to what constitutes high quality data, the Agency
fully expects a number of BWTSs to be type approved or receive AMS determinations and meet
the high quality data standards by the time those permit conditions take effect. Additionally,
based on this and other commenters, EPA describes in the permit what the Agency means by
"high-quality data" for which the Agency believes that many, if not most, ballast water
treatment systems on the market today should meet the "high quality" standards for purposes of
today's permit, provided they have or will apply (before being utilized by a vessel operator in
US waters) for a U.S. Coast Guard AMS determination.
Other commenters stated that all vessels would have to meet the high quality data criteria to be
covered by the permit. These commenters note that the VGP requires certification of systems
using ETV protocols performed using an independent laboratory with the USCG rule requiring
similar, more stringent criteria be met for certification of systems. Thus any systems passing
muster under either the EPA VGP or USCG rule will by definition be meeting the standard
based on "high quality type approval data." One commenter reads the permit to seemingly
allow vessels to install BWTS that are type-approved (by other flag states) but have poor-
quality data. Thus Section 2.2.3.5.1.1 should be more specific about whether or not systems
need type-approval (whether from the U.S. or other flag state) and what type/quality of data is
necessary (and must be submitted to EPA) to back-up that type-approval. EPA agrees with
commenters that point out that an owner/operator of a BWTS that is type approved by a foreign
administrator using an independent third party laboratory, test facility, or test organization is not
required to make all such data available to EPA. However, such an owner/operator does not
meet the high quality data criteria threshold and thus would be required to monitor on a more
762
-------
frequent basis. These owner/operators can be considered to have high quality data by providing
EPA with the full data package that had been submitted to the IMO for approval. EPA expects
that over time, all vessels covered under the VGP should meet the high quality data criteria for
BWTS consistent with U.S. Coast Guard regulations at 33 CFR Part 151, Subpart D.
(Additionally, EPA notes that nothing in the permit relieves vessel operators of meeting Coast
Guard requirements found at 33 CFR Part 151, Subparts C and D.)
Commenters believe that monitoring and testing should be streamlined significantly to
minimize burdening vessel crews and that such streamlining can also encourage investment in
better systems, such as with automated or continuous monitoring. One commenter notes that
they believe the additional monitoring requirements for vessels employing systems "for which
high quality type approval data" are not available will serve as an impediment to early
installation of BWMS since there will be no BWMS meeting the definition of BWMS for which
high quality data exists for at least three years. They believe the proposed monitoring is so
onerous - if it could be completed at all - that it will discourage owners who might be inclined
to install a BWMS for testing purposes to do so. Instead of discouraging early installation of
equipment EPA should be encouraging vessel owners who are attempting to identify BWMSs
which may fit their unique operating profile to install systems without being severely penalized.
While the regulations do not specifically require EPA to evaluate costs when establishing
monitoring conditions in a permit, EPA as a practical matter did consider the cost of sampling
relative to the regulated community's capabilities when establishing the monitoring conditions
of this permit. For the reasons discussed elsewhere, the Agency believes the monitoring
requirements of this permit are appropriate and do not create an undue burden, as shown in the
Economic and Benefits Analysis of the 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP). Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The commenter provided no basis for disagreeing with
these conclusions.
EPA requested comment on whether the Agency should also reduce the monitoring frequency
for vessels which use a treatment system for which all type approval data have been made
available to the Agency and whose data was taken at a 3rd party facility, but the data was not
taken in accordance with ETV protocol. EPA received one comment suggesting that EPA
should reduce the monitoring frequency for these vessels that would otherwise be considered to
have high quality data but for the fact that the data were not collected in accordance with ETV
protocol. The commenter states that a reduced monitoring frequency would be appropriate for
instances where data were collected with good scientific practices by a reputable organization.
The commenter also notes that testing a BWTS is quite costly and owner/operators should not
be penalized for testing a system before the existence of the ETV protocol (i.e., March 2010).
EPA agrees with commenter's concern and revised the permit to provide for reduced
monitoring in these instances. See the VGP fact sheet which discusses high quality data. EPA
notes that existing type approval data can be submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard to obtain an
AMS determination: such a determination would indicate high quality data for purposes of the
final VGP.
Consistency of Monitoring with CWA and NPDES Requirements
EPA received a number of comments specific to the relationship of the ballast water monitoring
requirements in the permit to the CWA/NPDES requirements for monitoring. A couple of
763
-------
commenters indicated that they believed the requirements as proposed are consistent with the
NPDES monitoring regulations (i.e., CFR § 122.44(i)(l)(i)&(ii) and 122.45(e)). Several other
commenters disagreed and noted that the VGP should require analysis of all size classes of
living organisms for which effluent limitations exist so that the effectiveness of the permit
requirements are monitored in accordance with 40 CFR § 122.44 (i). Specifically, two
commenters noted that 40 CFR § 122.44(i) requires monitoring to assure compliance with
permit limitations at a minimum frequency of once per year since the permit includes numeric
discharge limits for live organisms in the >10 - <50 um and >50 um size categories. Further,
commenters suggest that this live organism monitoring should be performed by reputable
personnel according to standard sampling and analytical methods specified by EPA and note
that these data are needed to: (1) determine whether the ballast water discharges authorized
under the VGP could cause or contribute to exceedances of applicable water quality standards,
(2) verify the efficacy of the vessel's ballast water treatment system, and (3) assist EPA's
development of subsequent VGPs. Two commenters note that by including this requirement for
live organism monitoring in the permit, firms will quickly develop the sampling and analysis
expertise and equipment capabilities needed to effectively and economically monitor for live
organisms. EPA agrees with commenters that the purpose of monitoring does provide data to
meet the three goals described above; however, the Agency disagrees that live organism
monitoring must be performed to be able to assess these three areas. EPA also disagrees that by
the Agency merely mandating monitoring that must be conducted, methods will materialize
(and notes that commenter provided no basis for that assertion).
Living organism monitoring of vessel ballast water discharges, by mass or any other measure, is
not required in this permit due to the practical constraints on the ability to collect and analyze
the volumes of ballast water necessary to directly detect and quantify such organisms at the
levels of concern discussed above. Such requirements, therefore, are not "applicable" to this
situation and are not included in today's permit. As for 40 CFR 122.45(e), EPA did not consider
the listed factors because, consistent with provisions of that regulation, EPA determined these
factors were not appropriate to the ballast water context; it would not be appropriate to limit the
frequency, mass, or rate of ballast water discharges due to their important functions regarding
safety and stability of the ship.
EPA disagrees with commenter that the Agency should include a monitoring requirement for
living organisms in the permit with the expectation that reputable environmental consulting
firms will quickly develop the sampling and analysis expertise and equipment capabilities
needed to effectively and economically monitor for such. The Agency believes it that including
monitoring requirement for a parameter for which practical means to collect and analyze
samples is currently unavailable would not meet the purposes of EPA's monitoring
requirements which are, among other things, "to assure compliance with permit limitations".
EPA expects to continue to work with the US Coast Guard and others to develop more
advanced ways to monitor for compliance for ballast water treatment systems.
Another commenter suggests that by requiring live organism monitoring, as scientific research
proceeds on protective discharge standards, these monitoring data will help assess whether
corrective action is needed for these discharges. While EPA agrees that having living organism
discharge data for these vessels would provide a useful tool for assessing discharge quality and
764
-------
the need for corrective action, as discussed above, EPA believes the lack of a practical test
method makes such a permit condition inappropriate.
One commenter notes that EPA regulations specify that each NPDES permit "shall include . . .
when applicable... requirements to monitor... [t]he mass (or other measurement specified in the
permit) for each pollutant limited in the permit" and that EPA has erroneously relied on the
"when applicable" language in this regulation to justify monitoring of ballast water treatment
system functionality and compliance with the numeric limitations on two biological "indicator"
organisms, rather than compliance with the numeric limitations on organisms in ballast water
discharges. The commenter notes correctly that it is EPA's view that extreme difficulties with
directly monitoring living organisms in ballast water discharges, by mass or any other measure,
makes such monitoring inapplicable. The commenter indicates that EPA's interpretation of the
"when applicable" language is not reasonable, nor is it consistent with the requirement that
NPDES permits "assure compliance" with effluent limitations. This commenter believes that
the natural reading of the "when applicable" language is that direct monitoring is required when
a permit specifies a measurement for a pollutant limited in the permit. Only when a permit does
not specify any measurement for a pollutant would a monitoring requirement be inapplicable.
Thus, they believe the "when applicable" language does not relieve EPA of the responsibility to
require direct monitoring in these circumstances and to do so renders the inclusion of numeric
limits on ballast water discharges meaningless because it makes enforcement of those limits
impossible. EPA disagrees with commenter's reading of EPA's regulations. EPA believes that
the "when applicable" language in the opening sentences of 122.44 is meant to allow EPA,
where appropriate, to tailor standards to the specific circumstances of a permit at issue.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, however, that commenter's reading of that language of the
regulations is correct, EPA also believes that the ballast water monitoring requirements when
viewed in their entirety do " assure compliance with permit limitations" by requiring
monitoring of "[t]he mass {or other measurement specified in the permit) for each pollutant
limited in the permit." (emphasis added) As described above, because of the extreme difficulty
of monitoring directly for living organisms, the Agency established a monitoring approach
consisting of biological indicator monitoring and functional monitoring of system performance,
which are indirect types of "measurements" for living organisms. EPA concludes that these
approaches do assure compliance with the numeric limits for living organisms because, as
described elsewhere in this essay and in the permit fact sheet, the permit has a credible system
to monitor and assess performance given the current state of technology and monitoring
techniques currently available to the universe of vessels subject to these requirements. EPA
expects the functional and effluent monitoring, procedures, records, and reports required for
monitoring these systems will provide the Agency with the necessary information for
demonstrating compliance with permit requirements.
One commenter notes that the permit fails to fulfill the requirements of 40 CFR §122.44(i)
because the permit fails to require adequate monitoring on which to assess compliance with the
narrative WQBEL. Specifically, the commenter notes that vessels are only required to perform
visual monitoring and "limited" ballast water monitoring, if the vessels have installed treatment
systems, to monitor compliance and determine whether a discharge causes or contributes to an
exceedance of applicable water quality standards. EPA disagrees with commenter's assertion
that the permit's visual inspections and requirements and ballast water discharge monitoring
765
-------
requirements and other monitoring requirements do not enable EPA to determine that
discharges cause or contributes to excursions of applicable water quality standards. As
discussed i section 10.1.2 of this comment response document, EPA disagrees that commenter
the narrative WQBEL is unenforceable. The commenter offers no explanation as to why this
particular narrative standard would be per se unenforceable, and EPA has no reason to believe
that it is. For an explanation of why additional discussion on WQBELs in today's permit, please
see sections 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 of this comment response document. EPA also notes that
monitoring may also pertain to actions taken to ensure that permit control activities are being
properly implemented (e.g., through inspections) and records being retained. As discussed in
Section 4.5 of the permit fact sheet, EPA generally expects that vessels that achieve the permit's
technology-based limits (through the careful implementation of effective pollution control
measures and BMPs) and documentation of compliance with those requirements are generally
expected to already be controlling their vessel discharges to a degree that is protective of water
quality. Thus, the need for additional monitoring specifically to demonstrate compliance with
narrative water quality based effluent limitations is unnecessary. In addition, during the term of
this permit, EPA will collect information required from permittees and will also solicit and
collect information and water quality monitoring and other data from states, federal agencies,
and other entities to assess the contribution of pollutants from vessels and to ensure that these
discharges are not causing or contributing to violations of water quality standards. Much of that
information is expected to be publicly available through EPA's electronic reporting system that
will be accessible at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels.
Monitoring Consistent with IMO Requirements in Regulation E-l
EPA requested comment on the practicability of conducting monitoring of living organisms in
ballast water during the initial, and subsequent regularly scheduled annual, intermediate, and
renewal surveys as described in Regulation E-1 of the IMO BWM Convention. EPA requested
whether this more robust monitoring should be required in addition to, or in lieu of, the
biological monitoring proposed in today's permit.
EPA received conflicting responses to this question. Two commenters suggested that EPA
should require biological monitoring of living organisms consistent with the surveys described
in Regulation E-l of the IMO BWM Convention and in lieu of the biological monitoring
proposed in the permit while one commenter disagreed. This one commenter suggested that the
type of monitoring required would not be practical to perform as part of the surveys in a large
number of cases because of the global nature of where vessels may have the surveys performed
and lack of access to conduct the biological monitoring during those specific timeframes. EPA
concurs that requiring biological monitoring during these surveys would likely be impractical at
this time and as a result, the final permit is unchanged from the draft as to when these biological
monitoring events are to take place. EPA expects that any monitoring performed as required
under the final permit will not cause undue delay to any vessel in completing its
voyage/mission.
Commenters suggested that EPA should assess BWTS performance in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications and in conformity with Regulation E-l of the Ballast Water
Convention. One commenter suggested that manufacturers are building in automatic and
frequent functionality monitoring and calibration functions which provide alarm capability to
766
-------
indicate if or when the BWTS is not operating properly and as such, the permit thus should
simply require the vessel to operate and maintain the BWTS in accordance with the
manufacturers' instructions. EPA's monitoring conditions generally follow this approach by
requiring dischargers to perform functionality monitoring and calibrate equipment routinely.
However, the permit also requires performance-based periodic monitoring of key biological
indicators and residual biocides as a way for permittees to demonstrate compliance with the
permit effluent limitations for these relatively new ballast water management systems.
Basis for Heterotrophic Bacteria Monitoring
One commenter states that heterotrophic bacteria monitoring should not be required since there
are no effluent limitations and information on this topic already exists and the behavior of
bacterial communities is transferable from other industrial effluents. One commenter clarifies
that since there are no numeric effluent limitations, EPA should be clear that monitoring for
heterotrophic bacteria is not to monitor compliance. Another commenter notes that measuring
bacteria in ballast water is not a good indicator of invasive species. EPA is requiring monitoring
for heterotrophic bacteria, which EPA has found to be affordable and for which the sample can
be collected at the same time other effluent samples are collected, to evaluate the performance
of these relatively new ballast water management systems, to differentiate these results from
other types of industrial effluents which may or may not be similar for which there is available
information. Additionally, these data will give the Agency better information about bacterial
regrowth after ballast water treatment for various ballast water treatment systems. So, while
research data, including data on regrowth, on these types of systems may be available, data
from actual systems in operation are not readily available (and required monitoring will help to
address such a data gap). EPA is requiring monitoring of heterotrophic bacteria to establish
better information about how bacterial communities respond to ballast water treatment, not as
an indicator of invasive species as suggested by a commenter. EPA expects to use monitoring
data gathered from this permit requirement to continue to assess treatment technologies and
qualification criteria that best demonstrate high treatment efficiency. Please also see section
9.1.1 of this comment response document.
Monitoring in Remote Locations and On-Board Vessels
Several commenters expressed concern about the challenges associated with sampling and
analysis requirements of the permit, particularly with respect to vessel operation and where
those activities may be performed. Commenters noted that it may be unrealistic for vessels
operating in remote locations (e.g., Alaska and certain Caribbean or South Pacific Territories) to
be able to meet the monitoring requirements because of the unavailability of adequate
laboratory services in these areas and the technical expertise required to perform these types of
monitoring activities, such as for heterotrophic bacteria monitoring which requires a monitoring
specialist. These concerns include the challenge of ensuring that samples can be analyzed
within the maximum holding times required in 40 CFR Part 136 and the permit, such as for
bacteria monitoring for samples drawn while discharging prior to entering port. One commenter
noted that even if analytical laboratories are accessible, results from the analysis are likely to be
skewed and inaccurate e.g. false negatives, false positives due to the time delay between sample
collection and analysis. One commenter suggested that the permit language should
acknowledge challenges associated with availability of analytical services by noting in the
permit that the biological indicator monitoring requirements in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 should be
767
-------
required "provided adequate laboratory services are available in the ports to which the vessel
calls during a calendar year. If a vessel's annual itinerary does not accommodate sampling and
analysis per this schedule due to itinerary or due to the lack of acceptable analytical services, or
infrequency in US ports, this must be reported in the Annual Report submitted as per Section
4." Commenters suggest that extensive training would be required to comply with these
monitoring provisions.
Two commenters indicated that they do not believe adequate shipboard monitoring equipment
exists which can reliably (and with a very high degree of statistical and scientific reliability)
conduct the evaluations required in the permit, such as for disinfection byproducts and their
derivatives and for functional monitoring. One commenter suggests that in the alternative,
vessels should instead be required to meet the metrics recommended by the BWMS
manufacturer. Without further clarification by these commenters, EPA was unable to address
the general concerns raised and it is unclear to the Agency why these applications, such as for
monitoring for disinfection byproducts and their derivatives or functional monitoring would
result in less reliable data than could be generated from a shore-based monitoring activity. As
presented in Table 5 and Appendix J, these requirements all have EPA-approved methods
and/or commonly available equipment for meeting these requirements.
EPA agrees with several commenters that believe there are inherent difficulties in monitoring
and enforcement of ballast water limits for shipboard systems; however, as described below and
in the permit fact sheet, the Agency believes it has taken appropriate steps to address these
concerns given the current state of technology and monitoring techniques currently available to
the universe of vessels subject to these requirements. Similarly, EPA agrees with commenters
that development of practical tools for compliance is critical for ballast water discharges and the
Agency believes that the permit, as written, provides a practical approach for demonstrating
compliance with permit requirements. Furthermore, EPA will continue to work with the US
Coast Guard and others to develop more advanced ways to monitor for compliance for ballast
water treatment systems.
EPA acknowledges commenters' concern that monitoring ballast water may be more difficult in
very remote places, e.g., arctic offshore area, or a remote port, which is far away from a city. As
discussed above, EPA also reduced the monitoring frequency for biological monitoring in many
circumstances, which the Agency believes will help address the concerns of commenters that
believe sampling in remote locations poses challenges. Regarding the other parameters and for
the remaining biological monitoring, EPA believes that in such circumstances these monitoring
and analysis procedures can be performed by having the necessary laboratory equipment on-
board the vessel. Also, the permit does provide flexibility on when and where this monitoring is
to be performed, which the Agency believes in many instances, will allow vessels to monitor
discharges in the most efficient way. Where vessel operators are unable to perform these
monitoring activities, such as when the vessel is unable to take on the additional physical
burden that must be taken on by the crew, that they contract these services. EPA expects, based
on EPA's understanding of this industry, that many port service companies will offer necessary
sample collection, handling, and analytical services as necessary. Thus, EPA disagrees with
commenter's suggestion to caveat monitoring requirements to the extent adequate laboratory
services are available in the ports to which a vessel calls during a calendar year.
768
-------
Also, while not effluent limited, the permit does require monitoring of total heterotrophic
bacteria as discussed above. One commenter believes it is unrealistic for the ship crew to
monitor this parameter consistent with the permit because only monitoring specialists can do it
with laboratory facilities and that the analysis must be conducted "just after sampling." EPA
disagrees with commenter that heterotrophic bacteria monitoring presents a special challenge
for ship crews because sample holding times of 8 hours are acceptable for heterotrophic bacteria
and similar sample collection procedures to those of many other parameters to be monitored
under this permit are used. As such, EPA does not believe the remoteness of some vessel
voyages will prohibit an owner/operator from meeting the applicable monitoring requirements
of the permit, including meeting appropriate holding times, using test methods approved for use
by this permit, including procedures for alternative test methods under 40 CFR Part 136.
Similarly, EPA disagrees with commenter that the monitoring laboratory activity is too
complicated to conduct on board or that monitoring equipment may not be available for
shipboard installations, including concerns that present monitoring limits are too stringent to
meet using portable monitoring kits. Specifically, the two portable kits referenced for biological
organisms (Colilert® and Enterolert®) can both detect organisms at 1 cfu/100 ml whereas the
limits for e. coli and enterococci are 250 cfu/100 ml and 100 cfu/100 ml, respectively.
Additionally, permittees can contract with laboratories to collect and/or analyze results, EPA
acknowledges that not every parameter has a test kit available with detection limits adequate to
demonstrate compliance with permit requirements (e.g., heterotrophic bacteria); however, 40
CFR Part 136 and the permit provide other approved analytical methods that can be used. In
addition, 40 CFR Part 136 does provide for alternative methods, approved consistent with 40
CFR § 136.4 (Application for alternate test procedures) and 40 CFR § 136.5 (Approval of
alternate test procedures). EPA acknowledges one commenter's suggestion that EPA could
allow use of the approved drinking water method for heterotrophic bacteria; however, the
Agency is not evaluating alternative methods as part of permit finalization. The permit does
provide the option, consistent with 40 CFR § 136.4 for the operator to apply for an alternative
test procedure. Also, as discussed above, vessel owner/operators can contract with local
laboratories to conduct monitoring collection and/or analysis as they deem appropriate.
Although a variety of methods of compliance are currently available, EPA does expect that the
monitoring requirements of this permit will spur development of additional test methods,
including more portable test kits that can achieve the necessary accuracy and precision. EPA
fully supports development of new approval test methods. Thus, EPA does not agree with
commenters that effluent limitations should be less stringent consistent with detection levels
achievable with existing portable test kits.
EPA's burden estimate for the VGP, as detailed in EPA's Economic Analysis for the VGP
(provided in the permit docket) also includes training of vessel staff that may be necessary, such
as for training on monitoring activities. EPA does not believe the necessary training for
monitoring activities to be excessive (and commenters did not substantiate any such claims), but
for vessel owner/operators that believe that to be true or for those vessels that do not feel they
are able to train their staff adequately, contracted services are available.
Use of Sampling Ports
769
-------
Two commenters suggested that EPA should require the installation of sampling ports to obtain
representative ballast discharge samples for all vessels covered by the permit so that vessels do
not use alternative sampling locations or methods of sampling that are not adequate to verify
system performance. EPA disagrees with commenters' suggestion since the permit specifically
requires samples to be collected that are representative of the discharge (and hence adequate to
verify system compliance). Of note, though EPA is not explicitly requiring installation of such
ports at this time, the Agency notes that new vessels as well as many existing vessels either
have such ports or are being retrofitted with a ballast water treatment system with sampling
ports installed consistent with U.S. Coast Guard regulations at 46 CFR 162.060-28(f). Thus, the
permit is not requiring the installation/use of such sampling ports, instead, leaving it up to the
vessel to collect samples consistent with permit requirements and that are representative of the
discharge. This may or may not be from a sampling port.
Biological Organism Monitoring Methods
Two commenters suggested that EPA require effluent biological organism monitoring for
organisms in the >50 and 10-50 micron size classes. One commenter suggests that the Great
Ships Initiative report, "A Ballast Discharge Monitoring System for Great Lakes Relevant
Ships: A Guidebook for Researchers, Ship Owners, and Agency Officials," demonstrates that
monitoring equipment to obtain representative samples now exists, is cost effective and at least
can be applied to most ships that transit the Great Lakes, with a second commenter
acknowledging that the availability of labs to conduct such testing is limited at this time, but
only with a regulatory incentive will new lab facilities come on-line and establish the capacity
to conduct such testing. This second commenter suggests that a first step would be to require
testing of these size classes at least once during the permit coverage period or to begin an
experimental program that would encourage vessels (perhaps through some incentive program)
along selected routes (near established testing labs) to participate in a testing program in order
to gather data about treatment system performance on fully operational vessels.
EPA disagrees with commenters' suggestion to include biological organism monitoring in the
permit. The Agency notes that monitoring for biological organisms is not required in this permit
due to the extreme difficulty constraints on the ability to collect and analyze the volumes of
ballast water necessary to directly detect and quantify such organisms at the levels of concern.
Such requirements, therefore, are not "applicable" to this situation and are not included in
today's permit. In lieu of direct monitoring of organisms, the Agency opted to use a multi-
faceted monitoring approach consisting of functionality monitoring, biological indicator
monitoring, and biocide and biocide residual monitoring as required in Parts 2.2.3.5.1.1.2
through 2.2.3.5.1.1.5. Additional discussion of ballast water monitoring provisions is provided
in Part 4.4.3.5.1 of the permit fact sheet.
With respect to EPA's reliance on the Great Ships Initiative report, "A Ballast Discharge
Monitoring System for Great Lakes Relevant Ships: A Guidebook for Researchers, Ship
Owners, and Agency Officials," for procedures and monitoring equipment to obtain
representative samples, EPA disagrees with commenter that the methods described in that
report are appropriate for incorporating into the permit. As noted in that guidebook, the methods
described are preliminary and application of these methods for regulatory purposes would
require close review and revisions of method specifics per specific regulatory guidelines. The
770
-------
Agency will assess the appropriateness of the methods described in this guidebook after they
are more fully developed for future permits but at this time, the Agency does not believe
incorporating "preliminary" methods as regulatory requirements in the permit is appropriate.
Also, EPA has not adopted the one commenter's approach that including this monitoring in the
permit will provide incentive for reputable environmental consulting firms to quickly develop
the expertise and equipment capabilities needed to effectively and economically monitor ballast
water discharges for live organisms. EPA points out that, among other things, only approved
monitoring approaches can be used to demonstrate compliance with NPDES permit limits. Until
such time that EPA can specifically identify the appropriate method in the permit or an
approved 40 CFR Part 136 method is available, permittees do not have an available method to
demonstrate compliance. As such, EPA has retained the monitoring approach included in the
draft permit which includes a three-pronged approach of functionality testing, biological
indicator monitoring, and biocide residue and residue derivative monitoring.
EPA received one comment suggesting that EPA should use more sensitive DNA/RNA
techniques for the detection of living organisms and should use the California standards for
these measurements and evaluations. EPA points out that using DNA sequencing technology to
characterize organisms in ballast water discharges is still in the research and development phase
and is not a method that can be practically incorporated into the permit at this point (EPA,
Science Matters Newsletter, http://www.epa. gov/sciencematters/sept2012/ballast.htms). EPA
expects to continue to develop this method and the Agency will assess the appropriateness of
this approach for characterizing organisms for future permits.
Sensors
EPA received three comments regarding use of sensors on ballast water treatment systems, with
these three commenters all suggesting caveats to the permit language relaxing the requirement
that sensors must be installed and operational in order to discharge. One commenter suggested
that the permittee should be able to discharge even without a required sensor or with an
inoperable sensor provided they repair or replace the sensor promptly in accordance with the
permit corrective action timetables in the permit and confirm in writing (i.e., document) that the
system operation is not compromised, with the commenter noting that some sensors simply
document the performance of the system while others directly affect the operation of the
system. Also with respect to the comment EPA should not use the same standard for sensors
that document the performance of a BWTS with those that directly affect the operation of the
system, without further clarification from the commenter as to the operational difference
between the two, the Agency has opted to retain the requirement in the final permit that ballast
water must not be discharged when sensors are not installed or otherwise inoperable. A second
commenter stated that the permit should state that the vessel should avoid, to the extent feasible,
the discharge of ballast water when sensors are not installed or otherwise inoperable and, when
such a discharge cannot be avoided, the vessel must document and report such incidents. A
third commenter noted that the permit does not acknowledge that some systems employ
backups or redundancies and that in these instances, if a primary device fails but a backup is
operational, the vessel should still be able to discharge.
EPA disagrees with the two commenters' that suggest the permit should allow discharges to
771
-------
occur without operable sensors. The Agency does not believe it is appropriate to document a
system as fully functional with uninstalled or inoperable sensors (as the purpose of these
sensors is specifically to ensure that the system is fully functional and operating within
equipment specifications) and as such, the Agency is retaining the provision in the permit that
ballast water must not be discharged when these sensors are not installed or otherwise
inoperable.
Also, EPA agrees with the commenter that a backup system sensor may provide comparable
performance as the primary device, but the Agency disagrees that the permit needs to be
modified to address this concern. The Agency acknowledges that where a backup sensor is on-
line and operational, the fact that the primary sensor fails is not cause for ceasing a discharge
since an operational sensor does exist (see Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.3, requiring that discharges cease
when sensors are "inoperable").
One additional commenter suggested that to the extent a vessel must discharge ballast water
when sensors are not installed or otherwise inoperable the vessel could be required to document
that fact and report it in the annual report. EPA agrees that such information is important to
fully assess compliance with permit terms and points out that item 9.g. in Part 4.2 of the VGP
requires such documentation with comparable information to be submitted in the annual reports.
Compliance and Enforcement
EPA received a number of comments regarding compliance and enforcement issues associated
with the permit. EPA disagrees with the commenter who stated that the permit is unenforceable
and that it does not contain any compliance monitoring requirements except for bacteria. In fact,
as described above, the permit contains three monitoring components that taken together are
designed to ensure treatment system performance to the levels required by the permit. In
addition, operators are required to submit an annual report, including documentation of the
results of ballast water monitoring. These monitoring and reporting requirements are in addition
to the phased-in requirement for operators to use a ballast water treatment system that has been
type approved by the U.S. Coast Guard or received "Alternative Management System"
designation by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Several commenters suggested the permit should provide clearer delineation of EPA and other
regulators' oversight and inspection responsibilities of the VGP. EPA notes that ensuring that
there are adequate personnel for enforcement is outside the scope of today's action; however,
EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard will perform compliance oversight (e.g., onboard inspections,
records review, and discharge sampling and analysis) and enforcement of the VGP, as
appropriate. EPA acknowledges that the penalties for noncompliance are not specifically listed
in the permit; however, Part 1.13 of the final permit incorporates by reference the standard
conditions of 40 CFR Part 122.41 which includes the duty to comply and the enforcement
actions available to EPA to address instances of noncompliance.
Two commenters also expressed concern that sampling and inspections have the potential to
cause undue delay or other loss to the vessel and clear grounds should be established for
performing such types of activities (e.g., in accordance with the associated guidelines developed
by IMP) and any costs to the vessel in such instances should be borne by the inspection party.
772
-------
EPA acknowledges commenters' concern and as noted above, EPA oversight and enforcement
actions are outside the scope of today's permit; however, the Agency, working with the U.S.
Coast Guard, expects to make every effort to ensure that any compliance oversight activities
cause minimal disruption to the vessel's normal operation. Any sampling and inspection
activities performed by other agencies (e.g., port states or other national agencies) are outside
the authorities of EPA.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
20
No
Comment: EPA should include in the next VGP monitoring requirements for ballast water
treatment systems on board vessels specifying the parameter(s) to be monitored (e.g., treatment
unit flow, treatment unit pressure, active substance concentration, residual active substances,
suspended solids, and/or indicator organisms) to assess compliance with the ballast water
effluent limits, consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i)(l)(i)&(ii) and 122.45(e), with these
parameters to be monitored on a monthly or more frequent basis.
Response: The VGP monitoring requirements, as proposed and finalized, meet the commenter's
recommendation. Please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response
document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Yoshiaki Gonno, Naval Architect, Technical Development
Group, Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI),
Marine&Engineering Co.,Ltd.
Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0464- A2
4
No
Comment: Comment 3: Difficulty of monitoring by ship crews (§2.2.3.5.1.1.5.1/P29-33)
Standards should be modified to suit the assumption that ship crews operate the monitoring on
board safely, economically and practically. Otherwise, it may be impossible to follow the current
standards for some kinds of vessel even if they are bonafide and have an intention to follow
them.
Response: Without specific suggestions or specification of areas the commenter believes merit
improvement, EPA was unable to address the general concerns raised by the commenter. Please
see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
773
-------
Commenter Name:
Yoshiaki Gonno, Naval Architect, Technical Development
Group, Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI), Marine &
Engineering Co., Ltd.
Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0464- A2
5
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Background for comment 3:
A) Difficulty to receive proper service of laboratory monitoring.
In general, vessels which import materials and products to U.S. discharge ballast water at cargo
loading port. Especially, crude oil tanker is the most popular import vessel and very significant
economic roll for United States. However they load crude oil and discharge the ballast water at
very remote place e.g. arctic offshore area, the end of local pipe line or remote port which is far
away from city. It is difficult for some kinds of import vessels to receive the appropriated service
including analytical monitoring of the sample water in laboratory because of the restriction of
sample hold time for adequate monitoring. The usage of laboratory's monitoring service is
unrealistic under present restriction.
Please refer to attachment-2.
B) Difficulty of monitoring for the ship crews on board.
Ship crews must do the monitoring by themselves on board because it is very difficult to receive
the laboratory service as above subsection (A). However, required accuracy is too stringent to
achieve the monitoring on board. To satisfy these standards, laboratory and associate equipment
must be installed on board with special trained ship crews or specialists from laboratory. It may
be unrealistic for vessels loading at remote place. We proposed the countermeasure as shown
below section (C).
C) Necessity for encouragement of more adoption of portable monitoring kit.
The portable monitoring kits are not only colilert® and enterolert® but also other kit which ship
crew can use easily. However, present monitoring standard is too stringent to satisfy by using
portable monitoring kit which is necessary and sufficient performance to monitor the appropriate
ballast water treatment. These kinds of monitoring method should be encouraged by relaxing of
this stringency because utility on board for ship crew is very significant.
e.g.) Method detection Limit as Total Residual Oxidizers(TRO) as C12 (Table
5/§2.2.3.5.1.1.5.1/P32)
"POCKET COLORIMETER II CHLORINE MODEL™" is usable for this kind of monitoring.
This monitoring kit is already approved as SM 4500-C1G for drinking water. However this kit
also can be used for this purpose for sea water, too. In general, this monitoring standard is partly
so stringent that laboratory's facility is required. 10 micro grams per liter of MDL is very
stringent requirement. There is no adverse effect to monitoring accuracy by the modification
from 10 micro grams to 20 micro grams because the purpose of this monitoring is to prevent
discharged ballast water from including active substances over discharge standard.
774
-------
Please refer to attachment-3 for reference.
D) The difficulty of monitoring for Total Heterotrophic bacteria on board.
It may be unnecessary to do this monitoring on board because there is no discharge standard
regarding total heterotrophic bacteria. Even if this monitoring should be done on board, it is
unrealistic for ship crew to monitor in accordance with VGP draft because only monitoring
specialist can do it with laboratory's facilities provided that the analysis is made just after
sampling. Unfortunately, there may be no countermeasure against this point now. But expected
alternative which is approved by U.S. EPA for drinking water is introduced below,
e.g.) SimPlate®
Please refer to attachment-4 for reference.
E) Necessity for development of approval system for sea water.
The monitoring of the total heterotrophic bacteria, TRO and so on from sea water is not popular
so far. U.S. EPA has to try to approve the portable monitoring kit and encourage the
development of monitoring device manufacturer to develop the kit.
e.g.) POCKET COLORIMETER II CHLORINE MODEL ™, SimPlate®
Comment 4: Occasion for the monitoring. (Table 5/§2.2.3.5.1.1.5.1/P32)
Appreciate monitoring timing is running condition of B WTS at available maximum capacity
flow rate excluding immediate after starting treatment and before finishing discharge.
Background for comment 4: Suitable occasion for the monitoring.
Sampling used for monitoring for efficacy performance should be done at available maximum
treatment capacity because degradation over time of treatment performance will appear at this
running condition firstly. Moreover this timing is more practical for ship crews to focus on this
work. Ship crews are busy at transition of ship condition including around starting and finishing.
From the view point of annual monitoring of treatment performance and practical method for
ship crews, it is suitable timing to monitor during stable condition, i.e. discharging water at full
capacity.
Comment 5: Dilution of discharging ballast water. (Table 5/§2.2.3.5.1.1.5.1/P32)
Eductor by using the water from discharging port should be permitted for the ballast water.
Background for comment 5: Eductor as conventional device for stripping.
Eductor is most usable for stripping operation during discharging of ballast water. However
eductor dilute sample ballast water by driving water from discharging port. The usage of Eductor
should be permitted because this system is economically practicable.
SEE FIGURE IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
Response: Contrary to the commenter's apparent understanding, the permit does not specify
that sampling be done only at available maximum treatment capacity. As required in the 40
CFR Part 122.41(j)(l), samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring must be
representative of the monitored activity. EPA notes that the limits are expressed as
instantaneous maximums; hence, any sampled discharge must be below the discharge
concentration limit. To assure that samples reflect actual discharge concentrations, effluent
775
-------
samples for biological indicators (i.e., E. coli, enterococci, total heterotrophic bacteria), residual
biocides and biocide derivatives need to be collected during an actual ballast water discharge.
The sample flow rate should be appropriately controlled to maintain an even distribution of
sample collection over the entire ballast water discharge period, and the sample should be
collected at a location where the discharging ballast water is representative of the entire ballast
water stream.
EPA acknowledges commenter's concern regarding the use of eductors to discharge ballast
water and the fact that this technology dilutes the discharge by its action of using seawater to
create suction. When sampling ballast water discharges that are combined with eductor water,
EPA expects that results will be presented that acknowledge the addition of a dilution stream
from the eductor. For example, in submitting monitoring data to EPA, results should be
reported as analyzed by the lab but with notification (e.g., in the discharge location description)
with a best engineering estimate of the percentage of the sample attributable to eductor dilution
water).
Also, EPA notes that the commenter misinterprets the meaning of the MDLs in Table 5 of the
permit. The MDLs included in that table are provided for comparison with the effluent limits
and are not intended to be standards that must be achieved. Any approved test method,
consistent with Table 5 or 40 CFR Part 136, that is sufficiently sensitive to demonstrate
compliance with effluent limits may be used. There is no adverse effect to monitoring accuracy
by the modification from 10 micrograms to 20 micrograms because the purpose of this
monitoring is to prevent discharged ballast water from including active substances over
discharge standard.
With respect to additional sampling and analysis, please see the response essay in section 9.1.10
of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Richard Doherty, Representative, Pole Star Group
Commenter Affiliation: Pole Star Group
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0472
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Please find attached a short paper outlining the concept of ship-to-shore Ballast
Water Treatment System compliance monitoring, provided to stimulate discussion.
Such a system will provide transparency of BWTS operations to selected stakeholders through
remote monitoring of key equipment and sensor data.
Response: EPA has reviewed commenter's information regarding remote monitoring of ballast
water treatment systems; however, at this time, the Agency is not requiring the use of such
systems as part of the VGP. To the extent remote sensing techniques are consistent with
requirements of the VGP, vessels may use such systems to meet the terms of the permit.
776
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tom Perlich, President, Ecochlor, Inc.
Ecochlor, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0480-A1
1
No
Comment: Comments Regarding the Proposed 2013 VGP
2013 Draft VGP Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 - Effluent Biological Organism Monitoring
This part specifies that"... samples can be taken by collecting a small volume sample from the
ballast water discharge (consistent with the sampling guidance found in EPA's Generic Protocol
for the Verification of Ballast Water Treatment Technology)..." As the referenced protocol has
several areas with sampling guidance, some of which indicate a 3 cubic meter sample volume,
Ecochlor believes the proposed VGP would benefit from further clarification on the sample
volume being referred to. Since "... small volume sample..." is stated, Ecochlor presumes that
the EPA is referring to Table 9 of the protocol, which indicates a 1000 mL sample for bacteria.
However, clarification would be helpful.
Table 2 in the proposed 2013 VGP reflects that total heterotrophic bacteria will be used as
indicator organisms for compliance monitoring of ballast water discharge. Heterotrophic bacteria
are not included in the numeric discharge limitations (Part 2.2.3.5) and therefore should not be
utilized to monitor compliance. The VGP Fact Sheet indicates the EPA is including heterotrophic
bacteria monitoring to establish better information about bacterial community responses to
ballast water treatment. Information on this topic already exists and is available from a variety of
research facilities around the world, which can be located by an internet search of publicly
available documents. Additionally, the behavior of bacterial communities is well-known and
studied in other industrial effluents, many of which use treatment methods employed by ballast
water treatment technologies.
Response: To clarify, EPA agrees with commenter that Table 9 of EPA's Generic Protocol for
the Verification of Ballast Water Treatment Technology, EPA/600/R-10/146, September, 2010
(ETV Protocol), is the appropriate reference for sample sizes to collect for purposes of
analyzing and ascertaining compliance with the effluent limitations in land based testing. For
purposes of indicator pathogens, EPA agrees that the ETV protocol is an appropriate reference
for methods for shipboard testing. The ETV protocol recommends EPA method 1603 for E.
coli, a modified EPA method 1106.1 for enterococci. Part 5.4.6.7 of the ETV protocol also
describes an appropriate method for analyzing total heterotrophic bacteria. These methods
generally require one liter of water or less. However, the VGP does not require the actual
enumeration of organisms for the larger size classes of organisms (e.g., organisms greater than
50 micrometers and organisms between 10 and 50 micrometers). Hence, the large volumes of
water needing to be collected as recommended in the protocol (e.g., 3 cubic meters) are not
relevant for the purposes of sampling to meet the requirements of today's VGP.
With respect to heterotrophic bacteria monitoring, please see the response essay in section
9.1.10 of this comment response document.
111
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tom Perlich, President, Ecochlor, Inc.
Ecochlor, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0480-A1
4
No
Comment: 2013 Draft VGP Appendix J - Ballast Water Treatment System Sensors,
Measurement Requirements and Appropriate Equipment for Physical/Chemical Indicator
Monitoring
Ecochlor believes the second requirement under "Non Discharge Indicators of BWTS
Performance" and "Required Metrics to be Reported" for chlorine dioxide should read: -
Chlorine dioxide dosage and usage (if chlorine dioxide addition).
Comments Requested in the Proposed 2013 VGP Fact Sheet. Fact Sheet Part 4.4.3.5.1.1.3 -
Effluent Biological Organism Monitoring.
In the VGP Fact Sheet, EPA requested comment on the practicability of conducting monitoring
for living organisms as described in Regulation E-l of the IMO Convention. In Ecochlor's
opinion, the biological monitoring schedule should not be done as described in Regulation E-l
because the monitoring schedule outlined in Section 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 is more realistic to implement.
Due to the global nature of where vessels may have the surveys (initial, renewal, intermediate,
annual) outlined in Regulation E-l performed, access to conduct biological monitoring will
likely not be practical. The additional biological monitoring will also increase costs for the ship
owner/operator.
The proposed biological monitoring schedule is also adequate considering that the functionality
of the BWTS will be monitored at least once monthly. The functionality parameters will provide
a direct link to effective treatment by the BWTS, and also alert the crew to an issue with the
BWTS that may need to be addressed.
The EPA also specifically requests comment on whether the Agency should reduce the
monitoring frequency for vessels using a BWTS for which all type approval data, taken at a 3rd
party facility, have been made available but may not have been taken in accordance with ETV
protocol. Ecochlor strongly believes that the EPA should consider a reduced monitoring schedule
in such a case, if the data were collected with good scientific practices by a reputable
organization. Testing of a BWTS at a facility is a very costly endeavor - nearly $750,000 in
Ecochlor's experience. Funds are needed not just for the laboratories, tests and scientific teams,
but also for the BWTS itself, transportation (especially to a foreign country), engineers,
technicians, and the various environmental acceptability tests that are conducted in conjunction
with the biological efficacy studies.
Costs aside, technology developers should not be penalized for having developed a system
worthy of rigorous testing prior to the development of ETV testing protocols. The draft ETV
protocol was issued in March 2010, with the final ETV protocol issued in September 2010.
Ecochlor conducted land-based testing at the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
778
-------
(NIOZ) in 2008. The lack of a final ETV protocol, or any United States regulation that specified
precise testing protocols, should not cause the testing done at a world-renowned research facility
to be invalidated, or the technology to be penalized with more frequent monitoring requirements.
Response: EPA agrees with commenter that Appendix J requirements for chlorine dioxide
should read "if chlorine dioxide addition" rather than "if chlorine addition" and has modified
the appendix accordingly. With respect to reduced monitoring frequencies for type approved
systems, please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
EPA also notes that the commenter's reasons for agreeing with the VGP's required monitoring
frequency for biological organism indicators rather than for living organisms provide additional
support for the Agency's approach.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? No
Comment: Sections 2.2.3.5.1.1.1 through 2.2.3.5.1.1.3 at pages 27 - 33 contain requirements for
system functionality monitoring, equipment calibration, effluent biological organism monitoring
effluent monitoring for systems utilizing active substances. CSA believes that these monitoring
requirements are overly excessive and unnecessary given the type certification and post-
installation processes that BWTS must undergo before being approved to be installed aboard
vessels. In addition, this information has been produced as part of the treatment system
manufacturers' type approval packages and is further assessed during post-installation testing.
Also, based on our knowledge of ballast water treatment systems, manufacturers are building in
automatic and frequent functionality monitoring and calibration functions which provide alarm
capability to indicate if or when the BWTS is not operating properly. Given these automated
functions, rather than provide the current detail e.g. monthly functionality monitoring, annual (or
more frequent) calibration checks, we believe these sections should simply require the vessel to
operate and maintain the BWTS in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions. Using this
more general approach will address the wide variety of BWTS expected to be used and, as EPA
suggests relative to sensor calibration, will cover the expected wide range of monitoring
requirements specific to a particular BWTS. As regards effluent monitoring (biological and
residual biocide/derivative), it must be emphasized that we are talking about systems in use on a
ship with little or no access to analytical laboratories and the necessary expertise to analyze
samples consistent with the very detailed procedures contained here. Further, the expected delay
between sample collection and analytical analysis suggests that even if analytical laboratories are
accessible, results from the analysis are likely to be skewed and inaccurate e.g. false negatives,
false positives due to the time delay between sample collection and analysis. Because these
analytical processes have been done at the type approval and post-installation stages, CSA
recommends referral to the manufacturers' operating and maintenance instructions which would
include system shut-down in the event of malfunctions of any type. In other words, it should be
779
-------
assumed that the system is operating as assessed during the type approval and post-installation
stages unless an alarm is triggered. In this case, the vessel owner would be required to take
corrective action to return the BWTS to good working order which could include the need to
conduct analysis of samples.
EPA specifically requests comment on the practicability of conducting monitoring of living
organisms in ballast water during the initial, and subsequent regularly scheduled annual,
intermediate, and renewal surveys as described in regulation E-1 of the IMO convention and
whether this more robust monitoring should be required in addition to, or in lieu of, the
biological monitoring in the proposed VGP. Following along from the points made in the above
bullet, we would strongly recommend that this monitoring be done during the regularly
scheduled surveys in lieu of the biological monitoring in the proposed VGP.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: C. EPA's obligations to require monitoring and reporting.
CWA § 402 requires "conditions on data and information collection, reporting, and such other
requirements as [EPA] deems appropriate." EPA regulations expand on this, requiring permits to
contain monitoring requirements, specifying that their purpose is "[t]o assure compliance with
permit limitations."51 In addition, permits must contain requirements to report monitoring
results."52
In other words, permits must contain conditions requiring both monitoring and reports of
monitoring results showing whether discharges comply with effluent limitations. Such conditions
are necessary to verify compliance with water quality standards,53 and to facilitate enforcement if
compliance is lacking.54
The critical role of enforcement in effectuating the purposes of the Clean Water Act is reflected
in Congress's enactment and successive amendments of the law.55 Beginning with the 1972
amendments, Congress strengthened the enforcement authority of the federal government and
enabled private citizens to bring an action in federal court against anyone violating effluent
limitations.56
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1, excerpt
number 14 and the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
780
-------
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Late Comment? No
Comment: VII. EPA must improve the VGP's monitoring and reporting requirements to make
compliance with the permit enforceable by the agency and citizens.
"[T]o assure compliance with permit limitations," an EPA regulation specifies that each NPDES
permit "shall include... when applicable... requirements to monitor... [t]he mass (or other
measurement specified in the permit) for each pollutant limited in the permit."131 EPA has
erroneously relied on the "when applicable" language in this regulation to justify monitoring
only of ballast water treatment system functionality and compliance with the numeric limitations
on two biological "indicator" organisms, rather than compliance with the numeric limitations on
organisms in ballast water discharges.132 EPA claims that practical constraints on monitoring
living organisms in ballast water discharges, by mass or any other measure, makes such
monitoring inapplicable.133
EPA's interpretation of the "when applicable" language is not reasonable, nor is it consistent
with the requirement that NPDES permits "assure compliance" with effluent limitations.134 The
natural reading of the "when applicable" language is that monitoring is required when a permit
specifies a measurement for a pollutant limited in the permit. Only when a permit does not
specify any measurement for a pollutant would a monitoring requirement be inapplicable. For
example, a narrative limit on a pollutant is not one capable of measurement.
The "when applicable" language does not relieve EPA of the responsibility to require monitoring
because of practical constraints. Such an interpretation renders the inclusion of numeric limits on
ballast water discharges meaningless because it makes enforcement of those limits impossible.
Even if monitoring the functionality of a treatment system is a legally acceptable alternative to
monitoring the discharge directly, EPA appears to assume that the draft VGP's requirement that
ballast water treatment systems be operated "in accordance with all manufacturer's
specifications"135 is sufficient to ensure that a vessel will use its treatment system on each and
every discharge of ballast water. EPA has failed to demonstrate or find, however, that once a
treatment system is installed and approved, that proof that it is functioning means that it is in fact
being used. If EPA makes such a demonstration and finding, it should expressly require that the
treatment system be engineered to ensure that it is automatically engaged whenever ballast water
is discharged and that it cannot be disconnected. This is essential if EPA is going to rely on
monitoring the functionality of the system, instead of monitoring the ballast water itself, to
assure compliance with the effluent limitations.
Assuming for the sake of argument that monitoring functionality and fewer than all categories of
organisms were legally permissible, EPA has given no reason for not requiring operators to
report the results of monitoring more frequently than once a year.136 Operators are required to
781
-------
monitor system functionality at least once per month,137 and "[m]any ballast water treatment
system manufacturers require that the BWTS monitoring and recordkeeping are operated
continuously to assure the system is functioning as designed."138 Requiring operators to report
the results of monitoring at least once per month therefore does not impose an unreasonable
burden in light of the consequences of noncompliance. Such a requirement also facilitates
enforcement, allowing EPA and citizens to take timely action to stop operators who fail to
comply with permit requirements.
In addition, the permit should require reporting within twenty-four hours of any incident of a
discharge or uptake of ballast water contrary to the terms of the permit. Such a requirement is
preferable to the proposed requirement - that the operator report within twenty-four hours any
noncompliance that may endanger health or the environment - because it is more definite, giving
less leeway for operator interpretation.139 Of course, this requirement would unfortunately be of
little value unless EPA imposes a practically enforceable WQBEL, rather than the meaningless
one it has proposed.
Finally, there are other limitations in the VGP monitoring requirements. For example,
monitoring is required for total heterotrophic bacteria, in order to "establish better information
about how bacterial communities respond to ballast water treatment,"140 yet there is no discharge
standard for this organism group, leading to potential for discharge while still being in
compliance. For the two parameters for which monitoring is required (E. coli and enterococci
bacteria), monitoring is required only two or four times per year (depending on vessel category
with respect to type-approved devices). This type of schedule may allow for abuse (e.g.,
avoidance of monitoring following ballasting in harbors known or thought to be particularly
contaminated with pathogens). And in this type of scenario, a larger concern in any case would
be the presence of pathogenic organisms, rather than the indicator organisms which are the focus
of the monitoring requirements, thus raising further questions on the effectiveness of the VGP in
protecting against discharge of harmful disease-causing organisms.
133
VGP Fact Sheet at 83 n.18 ("[L]iving organism monitoring of vessel ballast water discharges, by mass or any
other measure, is not required in this permit due to practical constraints on the ability to collect and analyzed the
volumes of ballast water necessary to directly detect and quantify such organisms at the levels of concern. Such
requirements, therefore, are not "applicable" to this situation and are not included in today's permit.").
131 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i)(l)(i).
132 See VGP §§ 2.2.3.5.1.1.2, 2.2.3.5.1.1.4.
133
VGP Fact Sheet at 83 n.18 ("[L]iving organism monitoring of vessel ballast water discharges, by mass or any
other measure, is not required in this permit due to practical constraints on the ability to collect and analyzed the
volumes of ballast water necessary to directly detect and quantify such organisms at the levels of concern. Such
requirements, therefore, are not "applicable" to this situation and are not included in today's permit.").
134 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(2).
135 VGP §2.2.3.5.1.1.
136 See VGP §4.4.1.
137 VGP §2.2.3.5.1.1.2.
138 Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 85.
139 See VGP § 4.4.4.
140 Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 87.
782
-------
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that while the permit requires installation of a
BWTS, it does not require that those systems actually be used. Specifically, Part 2.2.3.5.1.1 of
the draft, and now final, permit specifies that, unless one of the other management measures
contained within Part 2.2.3.5 is used, the BWTS "must be used prior to any discharge of ballast
water to waters of the U.S". To provide further clarity, EPA added additional language to this
section specifying when the system must be used - "either at uptake, in tank, or during
discharge according to the treatment system manufacturer's instructions." The commenter also
suggests that the permit should expressly require that the treatment system be engineered to
ensure that it is automatically engaged whenever ballast water is discharged and that it cannot
be disconnected. EPA believes such additional requirements are unnecessary, as the permit
language as written is adequate to clearly establish a requirement to treat prior to discharge. The
NPDES program provides very strong incentives for compliance by, among other provisions
associated with CWA enforcement, requiring a signed certification on reports submitted by the
vessel owner/operator or by an authorized representative with significant penalties available for
submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations.
EPA also disagrees with commenter that the permit should require reporting within twenty-four
hours of any discharge noncompliance rather than the proposed requirement for any
noncompliance that may endanger health or the environment. The final permit is consistent with
NPDES regulations which provide for 24-hour reporting of noncompliance that may endanger
health or the environment. EPA points out that Part 1.13 of the final permit does require,
through reference to 40 CFR 122.41, that all other instances of noncompliance not otherwise
reported be reported at the time monitoring reports are submitted (40 CFR 122.41(0(7).
EPA disagrees with commenter that the lack of monitoring requirements for living organisms
makes inclusion of those numeric limits meaningless because it makes enforcement of those
limits impossible. For one, EPA and the Coast Guard have the ability to directly monitoring for
violation of the limits and may board a ship for purposes of monitoring the discharge. An
exceedance of those numeric limits is a violation subject to enforcement. Second, as described
above, because of the challenges associated with monitoring for these organisms on-board an
operating vessel, EPA developed a multi-tiered approach to assess BWTS performance. Thus,
for example, an exceedance of the enterococci effluent limitation would be an enforceable
violation of the permit and an indicator that the BWTS is inadequately treating for organisms.
Please also see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Anonymous Public Comment
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: The extent of the proposed sampling, monitoring and recordkeeping requirements
are overly burdensome for such vessels that do not undergo voyages to foreign ports or waters
783
-------
containing many of the invasive species of concern. Access to certified laboratories in remote
areas of Alaska would also present a challenge and extensive training would be required.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: John Berge, Vice President, Pacific Merchant Shipping
Association (PMSA)
Commenter Affiliation: Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0508-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: d) Monitoring Requirements for Ballast Water Treatment Systems.
The proposed VGP delineates monitoring requirements for biological indicators and residual
biocides (or their derivatives) based on the "quality" of their approval data, with less frequent
monitoring requirements for systems that have been approved by the United States or a foreign
flag state that employed independent third party testing using ETV protocols. More frequent
monitoring is required for systems not qualifying under these criteria. This provision appears to
be redundant and confusing; since the VGP requires certification of systems using ETV
protocols performed using an independent laboratory. Likewise, the pending USCG rule will also
require similar, more stringent criteria be met for certification of systems. Thus any systems
passing muster under either the EPA VGP or USCG rule will by definition be meeting the
standard based on "high quality type approval data."
The requirement for numerical analysis of at least two samples per year is excessive, considering
the rigorous testing and certification requirements for qualifying treatment systems, coupled with
the monthly system testing and calibration that will also be required. From our discussions with
system developers, independent testing laboratories and regulatory agencies, the consensus is
that systems will either work as certified, or they will be obviously faulty; a condition that will
be evident based on system sensors and self-diagnosis. The monthly calibration and system
testing required by the VGP, not to mention the regular crew oversight as the system is
employed, will certainly demonstrate whether a system is operating to its certified standard.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Commenter Affiliation: Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
784
-------
Comment: 5. Monitoring Requirements.
Canada does not object to the EPA's suggestion that installed BWMS receive regular monitoring
to ensure that installed BWMS are operated correctly and continue to work reliably. Canada
objects, however, to a monitoring schedule that depends on the data in type approval dossiers;
such an approach confuses the concepts of suitability and serviceability that underlie type
approval and monitoring processes, respectively. As even the most robustly type-tested system
can be defective or experience a failure, type approvals are not relevant to monitoring.
Canada recommends a single monitoring schedule for all systems, which should take into
account the environments (e.g. salinities, temperatures) in which a vessel operates to ensure the
continued performance of BWMS in these various conditions. Furthermore, Canada agrees with
the principle outlined in. the fact sheet that BWMS not be operated while any sensor or control
indicates that the system will not function; although many systems are designed to shut off
automatically in such circumstances, for clarity Canada suggests that this requirement be made
explicit in the permit.
Response: EPA agrees with commenter about not discharging when a system is not
functioning properly and has clarified in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.3 of the permit, consistent with Part
4.4.3.5.1.1.1 of the fact sheet that when alarms are initiated or when sensors indicate the ballast
water treatment system is not functioning properly, the vessel must not discharge ballast water.
Ballast water discharge can resume only after correcting the problems with the system and
reestablishing stable operating conditions. Please also see the response essay in section 9.1.10
of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Director, Environment &
Sustainability, Maersk Line North America Liner
Operations
Maersk Line
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0513-A1
9
No
Comment: 5. The extensive monitoring, testing & calibration protocols required onboard
exceed the needs and add cost, complexity and workload. Such testing should not be required of
systems which are already type approved to fail safe. In addition, the significantly increased
demands on the crew and costs more than offset the many other improvements in the proposed
VGP. Typical commercial vessels carry crews ranging from 15 to 25, ranging from Master to
Stewards. Crew capabilities to take on additional functions are limited in a working day that
involves maneuvering stations, ballasting and maintenance.
We suggest that monitoring and testing be streamlined significantly to include only those points
that are essential to ensure environmental protection and proper operation of equipment. Such
streamlining can also encourage investment in systems which include automated or continuous
monitoring. Clarification of monitoring requirements such as those in 2.2.3.5.1.1.3 would also
reduce complexity and risk of errors.
785
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
In addition, the Agency did not "clarify" the monitoring requirements because the commenter
did not provide any detail as to what needed clarifying.
Comment: Ballast Discharge Monitoring
Under the NPDES program, discharge monitoring is performed to determine compliance with
effluent limitations established in permits, assess treatment efficiency, and characterize effluents.
MPCA and MDNR are concerned that the ballast discharge monitoring proposed in the draft
VGP2 does not fulfill the requirements of 40 CFR § 122.44 (i) which requires monitoring to
assure compliance with permit limitations at a minimum frequency of once per year. In the
narrative WQBEL, the VGP2 states "EPA generally expects that compliance with the other
conditions in this permit, including Parts 2.1, 2.2, and 5, will control discharges as necessary to
meet applicable water quality standards. If at any time you become aware, or EPA determines,
that your discharge causes or contributes to an exceedance of applicable water quality
standards, you must take corrective actions..." The narrative WQBEL in the VGP2 applies to all
vessels, regardless of requirements for treatment system installation. MPCA and MDNR believe
that the proposed visual inspections of ballast discharges for all vessels, and limited ballast
discharge monitoring requirements imposed only on vessels that have installed treatment systems
will not enable vessel owners, EPA, or the States to determine "that your discharge causes or
contributes to an exceedance of applicable water quality standards. "
Under 40 CFR § 131 Minnesota developed (as did most states) narrative water quality standards
relevant to AIS introductions via ballast discharges. Our standards prohibit increases in
undesirable slime growths or aquatic plants. The standards also require that the species
composition of the normal fishery and lower aquatic biota upon which it is dependent not be
altered materially, and propagation or migration of the fish and other biota normally present shall
not be prevented or hindered by discharges. The range of organism size classes established under
IMO D-2 address the array of potential invasive species threats typically posed by ballast
discharges. Monitoring of all IMO D-2 size classes (with a possible focus on the presence of
non-native or otherwise harmful organisms) is critical to the determination of whether the
discharges authorized under the VGP2 could cause or contribute to exceedances of applicable
water quality standards. Additionally, as scientific research relevant to protective discharge
standards proceeds, (please see http://www.ashlandcurrent.com/article/12/02/09/superior-
researchers-studying-invasives-ballast-water), ballast discharge data will provide the opportunity
for immediate interpretation and, if necessary, corrective actions.
According to the Great Ships Initiative report, "A Ballast Discharge Monitoring System for
Great Lakes Relevant Ships: A Guidebook for Researchers, Ship Owners, and Agency
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0521-A2
3
No
Kate Frantz, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
786
-------
Officials," monitoring equipment to obtain representative samples now exists, is cost-effective
and can be applied to most ships that transit the Great Lakes. Please see
http://www.nemw.org/GSI/BallastDischargeMonitoringGuidebook.pdf. At a minimum, EPA
should require the installation of sampling ports to obtain representative ballast discharge
samples, and the analysis of ballast discharges, for all vessels covered by the permit (regardless
of treatment system installation). The VGP2 should require analysis of all size classes of
organisms so that the effectiveness of the permit requirements are monitored in accordance with
40 CFR § 122.44 (i).
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
16
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.1.1.2: Ballast Water System Functionality Monitoring
It is our understanding that the manufacturers of ballast water treatment system already include
automatic and frequent functionality monitoring and calibration requirements, along with an
alarm system which would serve to indicate when the system is not operating properly. We
would therefore recommend that rather than creating additional new requirements, the EPA
stipulate that ballast water treatment systems be assessed in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions and in conformity with Regulation E-l of the Ballast Water Convention.
2.2.3.5.1.1.3: Ballast Water Monitoring Equipment Calibration
We reiterate our comments made under part 2.2.3.5.1.1.2 that calibration should be undertaken
according to the manufacturer's specifications and instructions and in conformity with
Regulation E-l of the Ballast Water Convention.
2.2.3.5.1.1.4: Effluent Biological Organism Monitoring
Since ballast water treatment systems will be monitored for their functionality and equipment
will be calibrated on a regular basis, it is a given that biological indicators are compliant;
therefore, it is redundant to monitor these indicators 2-4 times a year.
As well, there are currently no ballast water treatments systems that have been type-approved by
the U.S. federal government, nor have any of the systems that have been type approved by a
foreign administration undergone the EPA-ETV protocol. This effectively means that there are
no systems that have "high quality type approval data" as per the EPA VGP. In view of the
foregoing, we question the usefulness of the inclusion of unattainable standards in the permit,
unless the EPA can guarantee that 1) the ETV protocol shipboard testing guidelines will be
published before the VGP is finalized and 2) systems that have been type approved by a foreign
administration can undergo testing under the ETV protocol before the VGP implementation date
of December 13, 2013.
787
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
Comment: P. 27. Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.2 Ballast Water System Functionality Monitoring
EPA here discusses the use of monitoring sensors to determine the functionality of the ballast
water treatment systems. Real -time sensor monitoring is more commonly used to inform the
operator of system demands and to trigger fine-tuning of the system as it performs. Such
monitoring equipment is often continuous and will reflect intermittent fluctuations in parameter
values which may or may not indicate a compromise of the effluent quality. It is often a
combination of parameters which must be evaluated using the best professional judgment of the
operator to determine whether the system is functioning properly.
More significantly, this represents a departure in EPA's approach to monitoring effluent quality.
Historically, for example with respect to gray water, EPA and other regulators have relied on the
effluent monitoring results obtained from end-of-pipe analytical sampling to verify effluent
quality. We believe that approach is appropriate in this instance as well and that the
"functionality monitoring parameters" approach under this part attempt to regulate the effluent
too far "upstream" and may improperly trigger a shutdown of treatment equipment (with
subsequent discharge outside permit waters) or disrupt otherwise safe ballasting operations.
Continuing this thought, requiring submittal of this data in the annual reports is similarly
inappropriate and not warranted. Neither EPA nor state agencies should be micro- managing the
operation of the ballast water treatment equipment on the basis of real-time and fluctuating
operational sensors. We recommend the following language:
Ballast water treatment systems use physical and/or chemical processes, or a combination
thereof, to achieve reductions in living organisms. The use of physical/chemical indicators of
treatment performance verifies that the ballast water treatment system is operating
according to manufacturers' operating specifications. To assess the BWTSfunctionality,
monitoring indicators of the BWTS functionality is required for specific parameters that are
applicable to your system. The required parameters to be monitored must be checked and
recorded at least monthly. Corrective actions taken to return the system to operations within
the appropriate limits for these parameters must be documented. The required parameters to
be monitored with the appropriate monitoring approaches are contained in Appendix J.
The requirement to submit this data in the annual report should be deleted from annual reporting
requirements and the Supplemental Addendum for Ballast Water Treatment in the Annual
reporting form in Appendix H.
Commenter Name:
Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
10
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
788
-------
P. 28. Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.3 Ballast Water Monitoring Equipment Calibration
The statement "During the period when the sensors are not installed (or otherwise inoperable
thus significantly compromising the performance of the ballast water treatment system), the
vessel must not discharge ballast water" overstates the issue. Failure of a monitoring sensor does
not necessarily indicate that the treatment system has been compromised. While certainly it is
incumbent on the vessel to promptly replace or repair the sensor, continued operation of the
system over the short term ought not to be precluded if all indications are that the system is
otherwise functioning properly. We recommend the following language.
At any time that monitoring sensors are not installed or are otherwise inoperable, the vessel
must confirm that the system is operating in a manner that does not compromise the
performance of the ballast water treatment system before discharging ballast water. This
verification must be documented and maintained in accordance with requirements of Section
4 of this permit. Repair or replacement of operating sensors must be prompt and in
accordance with corrective action timetables in Section 3 of this permit. Discharges
necessary to secure the safety of the vessel, its passengers or its crew are not restricted by
this permit condition.
P. 28. Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 Effluent Biological Organism Monitoring
This section describes monitoring requirements for discharges of ballast water from a vessel for
which ballast water treatment is required. There are several issues with this scheme for ballast
water sampling that require re-thinking:
1. Historically, effluent sampling to demonstrate compliance must be done while the vessel is
actually discharging (for example, gray water under the VGP, and black water under the
Alaska Cruise Ship Permit). Ballast water discharges from cruise ships in permit waters are
actually fairly infrequent depending on the ship, itinerary or weather. Often times a ship will
exchange its water during re-positioning from one region to another and then not discharge
much if at all after the repositioning. It is not rare for a cruise ship to go several months or all
season without discharging ballast water in permit waters. How would analytical results for
samples drawn while not discharging be used in enforcement? Operators would be
challenged to meet sample hold-time requirements for samples drawn while discharging
underway prior to entering port - particularly for bacteria monitoring.
2. Use of E. coli and Enterococci as indicator organisms for monitoring of ballast water
treatment effectiveness is problematic. E. coli and enterococci are commonly found in
untreated grey water (discharged outside permit waters). Grey water tanks may share
common ancillary equipment (pipes, pumps, valves, etc.) or usage may switch between grey
water and ballast water depending on the operational needs of the vessel.2 Residual bacteria
may remain in the conveyance systems with the potential to lead to a false indication of
inadequate ballast water treatment. This would be all the more inappropriate given that E.
coli and Enterococci are not invasive species but rather indicator organisms selected by
virtue of their bacterial size range and the convenience of the analytical methods used to
detect them.
789
-------
3. The requirement that monitoring sampling be conducted two to four times annually with at
least 14 days between sampling events is problematic for ships which may spend less time in
US waters in a given year, or may not call frequently in ports in which adequate analytical
services are available (e.g. certain Caribbean or South Pacific Territories). Just as the ballast
water effluent monitoring schedule is problematic for ships that may only spend a few days
in permit waters, so too is the requirement for monitoring residual biocides (section
2.2.3.5.1.1.5.2). The two monitoring programs should be aligned. In practice, virtually all
treatment systems will be type-approved (IMO requirements are imminent, and the market
will reject technology that is not IMO approved). Type approval will generate additional data
regarding residual biocides for a given system. We recommend the following language:
Biological indicator compliance monitoring sampling of ballast water effluent must be
conducted per the table below provided adequate laboratory services are available in the
ports to which the vessel calls during a calendar year.
SEE ORIGINAL COMMENT FOR TABLE
Each sample must be tested independently and the individual results for both ballast water
effluent and residual biocide monitoring must be reported and not averaged. Monitoring
must be conducted at least 14 days apart where feasible.
If a vessel's annual itinerary does not accommodate sampling and analysis per this schedule
due to itinerary or due to the lack of acceptable analytical services, or infrequency in US
ports, this must be reported in the Annual Report submitted as per Section 4.
2
Untreated gray water is of course not discharged in permit waters and tanks are decontaminated with chlorination
(outside permit waters) when the usage changes from gray water to ballast water.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
In response to commenter's question about how enforcement will use analytical results for
samples drawn while not discharging, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0530-A2, excerpt 29.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
17
No
Comment: Holding Time Requirement for Samples. Are there specific temperature
requirements as well?
Response: The VGP requires samples to be collected and analyzed consistent with 40 CFR
Part 136 methods or other methods specifically identified in the VGP. Many of these methods
790
-------
do contain sample preservation techniques that include temperature requirements as well as
maximum sample holding times acceptable prior to analysis.
Comment: E. Comments on Ballast Water System and Effluent Monitoring Requirements.
The draft VGP proposes regular monitoring of: 1) ballast water treatment system functionality,
2) monitoring equipment (i.e. sensor) calibration, 3) the presence of biological indicators in the
treated effluent, and 4) the presence of residual biocides or derivatives in the treated effluent (for
systems that use active substances/biocides in the treatment of the water).
We note that the draft VGP would require that biological indicator monitoring and residual
biocide and derivative monitoring be done less frequently for vessels with systems that were type
approved using "high quality type approval data" and more frequently for vessels with systems
that were not type approved or were type approved using type approval data that was not "high
quality". The draft VGP defines type approved systems for which "high quality type approval
data" are available as follows: i) systems type approved by the United States, or ii) systems type
approved by a foreign administration for which testing was conducted by an independent third
party testing organization consistent with the ETV protocol quality control provisions and for
which all type approval data have been made available to EPA.
As mentioned in section 1. D. of our comments above, the draft VGP would require systems to
meet the treatment standard based on ETV testing performed by an independent laboratory and
to comply with the testing and approval requirements contained in the USCG 6 Final Rule. The
USCG Final Rule is expected to require that systems obtain USCG Type Approval or a USCG
issued-equivalency to Type Approval. Because systems would need to meet EPA and USCG
testing and approval requirements, we see no need for the draft VGP to differentiate between
systems that have "high quality type approval data" and those that do not. As a practical matter,
all systems will need to have "high quality type approval data" to meet these testing and approval
standards.
Furthermore, collecting and analyzing two or more samples per year would seem to be excessive
given that systems will already be subject to rigorous EPA and USCG testing and approval
requirements followed by monthly system functionality testing and routine sensor calibration.
While it may be reasonable to subject vessels equipped with systems using active substances to
some additional sampling and monitoring requirements, the proposed requirement to sample for
16 constituents at least two times per year seems excessive, particularly since the ETV protocol
(and IMO G9 protocol for active substances) contain provisions that should prevent systems
from passing the protocols if they generate effluent containing dangerous residual biocides.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Douglas B. Schneider, World Shipping Council (WSC)
World Shipping Council (WSC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1
5
No
791
-------
Finally, we note that the draft VGP (page 28, Section 2.2.3.5.2.2.3) would prohibit the discharge
of ballast water from vessels equipped with ballast water treatment systems while the ballast
water monitoring sensors are not installed or are otherwise inoperable because they are being
calibrated. As mentioned in the draft, ballast water treatment systems will be equipped with
numerous on-board sensors that may require calibration at different intervals. Some of these
sensors simply document the performance of the system and others directly affect the operation
of the system. The proposed requirement would, however, prohibit ballast water discharges
while any of the sensors are not installed or are inoperable due to calibration regardless of
whether treatment system performance is affected. We recommend that EPA revise Section
2.2.3.5.2.2.3 to state that vessels should avoid, to the extent feasible, the discharge of ballast
water when ballast water monitoring sensors that affect the operation of the system are not
installed or are otherwise inoperable while being calibrated. To the extent that a vessel must
discharge ballast water when sensors that affect the operation of the system are not installed or
are otherwise inoperable while being calibrated, the vessel could be required to document the
action in the vessel's records and report it in the annual report.
In response to the comment that it is excessive to require sampling for 16 constituents at least
two times per year for systems using active substances, the Agency points out that the 16
constituents represent the full range of parameters dependant on the type of biocide used. For any
given biocide, the permit only requires from one to six of those parameters to be monitored. For
example, for systems that use alkylamines as a biocide, the permit requires monitoring for
alkylamines only while for systems that use chlorine or chlorine dioxide, the permit requires
monitoring for six different analytes (chlorine dioxide, TRO, chlorite, chlorate, total
trihalomethanes, and haloacetic acids). Similar to monitoring for biological indicators, the
Agency believes nominal monitoring is required to ensure continued operation of these treatment
systems.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A2
8
No
Comment: 6. Monitoring of live organisms in ballast water discharge - Michigan supports the
requirements in the draft VGP2 that demand ballast water system functionality monitoring and
ballast water monitoring equipment calibration monitoring by vessels employing ballast water
treatment systems. Michigan also supports the ballast water discharge monitoring requirements
in the draft VGP2 for total heterotrophic bacteria, E. coli and Enterocci. However, Michigan
recommends Section 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 of the draft VGP2 be expanded to require oceangoing vessels
employing ballast water treatment systems to monitor their ballast water discharges at least once
annually for live organisms in the >10 - <50 um and >50 um size categories. The addition of this
monitoring requirement will fulfill the requirement of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
792
-------
Regulations, Section 122.44 (i), which requires monitoring to assure compliance with permit
limitations at a minimum frequency of once per year. Such live organism monitoring should be
performed by reputable personnel according to standard sampling and analytical methods
specified by the USEPA. These live organism compliance monitoring data are needed to: (1)
determine whether the ballast water discharges authorized under the VGP2 could cause or
contribute to exceedances of applicable water quality standards, (2) verify the efficacy of the
vessel's ballast water treatment system, and (3) assist the USEPA's development of subsequent
VGPs. Reputable environmental consulting firms will quickly develop the expertise and
equipment capabilities needed to effectively and economically monitor ballast water discharges
for live organisms, if this monitoring requirement is included in the draft VGP2.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A4
2
No
Comment: 3. On or before (2 years after permit issuance), owners/operators shall monitor their
ballast water discharges for live organisms in the >10 - <50 um and >50 um size categories at
least once each year, and submit a report summarizing the discharge monitoring results collected
for the above live organism size categories to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) no later than December 31 of each year.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Michael Lund, Chief Maritime Politics and Economics,
The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Commenter Affiliation: The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0548-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: Regarding matters related to access to sampling of discharge water for analysis or
other in-depth examination this should in BIMCO's view be restricted to situations where clear
grounds have been established. Sampling and testing of ballast water should be carried out in
accordance with the associated guidelines developed by IMO in particular and should not cause
undue delay to the ship.
Sampling/testing measures and procedures implemented by port states should be based on proper
risk assessment regarding the ship's ballast water condition at the intake location taking into
consideration the local water condition and possible effects of discharging the ballast water. Such
793
-------
a measure will prevent unnecessary sampling and testing. Any sampling/testing measures and
procedures should aim at ensuring the lowest possible cost for the affected ships/owners. Costs
in connection with sampling and testing, including for delays or other loss to the ship, without
clear grounds warranting for an expanded inspection as described in the Convention should be
borne by the inspection party (Port State or National Administration).
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
League's Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
14
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.1.1.1. 2.2.3.5.1.1.2 Monitoring:
It appears that a biocide registered as a pesticide will require additional registration and
associated costs. It does not make sense to require chemical companies to incur the financial
barrier to register a product two times if the ballast treatment system can neutralize the biocide to
meet industrial and drinking water discharge standards. Multiple registration requirements will
result in delays and barriers to timely implementation of ballast water treatment.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter's assertion that all biocides would have to obtain
additional registration and associated costs to be used for ballast water treatment. Any pesticide
must be used consistent with Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
requirements. Consistent with FIFRA, before a company can sell or distribute any pesticide in
the United States, it must be licensed/registered for use in strict accordance with label
directions. In this licensing/registration process, pesticide use patterns are identified for which
the pesticide is registered. EPA expects any pesticide purchased and used for ballast water
treatment would be registered for such use: some biocides used might require additional
registration if previous registrations did not envision their use as biocides for controlling ANS
in ballast water.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
League's Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
16
No
794
-------
Comment: 2.2.3.5.1.1.1 Monitoring from Vessels using Ballast Water Treatment Systems:
Fully functional treatment system equipment, selected biological indicator compliance and
discharge compliance for biocides and residuals with effluent limitations monitoring at present is
voluntary. Beyond self-monitoring, taxpayers want assurance that there is double checking of the
review of records and that ship board compliance checks are implemented. Where enforcement is
done as well as when and who is doing it doesn't appear well defined. Some suggestions for
improving this section include ensuring EPA has the personnel capacity in place for monitoring
and implementing a permit fee to pay for independent monitoring. Attaching a fee for permitting
would help defray the cost of funding implementation compliance. Also, penalties for non-
compliance do not appear to be listed. They should be to provide incentive to be in compliance.
Monitoring of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for compliance needs a comprehensive
approach that is both effective and funded.
2.2.3.5.1.1.4 Biological Monitoring of (treated) Ballast Water:
The sampling of treated ballast water must include large volume samples to show the treatment
process is functional. Annual reporting based on two samplings is totally inadequate; monthly
sampling and semiannually reporting should be required.
Three indicator organisms should be used in addition to more sensitive DNA/RNA techniques
for the detection of living organisms. The California standards for these measurements and
evaluations should be used also.
Response: EPA does not have explicit authority under the Clean Water Act to collect permit
fees. Given the absence of broad explicit permit fee authority in the CWA, an amendment to the
Act would be required for EPA to collect permit fees. EPA has considered developing an
NPDES Fee Rule based on the authority provided by the Independent Office Appropriation Act,
however, EPA has not moved forward with this regulation based on Act's significant limitations
imposed on EPA authority to recover costs. Please also see the response essay in section 9.1.10
of this comment response document.
EPA disagrees with commenter that large volume samples are necessary for compliance
monitoring. Table 9 of EPA's Generic Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Water Treatment
Technology, EPA/600/R-10/146, September, 2010 (ETV Protocol), is the appropriate reference
for sample sizes to collect for purposes of analyzing and ascertaining compliance with the
effluent limitations in land based testing. For purposes of indicator pathogens, EPA agrees that
the ETV protocol is an appropriate reference for methods for shipboard testing. The ETV
protocol recommends EPA method 1603 for E. coli, a modified EPA method 1106.1 for
enterococci. Part 5.4.6.7 of the ETV protocol also describes an appropriate method for
analyzing total heterotrophic bacteria. These methods generally require 1 liter of water or less.
However, the VGP does not require the actual enumeration of organisms for the larger size
classes of organisms (e.g., organisms greater than 50 micrometers and organisms between 10
and 50 micrometers). Hence, the large volumes of water needing to be collected as
recommended in the protocol (e.g., 3 cubic meters) are not relevant for the purposes of
sampling to meet the requirements of today's VGP.
795
-------
Commenter Name:
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A2
13
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: 2.2.3.5.1.1.1 Monitoring From Vessels Using Ballast Water Treatment Systems AND
2.2.3.5.1.1.2 Ballast Water System Functionality Monitoring
We share the EPA's concerns regarding the reliable functioning of this relatively new technology
of ballast water treatment. The capital investment undertaken by CSL International will be in the
hundreds of millions of US dollars so we want to ensure the equipment we have purchased is
functioning properly and as it was designed to reduce the risk of introductions and spread of non-
indigenous invasive species. However, it is unclear to us that the monitoring equipment for the
parameters identified in Appendix J or in is presently available for shipboard installations,
particularly as it relates to the release of disinfection by-products and residual chemicals. Until it
can be demonstrated by the EPA that such technologies exist and have a very high degree of
statistical and scientific reliability, those monitoring requirements should be withdrawn from the
VGP 2013 and replaced with metrics which have been recommended by the BWMS
manufacturer. Moreover, the additional monitoring requirements for vessels employing systems
"for which high quality type approval data" are not available will serve as an impediment to early
installation of BWMS since there will be no BWMS meeting the definition of BWMS for which
high quality data exists for at least three years. The proposed monitoring is so onerous - if it
could be completed at all - that it will discourage owners who might be inclined to install a
BWMS for testing purposes to do so. Instead of discouraging early installation of equipment
EPA should be encouraging vessel owners who are attempting to identify BWMSs which may fit
their unique operating profile to install systems without being severely penalized.
2.2.3.5.1.1.3 Ballast Water Monitoring Equipment Calibration
Many shipboard systems have built-in redundancies so if the primary fails, a backup immediately
comes on line, resulting in no loss of performance of the system. Systems which employ back-
ups or redundancies are inherently safer than those which don't. However, 2.2.3.5.1.1.3 does not
recognize this safety factor. Therefore, we recommend inclusion of the following language:
... During the period when sensors which are critical to the safe operation of the system are
not installed...
2.2.3.5.1.1.4 Effluent Biological Organism Monitoring
The type of biological indicator compliance monitoring proposed in VGP 2013 will likely only
detect gross violations of the ballast water discharge standard. In other words, those situations in
which the BWMS is not operating in the manner in which it was designed. In these cases, the
required monthly monitoring would indicate a system malfunction far more expeditiously than a
semi-annual biological indicator compliance monitoring. Therefore, we question the value - and
expense - of requiring a test, the utility of which is dubious at best.
796
-------
2.2.3.5.1.1.5 Requirements and Effluent Limitations for BWTS that use Active Substances (e.g.,
biocides)
As stated previously in our comments regarding 2.2.3.5.1.1.1 and 2.2.3.5.1.1.2 we do not believe
monitoring equipment exists which can reliably conduct the evaluations the EPA is
recommending. Additionally, the onerous testing and monitoring requirements will discourage
vessel owners from installing BWMS in advance of type approval. Therefore, we recommend
these requirements be eliminated until such time as they can be proven to be reliable and cost-
effective.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent, V. Ships
Leisure
V. Ships Leisure
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2
5
No
Comment: Item No: 6.
VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: 2.2.3.5 Ballast Water numeric discharge limitations; VGP
2013 or Factsheet text: 2.2.3.5.1.1.2-3 Ballast water treatment systems monitoring - functional,
and calibration; incl. Appendix J "Ballast Water Treatment System Sensors, Measurement
Requirements and appropriate Equipment for Physical/Chemical Indicator Monitoring."
Comments: We are not certain of the rationale for this type of monitoring required to be
formalized in the VGP for Ballast Water treatment systems. Going down this path other systems
referred to in the VGP should have their monitoring formalized with their sensors, indicators
etc., i.e., OWS, AWWTS etc. We recommend for simplicity, and without being overly
prescriptive, having in mind that they are/will/may be various types of BWTS with
different sensors etc, to state that such systems are to be operated (including functionally
monitored and calibrated) as per the manufacturers guidance and manuals.
Suggestion or Proposed text: We suggest making a reference that Ballast Water Treatment
Systems are to be operated, functionally monitored and calibrated per manufacturers'
instructions and to consider the need of Appendix J
Response: The Agency disagrees with commenter that to be consistent, the VGP should
require other systems (i.e., OWS, AWWTS, etc) also have formal permit requirements for
sensors, indicators, etc. As described in the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment
response document, the Agency is requiring functional monitoring, calibration, biological
indicator monitoring, etc. to demonstrate effective control of living organisms (for which the
Agency does not have a practical means of requiring permittees to monitor to demonstrate
compliance with those limits). For other systems, the Agency actually established numeric
effluent limitations with monitoring requirements specific to those parameters, making the need
to formalize calibration, use of sensors, etc. unnecessary. Please also see the response essay in
797
-------
section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Ballast Water
VGP, Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.4: Effluent Biological Organism Monitoring requires a sample to be taken
quarterly or semi-annually and tested for compliance with effluent limitations. Due to intensive
cargo ops during short intervals while vessels at a dock, EPA specifically requests comment on
the practicability of conducting monitoring of living organisms in ballast water during the initial,
and subsequent regularly scheduled annual, intermediate, and renewal surveys as described in
Regulation E-1 of the IMO BWM Convention. EPA requests whether this more robust
monitoring should be required in addition to, or in lieu of, the biological monitoring proposed in
today's permit.
Comments: Recommend monitoring during surveys in lieu of VGP proposed biological
monitoring.
Robert C. North, President, North Star Maritime, Inc.
North Star Maritime, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0567-A2
2
No
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Holley Horrell, Mills Legal Clinic on behalf of Northwest
Environmental Advocates
Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? No
Comment: D. EPA must improve the VGP's monitoring and reporting requirements to make
compliance with the permit enforceable by the Agency and citizens.
As explained in NRDC/NWF's Comments, EPA's compliance monitoring requirements fail to
satisfy the letter of Clean Water Act and fail, as a practical matter, to assure compliance with the
permit's conditions. Here, we emphasize several points of concern.
First, requiring permittees to test for only two indicator organisms is inadequate to monitor the
overall efficacy of permittees' discharge treatment.74 Monitoring these two indicator organisms,
E. coli and enterococci bacteria, to the TBELs' specified concentration level targets will
accomplish little as a practical matter because these organisms are almost always present in
untreated ballast water discharges at concentrations below the Draft VGP's discharge limits. In
addition, measuring for these two species or groups of bacteria may indicate the presence of
certain human pathogens, because E. coli is a possible human pathogen, and enterococci bacteria
798
-------
indicate fecal contamination. But it will not indicate the overall abundance of living organisms in
the discharge. EPA has cited no authority to support a relationship between the measured
abundance of these two indicator microorganisms and the abundance of total bacteria or living
organisms in ballast discharges. If EPA cannot explain a rational basis for its conclusion that
these two "indicator organisms" will actually indicate the concentration of overall organisms in
ballast water discharge, then its decision to require monitoring of these "indicator organisms" is
arbitrary.
Second, although EPA requires permittees to monitor the total heterotrophic bacteria, it sets no
discharge standard, rendering this monitoring a pointless exercise.
Finally, the Draft VGP does not require permittees to monitor ballast water discharges as
frequently as necessary to assure compliance with the effluent limitations. EPA requires effluent
biological organism monitoring either twice or four times a year, depending on whether the
system is "a type approved device for which high quality type approval data are available."75
Requiring testing only twice or even four times a year, however, will in reality allow vessels to
document that they meet the effluent limits when and where they choose, and will not prove that
they actually meet the effluent limits on all voyages year-round. If vessels can pick the where
and when of testing, by "testing" in only clean waters that will already contain the two indicator
organisms in low levels, permittees will be able to manipulate the system. EPA is thus not
assuring compliance and so violates the Clean Water Act.76
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 25
Late Comment? No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.5.1.1.4. Effluent Biological Organism Monitoring:
It is our recommendation that EPA reconsider the administration of this type of testing onboard
ships. Based on the draft document, it is not clear how EPA or USCG intend crews to take or
process samples taken under this section.
Additionally, it is not clear that if this sampling and testing is done by the vessel Owner how the
EPA and USCG will verify that samples have been taken from the appropriate vessel, under the
appropriate conditions, and with the system in operation.
The attempt at mandating a verification scheme is appropriate but the methods and the scope of
this testing, as proposed, would be difficult to manage and would not likely provide the intended
results.
It is our suggestion that vessels certified by ETV test data be EXEMPT from this testing and
only be spot checked by Port State authorities if the system is believed to be non-functional.
799
-------
Systems with "high value data" but not approved by ETV should be tested at their first port of
call in the US and then subsequently at an annual basis. Systems with "low value data" should be
tested at each port of call until sufficient data can be ascertained such that the EPA and USCG
can elevate the system to one of "high value data." This protocol would provide value to systems
with "high value data" and those that had been tested and approved to ETV. Additionally, this
does not significantly increase burden on ship Owners and test facilities as it provides adequate
incentive for Owners and manufacturers to test systems in accordance with ETV.
Response: Commenter's concerns regarding the clarity of the permit in terms of how crews
will take or process samples did not provide enough detail to allow for a response.
With respect to how EPA and the Coast Guard will verify that samples have been taken from
the appropriate vessel, under the appropriate conditions, and with the system in operation, the
permit requires sampling and analysis to follow specific procedures and then report results that
are signed and certified by the owner/operator or an authorized representative of the vessel
attesting to the truth, accuracy, and completeness of the information. The Clean Water Act
authorizes a court to impose significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. This approach is consistent with
the framework of the NPDES program which relies heavily on self-monitoring to demonstrate
compliance with permit requirements. In addition, EPA, along with support from the U.S. Coast
Guard, will further ensure that vessels are in compliance with permit requirements through a
variety of measures such as on-board inspections and report review. Please also see the
response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
25
No
Comment: d. Monitoring Requirements
Consideration should be given to requiring more robust monitoring. It is our understanding that
data management is the primary issue preventing the reporting of more robust monitoring. For
example, monitoring of ballast water treatment systems' functionality is only required at least
one per month. This requirement seems extremely lax as compared to municipal markets.
In addition, biological indicator monitoring between 2 to 4 times per year also seems quite lax in
light of the varying water quality conditions in ports within the United States. From our analysis,
it also appears that the vessel can choose the water quality conditions (port) in which they test.
This will likely lead to vessel operators choosing ideal conditions for measuring the efficacy of
their ballast water treatment systems and testing will not provide a true indication of the efficacy
of the system under more challenging conditions.
800
-------
Lastly, the monitoring schedule for measuring residual biocides and biocide derivatives also
seems quite lax given the current lack of data. Ballast water treatment is a relatively new
application for our members. Little data exists to assess the overall environmental risk of residual
biocides and biocide derivatives that may be introduced into the U.S. waters. We must ensure
that a robust monitoring framework is in place to ensure that we don't introduce additional
pollutants into the environment while solving the invasive species problem. It seems that the
precautionary principle should be applied for the monitoring of residual biocides and biocide
derivatives.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that more robust monitoring is needed for residual
biocides and biocide derivatives. The permit requires that biocides be used consistent with
FIFRA registration requirements unless the pesticide is generated solely by the use of a device
on board the same vessel as the ballast water to be treated within the meaning of FIFRA. EPA,
consistent with FIFRA, evaluates the environmental risk of residual biocides and biocide
derivatives as part of the registration process. Thus, EPA believes the monitoring schedule
included in the final permit is appropriate. Please also see the response essay in section 9.1.10
of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
8
No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.5.1.4: Effluent Biological Organism Monitoring - This section should
prescribe the installation of ballast water sampling ports. The existing language, requiring
sampling consistent with the guidance "found in the EPA's Generic Protocol for the Verification
of Ballast Water Treatment Technology," is not specific enough, and may allow vessels to find
alternative locations (e.g. in tank) or methods of sampling that are not adequate to verify system
performance.
Additionally, the language regarding the frequency of monitoring (bottom of pg. 28) is not
consistent with the requirements for the type of BWTS that must be installed on vessels
operating in compliance with this permit (see Section 2.2.3.5.1.1). If all BWTS installed on
vessels must be tested according to ETV protocols, then all the data should be of high quality.
This section seems to allow vessels to install BWTS that are Type Approved (presumably from
other flag states because currently the U.S. does not Type Approve BWTS) but have poor-quality
data. Thus Section 2.2.3.5.1.1 should be more specific about whether or not systems need Type
Approval (whether from the U.S. or other flag state) and what type/quality of data is necessary
(and must be submitted to EPA?) to back-up that Type Approval.
Finally, we encourage EPA to consider requiring effluent biological organism monitoring for
organisms in the >50 and 10-50 micron size classes. We recognize that the availability of labs to
801
-------
conduct such testing is limited at this time, but only with a regulatory incentive will new lab
facilities come on-line and establish the capacity to conduct such testing. A first step would be to
require testing of these size classes at least once during the permit coverage period or to begin an
experimental program that would encourage vessels (perhaps through some incentive program)
along selected routes (near established testing labs) to participate in a testing program in order to
gather data about treatment system performance on fully operational vessels.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gary Rosenlieb, Acting Chief, National Park Service Water
Resources Division, United States Department of the
Interior
National Park Service, United States Department of the
Interior
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0742-A2
7
No
Comment: Development of practical tools for compliance is critical. The EPA approach to
using heterotrophic plate counts in 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 as a parameter does not acknowledge that
bacteria are opportunistic when given a ballast load of dead biota. The section lacks monitoring
methodologies and qualification criteria for testing entities or individuals. There is a need for
further evaluation and development. Penalties for noncompliance need to be significant enough
to encourage compliance.
Response: Without specific suggestions on practical tools needed for compliance, EPA was
unable to address the general statement provided by the commenter.
EPA disagrees with commenter's inference that the VGP fails to acknowledge that bacteria are
opportunistic when given a ballast load of dead biota. EPA acknowledges there may be
additional re-growth, which is one of the reasons the Agency is not including an effluent
limitation for this parameter. EPA is requiring monitoring of this parameter to better assess
system performance in terms of organism control, including the ability of these systems to
suppress re-growth.
EPA disagrees with commenter that the permit lacks monitoring methodologies and
qualification criteria for testing entities of individuals and that further evaluation and
development is needed. The approach used in the permit is consistent with NPDES permit
regulations which provide that monitoring is to be performed consistent with 40 CFR Part 136,
Part 122.41(j), and any additional permit requirements (such as those detailed in Table 2 of the
permit). Both of these sources provide monitoring methodologies. EPA does not believe that
qualification criteria for testing entities or individuals is necessary, as monitoring results must
be signed and certified in accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(k) and 122.22 (and related
requirements) which, among other things, require certification under penalty of law that the
report was prepared by qualified personnel. As the required certification statement states, the
802
-------
Clean Water Act establishes authority for EPA to assess significant penalties for submitting
false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
EPA acknowledges that monitoring of ballast water is still a work in progress and is working
with others to address this concern, including developing methods with better precision, lower
detection limits, and/or that are easier for vessel owner/operators to utilize. As improved
methodologies and qualification criteria are developed and identified, these will be incorporated
in subsequent versions of this permit. Regarding commenters' point that penalties for
noncompliance need to be significant enough to encourage compliance, EPA notes that section
309 of the Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to enforce against dischargers in violation of the
permit. See Part 1.13 of the permit which references 40 CFR Part 122.41(a)(l)-(3). The Clean
Water Act provides the maximum civil, criminal, and administrative penalties for non-
compliance in section 309(c), (d) and (g). EPA believes these penalties provide the Agency with
adequate measures to encourage compliance.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
L. P. Kolb
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0779-A1
2
No
Comment: 3. The draft permit is unenforceable.
Paperwork with limits on invasive organisms in ballast water could as well be used as ships'
toilet paper without an effective and credible system for monitoring performance. For shipboard
treatment systems, this would not happen. The SAB report (p. 79) rightly notes the inherent
problems in monitoring and enforcement of ballast water limits for shipboard systems. Even if
performance data can be obtained, statistical handstands are needed for its interpretation. On this
point, I cannot find in the draft permit any compliance monitoring requirements except for
bacteria.
One likely outcome is having shipboard ballast treatment systems that don't work, but with no
one able document that fact or get the problem corrected.
Also we owe the shipping industry a level playing field, where responsible firms do the right
thing, and their competitors who do not are penalized. Relying on some version of the honor
system is to reward the bad actors.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.1.10 of this comment response document.
9.1.11 Biocide Discharge Limits and Biocides Not Authorized by VGP
Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
803
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 23
Late Comment? No
Comment: Finally, it is apparent that implementation of ballast water treatment technologies
will require inspection to ensure water quality of the receiving water body is not impacted by the
treated ballast water biocide residuals, treatment byproducts, or other possibly toxic discharges.
We request information on how the Coast Guard and the EPA plan to enforce water quality
discharge requirements that ensure treated ballast water does not adversely impact the receiving
water body.
Response: Specifics regarding the EPA's and Coast Guard's future enforcement of permit
requirements are outside the scope of the VGP. For discussion on implementation of water
quality based effluent limitations, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-491-A1, excerpt 7 and comments in section 10.1.1 of this comment response document.
For general discussion on restrictions related to use of biocides in treatment systems, see VGP
Fact Sheet §§ 4.4.3.5.1.4 -- 4.4.3.5.1.6; also see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0612-A2, excerpt 10.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tom Perlich, President, Ecochlor, Inc.
Ecochlor, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0480-A1
2
No
Comment: 2013 Draft VGP Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 - Requirements and Effluent Limitations for
BWTS that use Active Substances (e.g. biocides)
Ecochlor appreciates the EPA's inclusion of a chlorine dioxide effluent limit in the proposed
VGP. Under the current VGP, Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing is required to monitor
ballast water discharges treated with the Ecochlor® BWTS. Implementing WET testing for VGP
compliance has proven to be extremely logistically challenging, very costly and has produced
confounding results. The information presented in the draft VGP Part 2.2.3 about ports and
harbors that are impaired by substances such as copper, biocides and anti-fouling coatings,
speaks directly to the primary difficulty in utilizing WET testing as a compliance monitoring tool
for ballast water treatment systems. Many factors influence the water that may be pumped into a
ballast water tank. This eliminates the ability to determine the exact source of any potential
toxicity in ballast water discharges with high certainty.
The proposed residual biocide / derivatives monitoring schedule is considered more realistic and
improved from current VGP requirements. Even so, Ecochlor would like to note that all vessels
may not be able to comply with the schedule proposed in Table 4. For instance, for initial
monitoring, some vessels will not have 10 ballast water discharge events within a 180 day
period. The number of discharge events can depend on things such as vessel type, route, and
voyage frequency. Since the time limitation of 180 days is already included, the requirement may
804
-------
be clearer if stated as "3 times within 180 days" or "5 times within 180 days", depending on the
type approval status of the device.
Ecochlor notes that the proposed VGP includes an Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) provision.
Certainly if a vessel is in an EUP situation, meeting the monitoring schedules for functionality,
biological organisms, residual biocides, and derivatives will be not be achievable. Ecochlor asks
the EPA to consider adding clear language to allow for an exception to the monitoring schedules
for a vessel in an EUP situation.
The draft 2013 VGP makes a clear distinction between "type approved devices for which high
quality type approval data are available" and "type approved devices for which high quality data
are not available". However, the draft VGP is unclear if there is a process by which a device (i.e.,
a BWTS) will be deemed by the EPA to meet the requirements to be considered as having "high
quality type approval data". How will potential buyers of a BWTS know if the EPA considers a
particular device to have "high quality type approval data" or not? This differentiation has a
direct impact on the biological organism and residual biocide/derivatives monitoring schedules
to be followed. Ecochlor believes the 2013 VGP would benefit from more detail and clarification
in this regard.
Response: This comment provides further support for EPA's proposed approach of requiring
monitoring for specific biocides rather than whole effluent toxicity as a better way to monitor
discharge quality independent of the ballast intake water quality. EPA has finalized that
proposed approach today.
EPA interprets the comment regarding vessels not being able to "comply" with the biocide
initial monitoring schedule requiring this monitoring be completed during the first 10
discharges (and within the first 180 days) due to a variety of factors to not be a statement about
the ability to compliance with the discharge limitation but rather a practical concern about being
about to complete the required amount of tests within the timeframe specified. In the event that
a vessel t discharges fewer than 10 times in 180 days, it may comply with this requirement by
completing the required number of test in the first 10 samples, in the timeframe it takes for the
10th discharge event to occur. Vessels owner/operators that expect to discharge infrequently
may wish to consider sampling the first discharge events to minimize that timeframe to
complete this permit requirement.
EPA agrees with commenter's request to modify the permit to clarify that if a vessel is
in an extended unmanned period (EUP) that monitoring obligations will not be applicable.
Language is added to VGP Part 4.1.1.2 stating: "While a vessel is in EUP, the only applicable
monitoring and inspection requirements are those specified in this Part 4.1.1.2. Once a vessel
reenters service and is no longer considered to be in EUP, it must comply with all previously
applicable monitoring and inspection requirements.
EPA has clarified which devices will be deemed by EPA to meet the "high quality type
approval data" threshold. Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 of the permit, specifies that devices for which high
quality data are available means either:
805
-------
¦ any ballast water treatment system type approved by the United States Coast Guard
under 46 CFR Part 162.060 or granted alternate management system status by the US
Coast Guard under 33 CFR 151.2026; or
¦ any ballast water treatment system:
• Type approved by a foreign administration;
• For which efficacy testing was conducted by an independent third party testing
organization, either in accordance with the ETV protocol or in a manner consistent
with the ETV protocol with respect to QA/QC procedures, the use of validated
methods including appropriate volumes of representative samples, and full
description and documentation of test procedures, results and analyses; and
• All Active Substance or Biocide data (e.g., the full data package as submitted to the
International Maritime Organization for approval) have all been made available to
the US EPA.
Additional discussion of the type approval procedures and requirements are described in Part
4.4.3.5.1.1.3 of the permit fact sheet. EPA expects that the vast majority of devices will have
either U.S. Coast Guard AMS or Type Approval. If an interested party desires to know whether
a particular device satisfies subpart b above, it may contact the EPA. With respect to the type
approval process, please also see the response essay in section 9.1.10 and section 9.1.2 in this
comment response document.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 30
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question 10. The appropriateness of the biocide discharge limits, in particular,
whether the limit for peracetic acid is adequately protective of coldwater environments. Without
specifically addressing peracetic acid, CSA would reemphasize the fact that BWTS will have
undergone an active substance review process, a type approval certification and finally post-
installation testing. Providing the requirements of these three aggressive processes are met, there
should be no concerns with biocide discharge limits providing the system is properly operated
and maintained.
Question 11. The approach of requiring owner/operators of ballast water treatment systems
which use a biocide or biocide derivative that is not specifically authorized by the VGP to notify
EPA at least 120 days in advance of its use, and the option of conducting whole effluent toxicity
testing for those biocides or biocide derivatives that are not specifically authorized in the VGP in
lieu of notification. Please see our response to Question 10 above. With the existing type
approval and post-installation testing requirements, there should be no use of biocide or biocide
derivative that has not already been approved either via the IMO type approval process or the US
type approval process.
806
-------
Response: EPA agrees with commenter that ballast water treatment systems should have no
problem meeting the biocide discharge limits provided the system is properly operated and
maintained. Regarding the use of biocides that are not specifically authorized in the VGP, EPA
notes that a vessel owner/operator may plan to use a biocide that has been approved for use via
the IMO G8 and G9 approval process or the US type approval process but that is not listed in
Table 3 of the VGP. The permit allows for use of such biocides but clarifies that, among other
requirements, the discharge of these biocides and derivatives may not exceed acute water
quality criteria listed in EPA's 2009 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, and any
subsequent revision.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
13
No
Comment: 10. Appropriate limits for biocides11
The EPA has requested comment on the appropriateness of the biocide discharge limits-in
particular if the limit for peracetic acid is adequately protective of coldwater environments. The
limits of 500 micrograms/1 for peracetic acid and 1000 Ilg/1 for Hydrogen Peroxide cited by the
draft permit are at the analytical detection limit of these two compounds using
spectrophotometric analytical methods. A lower threshold level could not be adequately detected
for the purpose of compliance and monitoring. From an effluent discharge perspective, the limit
for peracetic acid yields a low acute toxicity risk in fish (trout) but is toxic to lower trophic
organisms (e.g. algae, crustaceans and other small freshwater planktonic organisms). Given the
expected dilution rate of treated water after discharge into natural waters, however, little toxic
risk in receiving waters is expected. In light of these considerations, higher thresholds are not
recommended and review of the dosages used may be warranted.
While the cited limits can be achieved relatively easily in seawater due to fast decomposition of
these compounds under these circumstances, Government of Canada research has shown that the
compounds degrade very slowly in fresh water. This could be of concern on short Great Lakes
voyages as the time to reach required thresholds would be very long depending on initial dosage.
Canada does not have data demonstrating that temperature is relevant to these considerations.
11 References in support of this section are as follows:
• de Lafontaine, Y., S-P. Despatie, E. Veilleux and C. Wiley. 2009. Onboard Ship Evaluation of the
Effectiveness and the Potential Environmental Effects of PERACLEAN® Ocean for Ballast Water
Treatment in Very Cold Conditions. Environmental Toxicology 24(1); 19-65.
• de Lafontaine, Y., S. Despatie, and C. Wiley. 2008. Effectiveness and Potential Toxicological Impact of the
PERACLEAN® Ocean Ballast Water Treatment Technology. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 71:
355-369
• de Lafontaine, Y. and S. Despatie. 2006. Evaluation of Effectiveness and Potential Toxicological Impact of
the Peraclean® Ocean Ballast Water Treatment Technology. Water & Science Technical Report Series, No
AEP-TN07-001, 39 p.
807
-------
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's agreement with EPA's effluent limitations for
peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide and agrees that discharges at these levels are expected to
have little toxic risk in receiving waters EPA acknowledges commenter's concern that peracetic
acid and hydrogen peroxide degrade slower in fresh water than marine waters. Thus, EPA
retained these effluent limitations as proposed.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Oswald Inglese, Jr., Director, Water Permitting and
Enforcement Division, Connecticut Department of Energy
and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP)
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection (CT DEEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0523-A1
3
No
Comment: ISSUE 3: Toxicity Testing for Ballast Water. We support a provision in the VGP
to require toxicity testing for ballast water treatment systems using biocides. We note that in the
2008 VGP, EPA included this requirement, in order to address discharges containing residual
biocides for which no numeric water quality criteria existed. Since the proposed VGP continues
to allow for the use of these types of systems, we find no reason to eliminate this provision.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter's suggestion to retain the requirement to use whole
effluent toxicity testing for ballast water treatment systems using biocides. For the reasons set
out in Part 4.3.5.1.1.6 4 of the Fact Sheet EPA believes a biocide-specific approach that requires
monitoring of that biocide and biocide derivatives provides a more accurate assessment of
disinfection residuals in ballast water than a whole effluent toxicity test, which is much more
likely to be influenced by the makeup of the ballast intake water than the actual treatment of
such waters. As such, EPA is retaining in the final permit the biocide and biocide derivative
monitoring as proposed.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
17
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.1.15.2: Residual Biocide and Derivative Monitoring
We reiterate our previous comments regarding the fact that there are currently no ballast water
treatments systems that have been type-approved by the U.S. federal government, and that none
of the systems which have been type approved by a foreign administration have undergone the
EPA-ETV protocol. As a consequence, no current ballast water treatment system can display
"high quality type approval data"
808
-------
Response: With respect to type approval and high quality type approval data, please see the
response essay in section 9.1.10 and section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 24
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question #10: Are the biocide discharge limits appropriate, in particular if the limit
for peracetic aid is adequately protective of coldwater environments?
LCA response: We will leave comment to those best qualified to assess them.
Question #11: Is it appropriate that EPA must be notified at least 120 days in advance if a
ballast water treatment system is going to use a biocide not authorized by the VGP and have the
option of testing that biocide or derivatives?
LCA response: Yes.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's agreement with permit language to require that
EPA be notified at least 120 days in advance if a ballast water treatment system is going to use
a biocide not authorized by the VGP and to have the option of testing that biocide or
derivatives.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 29, Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.5.1 Authorization of Residual Biocides. The last paragraph
makes reference to EPA's Gold Book. This is a reference to EPA's 1986 national recommended
water quality criteria. The cite to the reference does not appear in the permit or Fact Sheet
(although a web link is provided in the permit) and many vessel operators are unlikely to know
what this is. The reference should instead be changed to "EPA's National Recommended Water
Quality Criteria, 2009" and provide a footnote with a web link to
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/current/upload/nrwqc-2009.pdf. Other areas
of the permit or fact sheet which reference the Gold Book should be similarly edited.
P. 30 Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.5.2 Residual Biocide and Derivative Monitoring. In practice the
monitoring of biocide residuals will be conducted concurrently with ballast water sampling as
commented upon above. Therefore the frequency of biocide monitoring should be aligned with
that for ballast water itself. We have commented at length above regarding the issues of
809
-------
frequency and days-between-sampling, providing a recommended table for monitoring frequency
at comments for Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 above.
Additionally, while the issue of biocides or derivatives concentrations in ballast water effluent
are relevant, the requirement that "Any other biocides or derivatives may not exceed acute water
quality criteria listed in EPA's 1986 Quality Criteria for Water [the Gold Book] and any
subsequent revision, at the point of discharge." is overly conservative, particularly for discharges
from vessels underway. EPA is well aware of the significant dilution that is achieved for
discharges from vessels, particularly when underway.3 A strict limit based on application of the
acute water quality criteria at the point of discharge is a misapplication of the National
Recommended Water Quality Criteria (which apply to water bodies, not effluents), fails to
account for the duration of exposure component of those criteria, and has the potential to
suppress development of what could otherwise be promising ballast water treatment technology.
While dilution factors will vary considerably within the spectrum of vessels covered by this
permit, EPA should allow for a conservative dilution factor based on modeling or field
measurements.
3 See EPA Plume Study, EPA Skagway Study.
Response: EPA agrees with commenter and has modified the fact sheet to reference the most
current EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and provide a cite in Part 13
(References) of the permit. EPA acknowledges that many vessel owner/operators will perform
biocide and biological indicator monitoring concurrently; however, the Agency does not believe
that practice conflicts with the monitoring requirements established in the permit. For example,
the permit establishes consistent annual monitoring frequencies for both biocide and biological
indicator monitoring for systems with or without high quality data. For addition discussion of
monitoring frequencies, see the response essay in section 9.1.10 in this comment response
document. With respect to concerns about "overly conservative" use of national water quality
criteria, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-01410-053Q-A2, excerpt 46.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Comment: Pages 88-90, Part 4.4.3.5.1.1.4 Authorization of Residual Biocides. EPA is
essentially calling for levels of biocide discharges in ballast water to be non-toxic and requesting
comments on whether they should establish additional effluent limits for residual biocides or
residuals. While applying National Recommended Water Quality Criteria is a conservative
approach, it is in fact using those criteria in a manner for which they were not designed or
intended (one wonders the impact should EPA apply these criteria similarly to other shore-based
dischargers?).
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
46
No
810
-------
The biocides are intentionally added to the ballast water for their toxicity, to kill species in the
ballast water that could be harmful to native species if released. The concern with having
biocides at non-toxic levels for discharge is problematic, especially for ballast water that might
be discharged while the vessel is underway.
As previously discussed, dilution from a moving vessel can be quite rapid. A Science Advisory
Panel in Alaska (see, Loehr et al., 2006) evaluated information on the dilution of discharges of
wastewater from large moving cruise ships and developed the following formula to describe the
dilution.
= [4 x (Vessel beam in m) x (Vessel draft in m) x (vessel speed in m sec-1)] /
(discharge rate in m3 sec-1)
Again, a sample calculation is demonstrative. For a typical vessel of 32 meters beam and a draft
of 8 meters, discharging ballast water at a maximum rate of 200m3/hour ( 0.056m3/sec) while
travelling 6 knots (3.087 m/sec), the resulting dilution ratio would be more than 56,000
million: 1. This means that a discharge of 10 ppm biocide would yield a resulting concentration
of:
[ 10 xlO -6 ]/[ 5.6 x 10 4 ] = 1.79 x 10 -10 or 0.179 parts per billion
This formula was validated by dye dilution studies from four moving cruise ships conducted by
EPA. In port, the dilution rates would be much less but have nonetheless been measured and
modeled (see EPA Skagway dilution study14). In this study, all National Recommended Water
Quality Criteria were met within a few meters of the point of discharge. Thus there is no need for
such a discharge to meet water quality criteria for biocides at the point of discharge. A nominal
dilution factor of 100 could be used for dischargers underway, and NRWQC would be attained in
a matter of a few seconds from a moving ship, thereby allowing biocide concentrations 100 times
higher than what is proposed in the permit. EPA should establish a conservative minimum
dilution factor in consideration of these data or provide a provision for vessel owner operators to
conduct such measurement or modeling to document and establish an appropriate dilution factor.
This would still be highly protective against acute or chronic toxicity in the receiving water, and
would allow ballast water treatment to error on the side of assuring kill of unwanted organisms.
Additionally, this section makes reference to EPA's 1986 Quality Criteria for Water (the Gold
Book) and subsequent revisions. Rather, EPA should instead make reference to EPA's 2009
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, which is essentially the most current revision to
the Gold Book, but is not referred to as the Gold Book. This is better than pointing people
toward the outdated source.
14
See EPA Cruise Ship Plume Dilution Study in Skagway Harbor
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/vwd/plume_dilution.cfm.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's concern regarding establishing certain biocide
limits equal to the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. The Agency points out that
only those biocides not already limited in the permit are required to meet such standards. EPA
used the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria as a reasonable surrogate for
811
-------
applicable State Water Quality Standards for biocide limits. The National Recommended Water
Quality Criteria are developed by EPA as recommended guidance to States on establishing their
own chemical-specific water quality criteria, and many States have adopted criteria identical to
EPA's recommendations. EPA acknowledges commenter's assertion that EPA studies have
shown significant dilution resulting from both moving vessels as well as stationary vessels in
port and that the Agency should account for such dilution in establishing the permit limits.
However, because of the uncertainty in the actual biocides to be discharged, including the
potential for toxic by-product formation, and the actual location and duration and number of
those discharges, the assimilative capacity of the receiving waters, and the availability of
mixing zones in all waters, the Agency believes the not accounting for dilution in establishing
the effluent limitations is appropriate to ensure water quality standards are achieved. NPDES
permits often contain limits set a "criteria end of pipe" in situations where there is no allowance
for assimilative capacity (i.e., dilution). The Agency acknowledges that not accounting for any
assimilative capacity is a conservative approach in establishing discharge limits, but reasonable
given the uncertainties described above.
With respect to EPA's National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, please also see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-053Q-A2, excerpt 11.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
League's Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
15
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.1.1.5.1 Authorization of Residual Biocides Associated with Ballast Water
Treatment Systems: The shipping industry is being held to a higher discharge standard for
residual biocides than other industries such as wastewater treatment plants and power plants that
are large consumers of water. Sewage treatment or water treatment plans have room for minor
variation in the standards in case of significant weather events or unforeseen issues. The EPA-
ETV protocols appear to have no margin for error or wiggle room. We suggest adding the
flexibility into these standards to mirror that of other industries to encourage and promote
development of new technologies while still protecting the environment.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that the shipping industry is being held to a higher
discharge standard for residual biocides than other industries. The Clean Water Act establishes
an NPDES permitting framework that includes specific procedures to be followed when
drafting permits. The final VGP represents the result of that process. A key step in developing
the VGP is determination of appropriate technology-based effluent limitations which for the
VGP is based on the permit writer's best professional judgment of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) for the dischargers to be covered under the permit. Reasonably,
BAT for the vessel industry is different than BAT for other industries, such as sewage treatment
plants or power plants, since the available technologies and economics for these industries are
812
-------
different. As a result, applicable NPDES requirements differ for different types of
dischargers/industries; however, the process for determining these requirements is identical.
EPA has no data suggesting that vessels have less room for error, or less flexibility, than any
other type of permitted discharger. For example, all NPDES permits, including the VGP,
include upset and bypass provisions that provide for some level of flexibility in certain
situations. With respect to type approval, please also see the response essay in section 9.1. land
section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? No
Comment: 10. Appropriateness ofbiocide discharge limits, in particular peracetic acid.
EPA should encourage vessel owners/operators to avoid the use of biocides to receiving water
bodies. Such discharge could damage native aquatic populations.
It would be useful for EPA to consider the chemical reaction potential of biocides with organic
chemicals and materials contained in ballast waters. The potential for by-product formation may
exist. These by-products could be discharged in addition to excess biocides causing unintended
damage to the ecology of the receiving water bodies.
11. Comment on the approach of requiring owner/operators of ballast water treatment systems
which use a biocide or biocide derivative that is not specifically authorized by the VGP to notify
EPA.
EPA should encourage vessel owners/operators to avoid the use of biocides to receiving water
bodies. Such discharge could damage native aquatic populations.
It would be useful for EPA to consider the chemical reaction potential of biocides with organic
chemicals and materials contained in ballast waters. The potential for by-product formation may
exist. These by-products could be discharged in addition to excess biocides causing unintended
damage to the ecology of the receiving water bodies.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's concern that biocides, either directly or via the
formation of by-products, may cause additional unintended damage to the ecology of receiving
water bodies. To address such concerns, the VGP contains effluent limitations and monitoring
conditions specific to biocides and biocide derivatives. In addition, Part 2.3.lof the permit
requires that discharges be controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards in
the receiving water body or another water body impacted by the discharges. Those standards
were developed to protect, among other things, aquatic life. In addition, if at any time the
owner/operator becomes aware, or EPA determines, that a discharge causes or contributes to an
exceedance of applicable water quality standards, the owner/operator must take corrective
actions as required in Part 3 of the permit. EPA may impose additional water quality-based
limitations on a site-specific basis or require coverage under an individual permit if information
813
-------
indicates that discharges are not controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality
standards, either in the receiving water body or another water body impacted by these
discharges. Thus, the Agency believes use of biocides for control of ballast water discharges is
appropriately controlled under the VGP. See also, biocide related discussions in VGP Fact
Sheet §§4.4.3.5.1.4-4.4.3.5.1.6.
Also, the permit requires that any pesticides used either be registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. ("FIFRA") for use in ballast
water treatment or generated solely by the use of a "device," within the meaning of FIFRA, on
board the same vessel as the ballast water to be treated. As such, EPA expects these biocides to
be used consistent with existing laws specific to the use of those products.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Pamela Parker, Vessel Discharges, Division of Water
Quality Management, Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (MEDEP)
Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0628-A2
4
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.1.1.5.1 Authorization of Residual Biocides Associated with Ballast Water
Treatment Systems
MEDEP noted that "Table 3: Maximum Ballast Water Effluent Limits for Residual Biocides"
appears to include instantaneous maximum limits that exceed water quality criteria and would
require dilution to attain water quality criteria. Specifically, chlorine (expressed as Total
Residual Oxidizers (TRO as TRC)) is set at 100 ug/1, which is well above the acute (13 ppb) and
chronic (7.5 ppb) criteria. If treated ballast water including residual biocides at similar levels was
released, some acute impacts (mortality) could be expected of sensitive organisms within the
mixing zone. This impact would be spread over a large area depending on the amount of treated
ballast water released and the dilution available, using the example of a larger volume of treated
ballast water/biocide discharged into a shallower harbor with more limited mixing/flushing.
Proximity of other vessels engaged in similar activity would also be a concern, impacting
baseline conditions and enlarging the mixing area. Is there a mixing zone applied to this section?
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's concern that the effluent limit for Total Residual
Oxidizers is set at 100 ug/1, which is above the acute and chronic criteria for marine waters of
13 and 7.5 ug/1, respectively. The concern with respect to the aquatic environment is that if the
treated ballast water contains biocides or their derivatives at levels that are still toxic at the time
of discharge, then organisms in the receiving water may be harmed. Chlorination (generally via
hypochlorite electrolytic generation) is a commonly used disinfection technology and is known
to be proposed for use in ballast water treatment systems. As in the 2009 VGP, the permit
provides that Total Residual Oxidizers (TRO as TRC) may not exceed 100 (ag/1 as an
instantaneous maximum. Routine methods for de-chlorination of treated water are well
demonstrated, and in selecting this limit EPA considered existing TRC limits found in a number
814
-------
of NPDES permits for publicly owned treatment works, with the TRC limit for this permit
reflecting the median limit for the permits reviewed. This value provides a nominal level of
mixing of discharges with the ambient environment. EPA studies, such as its Cruise Ship Plume
Dilution Study, Skagway, Alaska, May 18, 2009, have shown, that even in confined port areas,
dilution ratios of 40 or more are to be expected (as close as 15 meters from the discharge point)
from vessel discharges. As such, the Agency believes its effluent limitation of 100 ug/1 for TRO
as TRC is adequately protective. With respect to additional water quality based effluent
limitations, please also see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-0141-0612-A2, excerpt 10.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
11
No
Comment: 10. Appropriateness of biocide discharge limits, in particular peracetic acid.
Whatever the limits, they must protect the environment to ensure that they do not introduce
additional pollutants into the environment while solving the invasive species problem.
With regard to the 100 micrograms/L limit for biocides from electrochlorination systems (pages
97-98 of the pdf file from http ://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vgpdraftfactsheed2011 .pdD, it is
questionable whether the resolution of the hand-held field testing kits can reliably reproduce
accurate results at this low concentration. This level of detection requires somewhat
sophisticated lab equipment, not suited to this purpose.
Response: EPA notes commenter's statement that discharge limits must be protective of the
environment and that addition of biocides not introduce additional pollutants into the
environment while solving the invasive species problem. As explained in the Fact Sheet, and in
section 9.1.11 of this comment response document, EPA believes that the VGP's biocide-related
provisions are protective of the environment.
EPA acknowledges commenter's concern that hand-held field testing kits may have trouble
accurately measuring certain residual pollutant concentrations of 100 micrograms/L; however,
the Agency nonetheless believes that with proper sample collection and handling, accurate
results at or below the effluent limitation of 100 micrograms/L can be achieved using hand-held
field testing kits. This conditions is unchanged from the 2008 VGP, and no information has
been provided to the Agency based on experience monitoring for that permit demonstrating that
these detection limits cannot be achieved using the test methods required in the permit.
815
-------
9.1.12 Permit Modification
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Andreas Nordseth, Chairman, Consultative Shipping Group
(CSG)
Consultative Shipping Group (CSG)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0478-A1
4
No
Comment: In addition to its globalized nature, shipping is a capital-intensive industry with long
operational periods. Some ocean-going vessels are in operation in excess of twenty-five years
while fresh-water vessels can be in operation for much longer. Any standard adopted must also
allow the industry to comply in a manner that is achievable and economically sustainable. This
will allow for sound and timely retrofitting of compliant systems.
The CSG appreciates the efforts of the EPA to align the technology installation schedule for
existing ships with that of the Convention. The CSG is concerned, however, that the VGP's
requirement that ballast water treatment systems be tested pursuant to the detailed EPA-ETV
protocol could pose challenges to compliance with the Convention schedule as no type-approved
systems have yet been subjected to the final version of this lengthy testing process. In addition,
the CSG believes that any sampling protocol should be consistent with the methodologies and
guidance provided by the IMO. For vessels built after 1 January 2012, the problem is rather
urgent as these should meet the requirements as of today.
Response: EPA appreciates the input from CSG on the development and implementation of the
2008 VGP, and notes that it believes the ETV protocol, while being more specific than the G8
guidelines, is consistent within those G8 guidelines (e.g., the ETV protocols fit within the
general G8 framework). EPA agrees with the commenter that requiring the use of devices type
approval based solely on the use of the ETV protocol could lead to delays in implementation as
to date there are no such approvals available. Based on this and other comments regarding
concerns that the VGP requires the use of systems that have been tested in a manner consistent
with the ETV protocol, EPA has clarified that vessel owner/operators must use a system which
has been shown to be effective by testing conducted by an independent third party laboratory,
test facility or test organization, and the permit states that "a system that has been type approved
by the U.S. Coast Guard.. .or received 'Alternative Management System' designation by the
U.S. Coast Guard.. .will be deemed to meet this 'shown to be effective' provision. EPA notes
that the schedule for implementation has been adjusted to account for the availability of
treatment systems that are "shown to be effective." Additionally, please see Part 4.4.3.5 of the
VGP fact sheet for EPA's explanation of limits applicable to ballast water treatment systems.
Commenter Name: Russell E. Painter, Regulatory Affairs Manager,
McNational, Inc.
Commenter Affiliation: McNational, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1
816
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: EPA should add language to the permit reopener clause providing that, if the permit
is reopened and modified, vessel equipment that was installed to comply with previous permit
requirements will be "grandfathered," in order to protect the good-faith investments of vessel
owners and operators.
Response: EPA declines to include a "grandfather" provision in the permit reopener clause, as
commenter suggests. For a discussion of why EPA cannot include such a provision in today's
VGP, please see section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Cory Sause, Environmental Coordinator, Sause Bros
Commenter Affiliation: Sause Bros
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0482-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: Finally, we would encourage the EPA to add language to the permit reopener clause
providing that, if the permit is reopened and modified, vessel equipment that was installed to
comply with previous permit requirements will be "grandfathered," in order to protect the good-
faith investments of vessel owners and operators.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: Permit Reopener Clause (Section 1.9, pg. 16): These provisions, we believe, are a
perfect example of remnants that are leftover from a program that was intended to apply to
stationary sources which have the benefit of access to necessary technical and design expertise
for meeting new performance requirements in their permits. Such is not the case with marine
vessels which have this access only during shipyard periods. In addition, new equipment
requirements cannot be implemented on short notice due to the need for equipment certification
and approval by flag states and classification societies, a process that is typically accomplished
globally through new initiatives at the International Maritime Organization. This provision
appears to suggest that requirements could change mid-term of the existing VGP and be applied
to vessels more frequently than is technically possible or in fact necessary. It is important to note
that tens of thousands of vessels are covered by the VGP and thus implementation of any new
requirements would need to take into account the capability of equipment manufacturers to
817
-------
produce sufficient supplies of new equipment, assuming it would be technically possible to meet
more stringent standards. Implementation schedules would also need to take into account global
shipyard capacities, equipment certification processes and crew training requirements. All of
these factors take time which in many if not all cases would exceed the term of the VGP,
whether it be 4 or 5 years. For these reasons, CSA recommends deletion of the permit reopener
clause in its entirety.
Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's concerns that any new requirements may be
costly to install in terms of both time and money. The VGP and any modification to it will be
imposed under the CWA and its implementing regulations, including those governing
technology-based effluent limitations and the use of the "best available technology" (BAT)
standard in determining appropriate permit limits. Those regulations require that technologies
imposed be available and economically achievable, and thus protect against imposition of
requirements that cannot be implemented. EPA notes that the commenter's concern that the
Agency could require a TBEL that is not "is technically possible" is addressed by EPA's
obligations to establish limits under this BAT standard. Please also see the response essay in
section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
19
No
Comment: Section 1.9.1 - Modification of the VGP
This section should be modified to delete the changes relating to new information with respect to
ballast water discharges.
Additionally, this section should be modified with a provision that would be applicable in case
the VGP is reopened and modified, in which case the already installed equipment would comply
with the VGP requirements at the time of installation.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 13.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Roger Harris, Senior Vice President - Operations,
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0488-A1
7
No
818
-------
Comment: Sixth, EPA should add language to the permit reopener clause providing that, if the
permit is reopened and modified, vessel equipment that was installed to comply with previous
permit requirements will be "grandfathered" in order to protect the good-faith investments of
vessel owners and operators.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 6
and the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Algis Vanagas, Senior Vice-President Technical, Algoma
Central Corporation
Algoma Central Corporation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1
2
No
Comment: 2. Part 1.9.1. Modification of the VGP. Part 1.9. Permit Re-opener Clause
Algoma is not supportive of re-opening the permit during the permit term for the purpose of
applying more stringent ballast water discharge standards. As will be elaborated below,
installation and operation of ballast water treatment systems (BWTS) on vessels once such
systems become available and are certified for use in the Great Lakes will be very challenging
both operationally and in terms of capital costs. Therefore the possibility that a standard could
subsequently be changed is very concerning to us. We propose that once an approved system is
installed, its approval be grandfathered for the life of the equipment. Ship owners cannot
reasonably be expected to remove and replace multi-million dollar equipment every time an
incrementally more effective treatment technology is developed.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name: Christian LaPense, Dann Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation: Dann Marine Towing
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Late Comment? No
Comment: Other Administrative Changes
a. Dann Marine Towing recommends that EPA delete its proposed changes to the Permit
Reopener Clause, Part 1.9.1, relating to new information with respect to ballast water
discharges. We do not believe that the revised language is necessary for EPA to modify the
permit in accordance with existing regulations. Further, Dann Marine Towing requests that
EPA add a provision to Part 1.9. 1 that, if the VOP is reopened and modified, vessel owners
and operators will not be required to replace ballast water treatment systems or other
equipment that was installed to comply with VGP requirements in effect at the time of their
installation until the end of their useful life.
819
-------
Response: While EPA agrees that it is not necessary to include the additional language in the
Permit Reopener Clause to modify the VGP in accordance with the applicable NPDES
regulations, EPA has finalized those changes in today's permit to provide clarification for the
circumstances under which the VGP could be modified should new information become
available with respect to ballast water discharges. As noted in the Permit Reopener Clause, any
such permit modification would be conducted under the authority of, and consistent with, 40
C.F.R. 122.62, 122.63, 122.64 and 124.5. For further information on the reopener clause,
including explanation of why EPA declines to add a provision "grandfathering" BWMS, please
see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
18
No
Comment: Section 1.9.1 - Modification of the VGP
This section should be modified to delete the changes relating to new information with respect to
ballast water discharges.
Additionally, this section should be modified with a provision that would be applicable in case
the VGP is reopened and modified, in which case the already installed equipment would comply
with the VGP requirements at the time of installation.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 13.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
18
No
Comment: AWO recommends that EPA delete its proposed changes to the Permit Reopener
Clause, Part 1.9.1, relating to new information with respect to ballast water discharges. We do
not believe that the revised language is necessary to give EPA the authority to modify the permit
in accordance with existing regulations. Furthermore, AWO requests that EPA add a provision to
Part 1.9.1 providing that, if the VGP is reopened and modified, vessel operators will not be
required to replace ballast water treatment systems or other equipment that was installed to
comply with VGP requirements in effect at the time of their installation until the end of their
useful life.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 13.
820
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
8
No
Comment: Part 1.9: Permit Reopener Clause
In our view, the provisions related to the reopening of the permit are generally well-defined and
allow for a meaningful use of scientific information. However, we believe that the current
wording of the fourth provision ("...the cumulative effects of any discharge authorized by the
VGP on the environment are unacceptable." leaves too much room for interpretation and should
either be refined or dropped altogether. We would argue in favour of the latter, as an appreciation
of cumulative effects is already covered by the previous bullet point addressing scientific
understanding of pollutant effects on the environment.
We would also recommend that should the EPA intend to make modifications to the VGP using
the permit reopener clause, that it uses a realistic timeline for implementing new requirements
taking into account the capability of equipment manufacturers to produce such equipment,
certification by flag states and classification societies and installation constraints related to dry
dock availability.
Response: EPA declines to "drop altogether" the fourth provision in the permit reopener clause,
as commenter suggests, as EPA believes this provision provides helpful clarification regarding
EPA's authority to consider new information about the cumulative effects of vessel discharges
authorized by the VGP as grounds for reopening the permit. As noted in the reopener clause,
any permit modifications will be conducted under the authority of, and consistent with, 40
C.F.R. 122.62, 122.63, 122.64 and 124.5. For discussion of why permit modifications will
"tak[e] into account the capability of equipment manufacturers to produce such equipment,
certification by flag states.. .and installation constraints related to dry dock availability", please
see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: The proposed "reopener" criteria for potentially modifying the ballast water
provisions need to recognize that any physical modifications to commercial vessels require
lengthy advanced review, approval, and certification by the U.S. Coast Guard, American Bureau
of Shipping, and other classification societies. As a result, any proposed changes to the VGP
based on potentially new technology must provide for extensive lead time. As a practical matter
821
-------
this means that any changes from currently proposed requirements can only be addressed when
the EPA begins to draft the third iteration of the VGP.
Should systems that can accommodate Lakers' flowrates for volumes of ballast water become
available at some point in the future any requirement to install such systems must be preceded by
a careful and thorough analysis of the benefits and costs. Our members' vessels never leave the
Great Lakes so have never introduced a non-indigenous invasive species (NIS). Their ballast is
but one of (at least) 64 vectors for spread. The Great Lakes are interconnected, so invasives
migrate independent of any of these vectors. Theoretical models suggest it would cost $485
million to retrofit the U.S.-flag Great Lakes fleet with ballast water treatment systems. Given the
lack of causation between the introduction and spread of invasives and Laker activity, there is no
basis for imposing these costs on our industry.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 5,
which discusses EPA's obligation to impose TBELs that are practicable and economically
achievable. Permit modifications will be conducted pursuant to the CWA and applicable
implementing regulations, including the requirements for establishing TBELs. The permit
reopener clause reiterates the requirement that modifications to the permit must be based on
"new information," such as improved technologies. Please see the response essay in section
9.1.4 of this comment response document for the other issues regarding Lakers, including their
environmental impact of Lakers, costs to Lakers of possible future requirements. Please see
sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 13 of this comment response document and sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the
VGP fact sheet for further discussion about how EPA derives technology-based effluent limits,
including the Agency's consideration of costs. EPA further notes that the statements regarding
Lakers' ability to spread or disperse invasive species are not supported by current scientific
understanding.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question #4: EPA seeks comment on inclusion of revised language in the proposed
VGP regarding what may constitute new information with respect to ballast water discharges for
purposes of potentially modifying the permit during its term. Specifically:
1. Improved technologies justify application of significantly more stringent effluent limitations
or other permit conditions;
2. Technologies known at the time of permit issuance perform better than thought and therefore
justify application of significantly more stringent effluent limitations or other permit
conditions;
3. Scientific understanding of pollutant effects or of invasion biology have evolved to the point
that justify application of significantly more stringent effluent limitations or other permit
conditions;
822
-------
4. The cumulative effects of any discharge authorized by the VGP on the environment are
unacceptable.
LCA Response: EPA's proposed inclusion of this "reopener" proceeds from the misconception,
or flawed premise, that a solution, once found, can be implemented quickly. Even if the long-
sought "magic bullet" materializes tomorrow, its application and installation on vessels is
necessarily a long process. Any requirement for new equipment must allow sufficient time for
the lengthy review, approval and certification by the American Bureau of Shipping, other
classification societies, and the U.S. Coast Guard. The proposed U.S. Coast Guard type approval
process alone will take at least 30-36 months. Then, and only then could manufacturers ramp up
production. Naval architects and marine engineers would need significant time to draw the plans
for installation on vessels. There are very few real "sisterships" in the fleet; most projects will
require a totally new analysis and engineering plan. Therefore, it is likely that the total time
required for the development of any "new" technology which could either potentially achieve a
more stringent standard or have wider application to presently exempted vessels would exceed
the term of a four or five year permit, thus negating the need for the EPA to re-open the VGP as
a result of improvements - real or perceived - in technology.
Since there are no U.S. Coast Guard-type approved systems that can accommodate 'lakers'
volumes and flowrates that are available now, and are not likely to be available during the term
of this permit, it is difficult to accurately forecast how long it would take to physically install a
system. However, it appears the process could require as much as ten weeks. It would be
impractical to take a vessel(s) out of service for that length of time during the navigation season
and still meet the needs of commerce, so retrofits would have to be accomplished during the
winter lay-up. If every vessel must be renovated at the same time, shipyard capacity - especially
where drydock work is needed - will necessarily be overwhelmed (today many vessels must
schedule lay-up work years in advance). For any proposal that might require drydock work,
considering shipyard availability is essential before any time frame for compliance with such
requirements can be implemented. We believe it is incumbent on EPA to consider this serious
logistical issue when it establishes time frames. That may mean the agency must obtain
information on shipyard capacity for various segments of vessels, and consider that information
before it imposes any time frames on such requirements. This is not a situation in which one can
simply hire and train more people. Nor is it a situation in which EPA can mandate a new
technology that will create a market for its manufacture. The number and availability of facilities
needed to install such equipment is the single most important part of how the timing for
installing new equipment must be considered.
It is for these reasons that we are troubled by the statement in the Draft VGP Fact Sheet that the
"EPA advises Laker owner/operators that EPA intends to promptly exercise the permit reopener
to initiate the process to modify the permit if such systems become available during the permit
term. These may include requiring that effluent meet levels achievable by treatment with an IMO
type approved device or requiring an alternative technology based ballast water effluent limit."
The preceding paragraphs have spelled out why quick installation of a system is not possible on
Lakers. While EPA is free to address new technologies as they become available, we respectfully
submit that any action that would create a time frame for installing new equipment can only be
823
-------
reasonable if proper consideration is given to shipyard availability. Furthermore, such new
technologies would likely be considerably more expensive than existing technologies and their
availability would be extremely limited. Thus, these technologies could not be considered to
meet the EPA's definition of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable since they
would not likely be either commercially available or economically viable in a less than four-year
period. Based on what we know today, the time to address this is when the EPA begins to draft
the third iteration of the VGP, not before.
Finally, for reasons addressed elsewhere in these comments, the proposed reopener criteria are
unnecessary because Lakers, which never leave the Great Lakes system, should not be required
to treat their ballast water at all.
Response: The permit reopener clause does not "proceed from the misconception, or flawed
premise, that a solution, once found, can be implemented quickly." To the contrary, the
reopener clause is based upon the CWA and its implementing regulations, which allow EPA to
modify the VGP on the basis, among other things, of "new information" discovered during the
permit's term that justifies modification, for instance, that treatment systems become available
for Laker vessels. Inclusion of a more stringent ballast water effluent limit or implementation
schedule in a modified permit must continue to meet the requirements of the CWA by being
available and economically achievable. Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-
2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 5 for further discussion.
Please see the response essay in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document for the other
issues regarding Lakers, including their environmental impact of Lakers, and the potential costs
to Lakers of possible future requirements. Please see sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 in this comment
response document for further discussion regarding U.S. Coast Guard type approval and ballast
water technology based effluent limits. Please see VGP Fact Sheet sections 4.1 and 4.2 for how
EPA establishes technology based effluent limits, including the factors EPA uses to establish
BAT limits.
EPA also notes, in response to all commenters concerned with the possible outcome of EPA
reopening the permit due to new technologies, that any such permit modifications would be
subject to notice and comment prior to becoming final. Thus, commenters will have to
opportunity to provide whatever relevant specific information or views they have on these
matters to the Agency.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadians)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadians)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2
13
No
824
-------
Comment: v. Grandfathering of BWMS - With such a significant investment to the ship owner,
the regulatory regime must respect this investment and provide a grand fathering mechanism that
assures that for an installed BWMS the discharge standards in place at the time of installation
will remain applicable for the life of the system, assuming that it is maintained and operated in
accordance with a type-approval process specific to the waters in which it will operate.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadians)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadians)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A3
2
No
Comment: 4. Issue: The inclusion of revised language in the proposed VGP regarding what
may constitute new information with respect to ballast water discharges for the purposes of
potentially modifying the permit during its term (the "reopener" provision).
CSA Response: Any change to the effluent standard as a result of this reopener provision could
result in the requirement to replace a $1.5 - $3 million treatment system every time the discharge
standard changes. Even the possibility posed by such a provision could provide a sufficient
disincentive to ship owners that current trading patterns could change. Any system installed on a
vessel that meets the discharge standard during the permit's validity period must be
grandfathered for the life of the system or vessel. In addition, a cost-benefit analysis must be
undertaken to determine whether the benefits associated with the incremental standard would
exceed the cost of implementation.
Response: Changes to the permit's effluent limitations as a result of the permit reopener clause
must be changes that are available and economically achievable - please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 6. EPA declines to include a
"grandfathering" provision for BWMS in today's permit - please see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: Steven A. Fisher, Executive Director, American Great
Lakes Ports Association
Commenter Affiliation: American Great Lakes Ports Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0545-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
825
-------
Comment: Grandfathering of Equipment
The EPA has indicated that the Vessel General Permit will be revisited on a four—year cycle.
Further, both the EPA and Coast Guard have suggested that initial ballast water treatment
standards will be updated in the future to embrace new technologies and new treatment
capabilities. While it is clearly in the public interest to update the ballast water discharge
standard when possible, EPA needs to assure vessel operators that investments in environmental
technology will be protected. We ask EPA to include language in the VGP grandfathering
investments in ballast water treatment equipment and assuring vessel operators that such
equipment may be deployed for its full useful life. Such a grandfathering provision may be a
particularly attractive "carrot" to reward early actors who install treatment systems sooner rather
than later.
Response: EPA has finalized a 5-year permit term for today's VGP. New technologies and new
treatment capabilities will be considered in any decision to modify the VGP, as indicated in the
permit reopener clause, and those modified provisions must continue to meet the requirements
of the CWA by being both available and economically achievable. Please also see the response
to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 6. EPA declines to include a
"grandfathering" provision for BWMS in today's permit - please see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A3
2
No
Comment: 4. Issue: The inclusion of revised language in the proposed VGP regarding what
may constitute new information with respect to ballast water discharges for the purposes of
potentially modifying the permit during its term (the (reopener" provision).
Response: As stated in the main body of our response, EPA assumes that technology could be
developed and implemented within a four or five year window (depending upon the duration of
the VGP 2013) which would result in a significant increase in discharge standard stringency.
This assumption ignores the reality that systems simply cannot be developed, approved and
installed within that timeframe. Additionally, the cost of installing an existing BWMS is
estimated at $3.0 to 4.0 million. Given that - according to the SAB - any treatment system which
can achieve a significantly more stringent standard would require "wholly new" technologies, it
is likely these systems would be at least double the cost. Therefore, any system which is installed
on a vessel must have a minimum of a 15 year grandfathering, but preferably a grandfathering
for the life of the system or life of the vessel. The EPA must conduct a cost-benefit analysis
before establishing a more stringent standard, particularly as it pertains to the total costs of
installing (and removing) multiple systems over the lifetime of a vessel.
Response: Please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 5,
826
-------
and EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 6. Please also see sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 13 of
this comment response document, and sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the VGP fact sheet for further
discussion about how EPA derives technology based effluent limits, including the Agency's
consideration of costs. Additionally, EPA is not required to conduct cost/benefit analyses for
issuance or modification of a permit, and instead considers costs in the context of its
BAT/BCT/BPT analyses. Furthermore, the Agency examines the total costs of the permit in a
manner consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Please see the economic analysis
conducted for today's permit and section 13 of this comment response document for further
discussion.
Commenter Name: Scott Strand, Executive Director, MN Center for
Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: Comments on individual sections.
1.9.1 Modification of the VGP
The final bullet point listed in this section reads: "The cumulative effects of any discharge
authorized under the VGP on the environment are unacceptable." As explained below in
comments on section 2.2.3.5 and 2.2.3.5.2 the VGP should be modified immediately based on
these criteria alone. The standards are set too low and the schedule for compliance is too long.
This section of the permit should also require a bi-annual review of technologies and require a
report that includes recommendations for changes to permit standards based on this review.
Establishing a bi-annual review of technologies is important to creating a clear understanding
and expectation on the part of permittees that ballast water permit standards will keep pace with
current technologies. It is imperative that this general permit take into account the results of these
types of studies on at least a bi-annual basis to inform the permit standards beginning in 2013.
Response: Please see EPA's response to the comments on section 2.2.3.5 and 2.2.3.5.2.
A general permit is not the appropriate vehicle for imposing any type of periodic review
requirement on the Agency, as general permits impose conditions on vessel owner/operators,
not the Agency. In addition, while EPA does not intend to conduct a formal bi-annual review of
new treatment technologies, as stated in VGP Part 1.9.1, EPA will consider new information
that would justify the application of different permit conditions as grounds for permit
modification or revocation. Such new information could include improvements in treatment
technologies or better understanding of treatment technologies. EPA staff are heavily engaged
in conducting and following research related to ballast water treatment technologies, and are
likely to become aware of any new information that would warrant reopening the permit.
Finally, please also see sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 for discussion regarding the numeric limits
established in today's permit and the implementation schedule.
827
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law Division, New
York City Law Department
New York City Law Department
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0598-A2
3
No
Comment: Section 1.9.1 Modification of the VGP. pg. 16
Vessel owners should be provided ample time to implement new treatment technologies. Factors
that should be considered when providing a reasonable timeframe for implementation include, at
a minimum, engineering feasibility studies, United States Coast Guard ("USCG") plan review
and approval, and the lengthy budgeting and procurement processes that are commonplace for
state and local governments.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 5,
and EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: 4. The inclusion of revised language in the proposed VGP regarding what may
constitute new information with respect to ballast water discharges for the purposes of
potentially modifying the permit during its term (the "reopener" provision).
We oppose the inclusion of this revised language in the new VGP due to the high degree of
uncertainty it places upon the continued acceptability of approved Ballast Water Treatment
systems to meet current requirements.
Due to the complex and extensive nature of Type Approval testing (see Section 2.2.3.5 of the
Proposed 2013 VGP), ballast water treatment systems that are currently approved and are
required to be installed by operators according to the schedule published as per table 6 in section
2.2.3, may become obsolete due to a change in the regulation. This introduces significant risk of
implementation for both the vessel owner/operator as well as the ballast water treatment system
manufacturer.
We suggest that the regulation provide incentives for owner/operators that install approved
ballast water treatment systems, for example - that these approved and installed ballast water
treatment systems will be acceptable to all regulations throughout the life of the ship or the life
of the ballast water treatment system.
828
-------
Additionally, we suggest that BAT methodologies only be reexamined during the 5-year
reissuance period of the VGP and subject to public comment to insure adequate time is afforded
to meet new BAT standards.
Response: Please see the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 5,
and EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 6. EPA agrees with commenter that
modifications to the ballast water technology-based effluent limits during the permit's term
should be subject to notice and comment, and notes that EPA's regulations require notice and
comment of permit modifications. See 40 C.F.R. 122.62
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
5
No
Comment: 4. The inclusion of revised language in the proposed VGP regarding what may
constitute new information with respect to ballast water discharges for the purposes of
potentially modifying the permit during its term (the "reopener" provision).
We oppose the inclusion of this revised language in the new VGP due to the high degree of
uncertainty it places upon the continued acceptability of approved Ballast Water Treatment
systems to meet current requirements.
Due to the complex and extensive nature of Type Approval testing (see Section 2.2.3.5 of the
Proposed 2013 VGP). ballast water treatment systems that are currently approved and are
required to be installed by operators according to the schedule published as per table 6 in section
2.2.3. may become obsolete due to a change in the regulation. This introduces significant risk of
implementation for both the vessel owner/operator as well as the ballast water treatment system
manufacturer.
It is recommended that the regulation provide incentives for owner/operators that install
approved ballast water treatment systems, for example - that these approved and installed ballast
water treatment systems will be acceptable to all regulations throughout the life of the vessel or
the life of the ballast water treatment system. Additionally, it is recommended that BAT
methodologies only be reexamined during the 5-year reissuance period of the VGP and subject to
public comment to insure adequate time is afforded to meet new BAT standards.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2, excerpt 4.
Commenter Name: Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
829
-------
Commenter Affiliation: Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 27
Late Comment? No
Comment: f. Bevond BAT
EPA has stated the possibility of tightening the best available treatment limits once technology
improves and better data on efficacy of systems become available. The timing of any changes to
the limits could be problematic. Our members must conduct a lot of additional research and
development to develop systems to achieve more stringent standards. We are concerned that
vessel owners will delay purchase decisions while they wait for a next generation system that can
meet more stringent standards. There must be some form of grandfathering put in place to give
vessel owners some certainty to acquire equipment that will not need to be replaced in five years.
Response: Vessel owners are required to meet the ballast water discharge limits contained in
today's permit by the applicable dates in the permit's implementation schedule. With respect to
"grandfathering" of treatment systems, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-
2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 6.
9.1.13 Management Measures
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Chamber of Shipping of America
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
8
No
Comment: Ballast Water (Section 2.2.3, pgs. 23 - 40): CSA welcomes the inclusion of the IMO
Ballast Water Convention standard in the new VGP requirements. We do however have a
number of concerns with regard to these provisions.
Section 2.2.3.3 at pages 24 - 25 provides a number of mandatory ballast water management
requirements. Specifically on page 25, the last item under the second bullet which reads
"minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water in the following areas and situations... areas with
pods of whales, convergence zones, and boundaries of major currents" creates a prohibition
based on information not normally available to a vessel. But for the Dynamic Management Area
concept applied to the North Atlantic Right Whale on the East Coast of the US and some
notification systems on the West Coast, vessels do not have access to information on whale
locations. Likewise, locations of convergence zones and boundaries of major currents, which
shift over time, are not available to vessel crews in real time. CSA agrees that this concept
should be included in this section but suggests that the text be modified to read "where known,
areas with pods of whales, convergence zones, and boundaries of major currents".
830
-------
Response: EPA notes that the language which this comment is questioning is the same as long-
standing requirements in Coast Guard regulations promulgated on July 28, 2004 and now
codified at 33 CFR 151.2050 (b)(7). See 69 Fed. Reg. 44961, col. 2 (adding this requirement
into former § 151.2035(a)(2)(vii)). As this is a long-standing requirement which industry has
complied with in the past, remains an existing requirement under the current Coast Guard
regulations, and the suggested change would create unnecessary differences between the Coast
Guard and VGP provisions on this matter, EPA declines to modify the VGP as suggested.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 29
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question 9. Whether additional management measures which reduce risks at
various stages of ballasting are appropriate to include in the final VGP. Specifically, what
additional management measures the VGP should include, costs associated with those measures,
and how well those measures reduce the risk from ballast water discharges. Also any additional
measures discussed by the NAS (2011) or SAB (2011) reports that EPA should consider
incorporating in this permit. Please submit any data or other information supporting your
recommendations. Again we would refer to our comments in the ballast water section of this
document. Ships are prepared to install very expensive ballast water treatment systems at an
expected cost of over one million US dollars per vessel. It is difficult to justify that expenditure if
additional management measures are to be overlaid on that requirement with little or no science
to justify additional measures.
Response: With respect to comments in the ballast water section of commenter's letter, see the
responses to those comments elsewhere in this response to comment document. With respect to
commenter's concern about additional management measures " with little or no science to
justify additional measures," this comment does not specify or particularize what additional
measures commenter is concerned with but, based on the context of this comment, we interpret
this to mean management of ballast water beyond mere installation of treatment equipment. In
response, and in the absence of specific additional measures being singled out, EPA notes in
general that the additional management measures contained in the VGP are based upon sound
scientific and legal principles as further explained in the Fact Sheet for the Final VGP and
elsewhere in this response to comments document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Algis Vanagas, Senior Vice-President Technical, Algoma
Central Corporation
Algoma Central Corporation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1
6
No
831
-------
Comment: Part 2.2.3.3. Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices.
A new best management practice has been introduced for all vessels, specifically: "When
discharging ballast water in port, if the vessel is equipped with high and low suction within
ballast tanks, utilize the high suction for ballast tank discharge to minimize the discharge of
entrained sediment. The low suction may be used to strip sediment from tanks when suitable
disposal facilities are available." The requirement to utilize a 'high suction' for discharge is not
operationally possible. Ballast tanks are only fitted with a suction in the lowest part of the tank
and are designed to remove as much water as possible. Perhaps what the EPA intends with this
BMP is for the vessel to use a high sea suction, if fitted with one, for ballast intake in order to
minimize the amount of sediment taken into the tank from the lake. With respect to ballast
removal, vessel operators must remove as much ballast as possible prior to loading cargo and do
not retain ballast water in the tanks, other than un-pumpable residuals.
Response: EPA's intent with this requirement was based upon design recommendations from
EPA's Science Advisory Board (EPA, 2011). The SAB noted that improving the performance
of ballast water management systems may require new treatment method development. New
designs based on the water treatment industry included fitting the piping for deballasting with a
high suction (300 mm above bottom) and a low suction (75 mm above bottom). The high
suction could then be used for ballast tank discharge and would result in a discharge that does
not contain sediment. The low suction would be used for stripping sediment from the tank to
suitable disposal facilities. Although integrating such an idealized system into existing vessels
could be technically challenging or impossible, it is technically feasible to integrate these
treatment systems into new vessel designs. EPA recognizes that some ships may not be
equipped with both a high and low suction as described by the SAB, in which case the BMP, as
proposed, would not have been applicable.
Ballast water taken on board in coastal and estuarine areas can have high levels of suspended
solids such as when ships are floating very close to the bottom or the bottom has been disturbed
by storm events or sediment loading from rives are high. Sediment (silt, mud and clay, detrital
and flocculent material, rusted metal sheddings off tank walls) accumulates in the bottom (due
to sedimentation) and on many horizontal surfaces in ballast tanks in large quantities (hundreds
of cubic meters). For example, double-bottom ballast tanks of cargo vessels have had up to 30
cm of sediment after only 2 years (Hamer et al. 2000). Even in no ballast on board (NOBOB)
vessels, accumulated sediment can be resuspended and discharged upon subsequent
deballasting (Drake et al. 2007).
The BMP referenced by the commenter is intended to limit the amount of sediment discharged
from ballast tanks when vessels are deballasting in port, whereas, the suggested revision is
aimed at limiting the amount of sediment taken into ballast takes during uptake. Insofar as
recognizing the need to reduce sediment, the suggested revision is consistent with NRC (1996),
which recommended that an appropriate ballast water management BMP is to avoid taking on
ballast in ports with high sediment loads (NRC 1996). Others have recommended the exact
BMP as recommended by the commenter: for instance, Taylor et al. (200) notes that utilizing
high sea suction pumps when the clearance is less than 5 meters to the lower edge of the sea
chest would likely reduce sediment intake. This enhanced design concept would result in good
832
-------
sediment removal and minimum retention of sediment in the tanks (Rigby et al. 1993).
EPA agrees that the suggested revision would create an appropriate BMP to limit the intake of
sediment in the tanks that would result in a long-term reduction in the ability of those tanks to
have viable diapausing eggs and other benthic organisms survive in that sediment. The
requirement also would reduce management costs for vessel owner/operators, as they would
have to spend less to clean tanks and dispose of sediments.
Based on the advice of the SAB, EPA also believes the BMP as proposed could help reduce the
discharge of sediment into near shore waters. Nonetheless, EPA recognizes that the BMP, as
proposed, would only be applicable to a handful of ships, if any, as it was the proposed based
on information from the SAB report in a section titled "Using the idealized design as a basis for
conceptualizing new shipboard BWMS (SEPA SAB, 2011, 53). Hence, the Agency has revised
§ 2.2.3.3 of_the permit with these comments in mind, modifying the original BMP to more
clearly reflect the proposal of the commenter.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
13
No
Comment: 2.2.3.3: Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices: Management Measures
Required of All Vessel Owner / Operators
We understand why the EPA would want to avoid ballast water uptakes in areas with pods of
whales, in convergence zones, and at the boundaries of major currents. However, if such a
measure is to be adopted in the final permit, it should also include strategies for communicating
this information to foreign-flag vessels transiting in U.S. waters, given that such vessels may not
always have the knowledge required to comply with this measure.
Response: With respect the substance of this requirement as set out in the VGP, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 8. With respect to strategies
for communicating this information to foreign-flag vessels, EPA notes that the United States
has in place a system, administered by the Coast Guard to provide local notices to mariners
concerning aids to navigation, hazards to navigation, and other items of marine information of
interest to mariners on the waters of the United States, its territories, and possessions. See,
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=lnmFAQ.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 23
Late Comment? No
833
-------
Comment: Question #9: Are there additional management measures which reduce risks at
various stages of ballasting that are appropriate to include in the final VGP? Specifically, what
additional management measures should the VGP include, what are the costs associated with
those measures, and how well do those measures reduce the risk from ballast water discharges?
Also, should any additional measures discussed by the NAS (2011) or SAB (2011) reports be
incorporated in this permit?
LCA response: At this point in time we are unable to identify any additional management
measures that reduce risks from ballasting with any certainty. Some of our members are over
time retrofitting their vessels with "high" ballast water intakes, and these do seem to reduce the
amount of sediment taken in. But as explained elsewhere in these comments, we question the
environmental risks associated with this sediment, so cannot recommend this voluntary step be
incorporated into the VGP. Sediment in ballast tanks adds weight to the vessel and that reduces
its cargo-carrying capacity, so removal is as much an efficiency issue. Again, nothing in the
record supports that this sediment is a potential threat to the environment.
None of the "Approaches Other than Ballast Water Treatment" discussed by the NAS (2011) are
viable on Lakers. In Section 6.5.1 of NAS (2011), the study discusses managing the time, place
and depth of ballasting. We are unclear how this could be implemented. A vessel that is loading
or discharging cargo has to ballast and there is a minimum amount that must be taken on or
pumped to safely ensure the hull is not subjected to stresses for which it was not designed. A
vessel can pull away from the dock and then take or discharge a small of amount of ballast to
finish trimming the vessel, but the majority of ballast will be conducted dockside.
Section 6.5.2 of NAS (2011) discusses Mid-ocean Exchange, which is physically impossible for
our vessels seeing as their confines them to Island and points west. Remember too it's the
salinity/toxicity of the ocean water that kills freshwater species. The Great Lakes are fresh water
from the western end of Lake Superior all the way to the Victoria Bridge in Montreal. However,
we need to stress that ballast exchange is challenging on our vessels, and the feasibility ofany
alternative must take the following facts into account: safely ensure the hull is not subjected to
stresses for which it was not designed. A vessel can pull away from the dock and then take or
discharge a small of amount of ballast to finish trimming the vessel, but the majority of ballast
will be conducted dockside.
Section 6.5.2 of NAS (2011) discusses Mid-ocean Exchange, which is physically impossible for
our vessels seeing as their loadline confines them to Anticosti Island and points west. Remember
too it's the salinity/toxicity of the ocean water that kills freshwater species. The Great Lakes are
fresh water from the western end of Lake Superior all the way to the Victoria Bridge in
Montreal.
However, we need to stress that ballast exchange is challenging on our vessels, and the
feasibility of any alternative must take the following facts into account:
• . A vessel is a free-ended girder loaded down by the weight of the hull steel, machinery,
stores, cargo or ballast, and pushed up by the buoyancy along the hull. The uneven
distribution of weight and buoyancy cause the hull girder to be subject to shear forces and
834
-------
bending moments. The classification societies and Coast Guard have established "not-to-
exceed" limits on bending moments and hull stress.
• . The Master must assure the allowable stress and bending moments are never exceeded. It is
possible to place loads of cargo or ballast on a vessel that will cause it to break in two. In
2000, a Canadian Laker suffered a catastrophic structural failure of the hull when improperly
loaded and was subsequently scrapped. It is important to recognize that, due to the unique
operating environment in the Great Lakes, Lakers are built to different structural standards
than ocean-going vessels. Their scantlings are significantly different than their ocean-going
counterparts. Thus, while ballast water exchange may be safe for most ocean-going vessels, it
is not safe for most Lakers due to their ballast tank configuration, operating parameters and
different scantlings. Any recommendation for ballast water exchange which may be included
in the VGP should be just that - a recommendation - and should contain a strongly worded
safety exemption to ensure vessel owners, operators and Masters are given absolute authority
to determine if such exchange is safe for their vessel.
• . U.S.-flag Lakers have anywhere from 10 to 18 separate ballast tanks. These tanks are on each
side of the vessel and run the length of the hull. Exchanging ballast would require pumping
out one or several pairs of tanks at a time. All ballast could not be exchanged at once because
ballast is needed to keep the propeller and rudder submerged. Furthermore, pumping out
ballast near the stern will cause that part of the vessel to float higher and cause the propeller
and rudder to be partially out of the water and thus ineffective.
• . The procedure would be to pump a tank dry and then refill it. However, pumping a tank dry
removes significant weight from that area of the vessel and results in potentially very high
hull stresses and bending moments. In order to compensate for this, other ballast water may
have to be removed.
• . In the spring and fall, high winds and storms are common, and a prudent Master will keep
maximum ballast on board so the vessel can ride-out the pitching and rolling caused by the
waves. The Captain could not consider increasing hull stresses and bending moments in those
circumstances, so would be reluctant to empty any ballast water from any tank.
• . While Lakers operate in fresh water, there still is some corrosion. Once a vessel reaches 25
years of service, the actual thickness of the metal is measured and compared to the original
thickness. Because there is corrosion and because Lakers have a life expectancy of decades
(one vessel is 106 years old; others were built in the 1940s and 1950s), the Captain would not
allow ballast distribution to cause any increase in stresses or bending moments.
• . Flow-thru of ballast water is the process of continuously running the ballast pump into each
tank until three tank volumes have been "exchanged." It has been claimed that tank manholes
could be removed on the top of the tanks to allow the water to flow onto the deck. The design
of Great Lakes ships does not have ballast tank manholes located on the outside deck. All
manholes are inside the ship and removing them to let water flow out of the tank would flood
the ship internally. Further, design and modifications that could overcome this limitation
have been evaluated and costs for retrofit would approach $1 million per vessel. Also, having
water spewing out on deck during freezing weather would cause an icing hazard and build up
of weight from the ice and cause overloading of the hull.
• . Length of voyages also works against lakers exchanging ballast. As discussed before, most
voyages are less than 80 hours in duration. Vessels in ocean trades steam continuously for
many days, even weeks on end. They have the time to exchange ballast, and if the weather is
threatening, can postpone the exchange. A Laker that has discharged cargo in Cleveland,
835
-------
Ohio, and is then scheduled to load a limestone cargo in Marblehead, Ohio, would have only
about four hours to exchange its ballast.
Section 6.5.3 ofNAS (2011) discusses Reducing or Eliminating Ballast Water Discharge
Volumes. Research suggests ballastless ships are possible in the future. "Rather than increasing
the weight of vessels by adding to water to the ballast tanks, these new designs use reduced
buoyancy to get the ship down to safe operating drafts in a no-cargo condition. For example, the
Variable Buoyancy Ship design (Parsons 1998; Kotinis et al. 2004; Parsons 2010) achieves this
end by having structural tanks of sufficient volume that extend most of the length of the ship
below the "ballast waterline" and then opening these trunks to the sea in the no-cargo condition.
When the ship is at speed, the natural pressure difference between the bow and the stern induces
flow through the open trunks, resulting in only local water (and associated organisms) within the
trunks at any point during the voyage."
However, NAS (2011) goes on to say, "While showing promise, and worthy of further
considerations, ballastless ship designs appear feasible only for new vessels being built in the
future. The study also acknowledges that "a return to the historic approach of using solid ballast
(commonly iron, cement, gravel or sand) may not be feasible or cost effective for most vessels in
the modern merchant fleet."
The practices employed on passenger and container ships are not feasible on dry-bulk carriers.
Section 6.5.4 ofNAS (2011) addresses Temporal and Spatial Patterns. It seems logical that if a
ballast discharge can be broken up in space or time, the invasion risk will be lowered, but this
assumes the interruption increases salinity/toxicity, which clearly would not be the case on the
Great Lakes. However, as noted before, the economics of Great Lakes shipping require the
fastest ballasting and deballasting that can be safely achieved. The industry could not be
competitive or meet the needs of commerce if loading or unloading had to repeatedly pause for
an extended period of time. It is equally impractical to pipe ballast ashore, and piping to other
locations in the harbors would be ineffective, as we have no tides on the Great Lakes that would
produce mixing of the waters.
Response: With respect to commenter's citation to various sections of the NAS report and
associated discussion of additional management measures in that report, EPA notes that the
final VGP does not contain such additional measures for Lakers, as EPA agrees that they would
be inappropriate at this time. We further note that EPA does not agree with commenter's
assertion that nothing in the record supports that sediment in ballast tanks is a potential threat to
the environment. Sediment in ships ballast tanks is a well known vector for introduction of
invasive species when discharged or disposed of into waters of the U.S. as well as causing other
effects such as increases in turbidity, and this is reflected in the record for the VGP. See e.g.,
VGP Fact Sheet at §§ 3.4.7; 4.4.3; 4.4.3.2; 2011 SAB report at pp 77 and 84; 2011 NAS Report
at chapter 1; section 9.1.4 of this comment response document. With respect to the use of
suction, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0493-A1, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name: Tim Eder, Executive Director, Great Lakes Commission
Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Commission
836
-------
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0528-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: The Commission also supports the mandatory BMPs to avoid ballast discharge into
particularly sensitive ecosystems, and the uptake of ballast water in areas where the risk of AIS
intake is high. Required BMPs should also include practices to avoid discharge of entrained
sediments and regular cleaning of ballast tanks to remove sediments as appropriate.
Response: EPA notes commenter's support for the mandatory BMP's in the VGP. With respect
to the statement that the VGP should "also" include practices to avoid discharge of entrained
sediments and regular cleaning of ballast tanks to remove sediment, EPA notes that such
requirements are already included in the BMPs (e.g., measures to reduce the introduction of
sediment into ballast tanks by avoiding uptake near dredging operations or where propellers
will stir up sediment; regular cleaning of ballast tanks and no discharge of sediments from such
cleaning). Please also see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1, excerpt
6.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 24, Part 2.2.3.3 Mandatory Ballast Water Practices - The additional restrictions
of section 2.2.3.3 are overly broad and have the potential to include virtually any port in the
United States. Descriptions of restricted waters are very general and vessels will find it almost
impossible to obtain prior knowledge as to whether a location is near any sewage outfall,
experiencing an algae bloom, or near any ongoing dredging operations.
"Areas where tidal flushing is known to be poor or times when a tidal stream is known to be
turbid" is a condition where vessels are required to minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water.
The concern for where a tidal stream is known to be turbid is not a valid reason in SE Alaska to
avoid uptake of ballast water. The surface waters in SE Alaska can be very turbid due to glacial
flour present in the numerous glacial fed rivers. While turbid tidal waters in other areas might be
associated with concentrations of organisms that is unlikely to be true when dealing with
turbidity from glacial fed rivers. This sub-bullet in Part 2.2.3.3 could be resolved by adding in
parentheses the following: "(where turbidity is associated with glacial fed rivers, there is not a
need to minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water.)"
"Areas with pods of whales" cannot be translated into an operational constraint that has any
environmental meaning. For whales to be affected by the uptake of ballast water the ship would
literally have had to sail directly over the whale (ballast water uptake is through an opening in
the bottom of the hull). It would appear that this action would necessarily be avoided through
837
-------
good seamanship; therefore, the reason to restrict the uptake of ballast water is already negated
through proper operation of the vessel. Therefore, there is little reason that a vessel should avoid
uptake of ballast water from such areas and the term should be deleted.
Response: With respect to concerns about restrictions in VGP § 2.2.3.3. on ballast water
uptake or discharge near sewage outfalls, areas experiencing algal blooms, near dredging
operations, areas with poor flushing, or times of turbidity in tidal streams, EPA notes that these
requirements in the VGP are the same as those already contained in current Coast Guard
regulations (33 CFR 151.2050(b)(1) -- (6). EPA further notes these have been mandatory
requirements of Coast Guard regulations since 2004, and prior to that were contained in Coast
Guard regulations as voluntary guidelines. See, 69 Fed. Reg. 44961, col. 2, former §
151.2035(a) (converting former voluntary guidelines into mandatory requirements). See also, §
9.1.1 of IMO Resolution A.868(20) (November 27, 1997). Given the long-standing nature of
these requirements and their continued presence in existing Cost Guard regulations, EPA
declines to remove these provisions or to rephrase them as suggested as this would result in
unnecessary conflicts with Coast Guard regulations. With respect to concerns about text in the
VGP related to whale pods, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-
0485-A1, excerpt 8.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
16
No
Comment: Mandatory BMPs. Wisconsin DNR has several questions about some of the
mandatory BMPs. How is a vessel operator expected to learn about local infestations, harm fill
pathogens, algal blooms, sewage outfall locations, dredging operations, poor tidal flushing, etc.?
Wisconsin DNR recommends that this be specifically spelled out in the permit. Is
midocean dumping of sediments a safe and environmentally protective pract ice that EPA wants
to promote? Would drydocking and (land) removal of sediment be a more appropriate practice?
Response: With respect to how a vessel operator is to learn about local infestations etc, EPA
notes that that the United States has in place a system, administered by the Coast Guard, to
provide local notices to mariners concerning aids to navigation, hazards to navigation, and other
items of marine information of interest to mariners on the waters of the United States, its
territories, and possessions. See, http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=lnmFAQ. With
respect to mid-ocean disposal of sediments, EPA does not believe that the VGP "promotes" this
practice, but rather prohibits the discharge of sediment in waters subject to the permit. Sediment
in ships' ballast tanks is a well known vector for introduction of invasive species when
discharged or disposed of into waters of the U.S. as well as causing other effects such as
increases in turbidity, and this is reflected in the record for the VGP. See e.g., VGP Fact Sheet
at §§ 3.4.7; 4.4.3; 4.4.3.2; 2011 SAB report at pp 77 and 84; 2011 NAS Report at chapter 1;
section 9.1.4 of this comment response document.
838
-------
Under the 2009 VGP and today's final VGP, vessels may either remove the sediment for
shoreside disposal or flush the sediment at sea. EPA further notes that mid-ocean discharge of
such material significantly reduces the risk of such sediment being a vector for successful
establishment of ANS in nearshore and inland ecosystems. Where port facilities can
accommodate land-based disposal, such a practice is one viable way to remove such sediments
from ballast water tanks. Based on information submitted on vessels' NOIs in the first VGP, a
significant share of vessels discharge sediment to a land based facility. See the following table.
In summary, EPA believes that both onshore and midocean disposal of sediment reflects current
viable practices for managing sediment from ballast water tanks.
(>il and
l.arj-e
Med.
(ias
( ollllll.
l.arne
( ruise
( ruise
Melhods
Harues
Tankers
lisliinu
l-'erries
Ship
Ship
Ueseareh
knieru.
(>1 her
(>nshore at Shipyards
via Third Party
78%
37%
81%
50%
72%
49%
55%
84%
70%
Onshore/Landfill
0.2%
4%
0%
2%
0%
0%
2%
4%
0%
Onshore or Offshore
0%
19%
0%
0%
10%
13%
7%
4%
7%
Offshore/Overboard
0.8%
37%
6%
6%
18%
19%
8%
5%
16%
Not Applicable/ No
Ballast
21%
3%
13%
42%
0%
19%
28%
3%
7%
Total # Respondents
6,950
2,521
123
62
97
16
74
56
8,529
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadiens)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadiens)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2
9
No
Comment: 1. In Article 2.2.3.3, Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices, a new best
management practice has been introduced for all vessels, specifically:
"When discharging ballast water in port, if the vessel is equipped with high and
low suction within ballast tanks, utilize the high suction for ballast tank discharge
to minimize the discharge of entrained sediment. The low suction may be used to
strip sediment from tanks when suitable disposal facilities are available. "
This BMP, as written, does not make sense. If it is the EPA's intent to limit the amount of
sediment taken into ballast tanks during uptake, then it would be appropriate to suggest that
vessels utilize their high sea suction, if equipped with such and if practical, when ballasting. The
requirement however to utilize a 'high suction' for discharge is not operationally possible. Also, it
does not make sense to try and limit the volume of ballast water removed from tanks during
cargo loading as a means of minimizing discharge of entrained sediment. Removal of the
maximum volume of ballast water is required in order to maximize cargo volume, therefore ship
839
-------
owners, who are not in business to carry ballast water around, cannot follow this practice and
remain competitive.
Response: With respect to high and low suction, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
OW-2011-0141-0493-A1, excerpt 6. Additionally, EPA has only limited ballast water
discharges insofar as requiring the vessel to discharge only the minimal amount of ballast water
essential for vessel operations. Loading cargo is an essential operation of a cargo ship.
However, minimization techniques could include limiting the discharge of ballast water in
nearshore waters (e.g., discharging some or all ballast offshore before coming into port when it
can be done safely). Lastly, EPA does not agree such a provision "does not make sense," is a
practice that cannot be followed, or somehow affects a vessel's competiveness, as such a
provision has pre-existed the VGP (33 CFR 151.2050(d) (similar limitation in US Coast Guard
regulations); see also, IMP Resolution 868 (A20) at f 9.2.2)).
Commenter Name: Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
League's Great Lakes Committee et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.3.3 Mandatory Ballast Walter Management Practices: All Vessels
We request the following edits to strengthen this section. In the first bullet point, replace the
word "avoid" with "prohibit" and add the condition "except if the ship is using approved ballast
water treatment systems, and even then discharge should be avoided".
Response: EPA notes that the term "avoid" was also used in the first bullet point § 2.2.3.3 of
the 2009 VGP and is adequate to convey that discharge or uptake of ballast water in the areas
specified in that bullet are not allowed, especially as it is proceeded in the introductory text
above the first bullet by "must" (so as to provide when read in full "must avoid). Commenter
does not explain why their suggested change is necessary or why the formulation of the 2009
VGP has proven inadequate. EPA further notes that the comment has the potential to create
confusion as it also suggests creating a new exception for ships using "approved ballast
systems," and then provide such ships "should" avoid discharge. In light of the foregoing, EPA
declines to make the requested change.
Commenter Name: Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent, V. Ships
Leisure
Commenter Affiliation: V. Ships Leisure
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
840
-------
Comment: Item No: 4. VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: 2.2.3.3 Mandatory ballast water
management practices for all operators.
VGP 2013 or Factsheet text: When discharging ballast water in port, if the vessel is equipped
with high and low suction within ballast tanks, utilize the high suction for ballast tank discharge
to minimize the discharge of entrained sediment. The low suction may be used to strip sediment
from tanks when suitable disposal facilities are available.
Comments: some vessels may not be able to pump out their ballast water to the practicable
minimum if using only higher suctions and thus may have load line issues if other weights are
present onboard or may not be able or lift their max contracted/chartered cargo.
Suggestion or Proposed text: Suggest this should be a recommendation ie with "should."
Item No: 5. VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: 2.2.3.3 Mandatory Ballast Water Practices
VGP 2013 or Factsheet text: Minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water in the following areas
and situations: Areas with pods of whales...
Comments: The IMO resolution 868 (20) and the International Ballast Water Convention do not
limit uptake from areas of pods of whales and as the environmental impact of ballast water is
associated with invasive species the (indirect) connection of whales cannot be recognized or
neither they should be endangered if ballast water is being uptaken in their area.
Suggestion or Proposed text: We suggest that the reference for "areas of pods of whales" is
removed.
Response: With respect to high and low suction, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
OW-2011-0141-0493-A1, excerpt 6. Based on this and other comments, EPA has rewritten the
BMP to make it clear that it must be done only when feasible and safe. With respect to concerns
about text in the VGP related to whale pods, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-
2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 8.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tim Eder, Executive Director and Katherine Glassner-
Shwayder, Senior Project Manager, Great Lakes
Commission (GLC)
Great Lakes Commission (GLC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0562-A2
4
No
Comment: The Commission also supports the mandatory BMPs to avoid ballast discharge into
particularly sensitive ecosystems, and the uptake of ballast water in areas where the risk of AIS
intake is high. Required BMPs should also include practices to avoid discharge of entrained
sediments and regular cleaning of ballast tanks to remove sediments as appropriate.
841
-------
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0528-A2, excerpt 4.
Commenter Name: Scott Strand, Executive Director, MN Center for
Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.3.3 Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices: Management measures
required of all vessel owner/operators. The second bullet requires owners, operators, and others
to, "Minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water. . ." and then lists a number of areas and situations
with higher risks of AIS uptake. This bullet should be changed to read simply "Avoid uptake of
ballast water. . ." Use of the additional term "minimize" unnecessarily opens the door for ballast
water uptake in these high risk areas and situations. Even with treatment technologies installed in
a vessel, uptake of ballast water from these areas and situations will potentially increase the
density of AIS in ballast water and increase propagule pressure when discharged.
We support the remaining bullet points in this section, particularly those related to management
of ballast tank sediment. Tank sediment has been well documented to contain an abundance of
AIS and is a substance that generally reduces the efficacy of ballast water treatment.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2, excerpt 8.
The comment expressing support for the other bulleted points, including those for management
of ballast tank sediment is noted. EPA has retained "minimize," as that term ensures that the
BMP at issue reflects BAT in individual circumstances. See discussion of "minimize" at 4.1.2
of the Fact Sheet. Nothing in the above comment addresses the key issue of whether "avoiding"
alone will constitute BAT for vessels under this permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law Division, New
York City Law Department
New York City Law Department
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0598-A2
4
No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.3 Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices: Management
measures required for all vessel owners/operators, pg. 24. The City requests the addition of the
words "Minimize or..." to the first bullet point (so that it reads, "Minimize or avoid the discharge
. . ."). Without this change, City vessel operators would be restricted from taking ballast
anywhere in the northern half of the Upper Bay of New York Harbor. With regards to
NYCDOT's Staten Island Ferry, this restriction could severely impact NYCDOT's ability to
operate, as the ferries take ballast on approach to the ferry slips to enable the vessels to meet the
842
-------
heights of the loading bridges and aprons. Yet since the Staten Island Ferry operates exclusively
within one Captain of the Port ("COTP") zone, the risk of introducing invasive species by
discharging ballast water is minimal if not nonexistent. Alternatively, this provision could be
amended so that it does not apply to vessels that operate within one COTP zone. In addition, the
City requests that EPA add an exception from this management practice in cases where an
operator needs to take on ballast in order to operate the vessel safely, as with passenger ferries.
The City also requests that the list of New York waters in Appendix G be limited to areas
threatened by impacts to marine resources. Currently, Appendix G is overly broad; it includes
monuments and historical sites with minimal or no connection to marine resources. Applying
discharge restrictions in these areas could significantly hamper operations of City vessels without
a corresponding benefit to these resources.
Response: With respect to the suggested addition of the word "minimize" into the first bullet in
VGP § 2.2.3.3 of the VGP, EPA notes that the term "avoid" (i.e., without "minimize) was also
used in the first bullet point § 2.2.3.3 of the 2009 VGP and thus already is an existing
requirement, such that the compliance difficulties commenter points to would not be of the
hypothetical "would" or "could" nature that commenter states, but rather are already-extant
restrictions. EPA notes that the vessels commenter is concerned with have operated and
continue to operate under that 2009 VGP restriction, nor is EPA aware of receiving notices
from the vessels at issue under § 4.4.1 of the 2009 VGP that they have not complied with this
requirement. In light of the foregoing, EPA declines to make the requested change.
With respect to the requested limitation on the waters listed in VGP Appendix G, the
commenter did not provide the specific historic sites and monuments contained in the proposal
which they believe would hamper operation of City vessels. The list provided in Appendix G is
a complete list of marine sanctuaries, units of the National Park System, units of the National
Wildlife Refuge System, National Wilderness areas, and national wild and scenic rivers system
components. EPA notes that this list is gathered from sources maintained by the responsible
administrative agency and that EPA only removed areas that are clearly terrestrial and do not
contain waters suitable for permitted vessels or are unlikely to be impacted by permitted vessel
discharges (e.g. The Washington Monument). Based on this comment, EPA reviewed all of the
listed resources in Appendix G in New York waters. Based on that review, EPA only identified
two additional listed sites that were unlikely to contain shoreline under NPS jurisdiction
(Manhattan Sites and Fort Stanwix National Monument). EPA has not conducted additional
reviews of the National Park Service's plans for protection of the natural area around
monuments such as the Statue of Liberty. In light of the national interest in providing the
further protection for these areas, and that their jurisdictions include shorelines, EPA declines to
remove these resources from Appendix G waters.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Late Comment? No
843
-------
Comment: 9. Whether additional management measures which reduce risks at various stages of
ballasting are appropriate to include in the final VGP. It is our recommendation that the specific
inclusion of filtering requirements as inferred by the IMO International Convention for the
Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004, is critical and should be
specifically included in the final VGP.
Not mandating a baseline filter standard, estimated at 100 |im minimum, would introduce
significant risk for invasive species transfer since untreated organisms could be allowed to pass
through the treatment systems and included inside larger sediment deposits. In the absence of a
baseline filter standard, there is significant risk that organisms, particularly greater than 50 |im
will be allowed to pass through the treatment without effect and may contaminate the waterway.
Additionally, shell-based organisms may also pass through primary treatment without effect
unless a filter is installed.
Response: With respect to commenter's assertion that EPA require a minimum filter size for
ballast water intake as a technology-based limit (which EPA notes reflect features of the
commenter's product), EPA notes that there are multiple approaches that may be effective for
removing living organisms from ballast water uptake and discharge. Furthermore, fully
effective treatment will depend upon more than filtration of large organisms, that the benefits of
simply filtering out large organisms in actually reducing invasions is unknown, and that as
noted among the comment's references, filters are expected to be but a component of various
ballast water treatment systems planned for shipboard use, and we also note, for some systems,
not used at all. See e.g., Albert et al. 2010, EPA SAB 2011). We also currently are not aware of
systems under consideration exclusively using filtration, and as with other potential
technologies, even if such a piece-meal approach as recommended were followed, we would
need to evaluate filter performance to enable us to determine a technology based standard. In
short, EPA does not believe it appropriate to pick one technology over another when there are
multiple approaches, and the Agency further notes that meeting the numeric ballast water
treatment limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 are the governing technology-based concentration based
numeric ballast water treatment limit.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 23
Late Comment? No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.3. Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices: Management
measures required of all vessel owner/operators: It is our recommendation that EPA allow a
vessel to ballast in the conditions listed under the six (6) bullet points due to safety or significant
operational concerns provided that the vessel conduct a salt-water exchange/flush once the vessel
leaves port or have conducted a salt-water exchange/flush in the case of the fifth bullet point.
Performing this flush through an approved Ballast Water Treatment system will achieve a similar
844
-------
safety level to normal operation and will insure that vessel operators do not place themselves in a
dangerous situation without a chance for recourse.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2, excerpt 8.
Additionally, EPA does not believe that any requirement in Part 2.2.3.3 of the permit places a
vessel in a dangerous situation with no recourse. Nothing in Part 2.2.3.3 of the permit prevents a
vessel from ballasting or deballasting; instead these mandatory practices reduce the volume of
ballast water discharged, reduce ballasting in situations where ballast water taken up could
reasonably have a greater potential of later causing an invasion, disallow the disposal of
sediment from the cleaning of tanks in permit waters, and decrease the likelihood of living
organisms surviving uptake into the ballast water tank.
Commenter Name: Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Commenter Affiliation: Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? No
Comment: 9. Whether additional management measures which reduce risks at various stages of
ballasting are appropriate to include in the final VGP. It is our recommendation that the specific
inclusion of filtering requirements as inferred by the I MO International Convention for the
Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments. 2004. is critical and should be
specifically included in the final VGP.
Not mandating a baseline filter standard, estimated at 100 micrometers minimum, would
introduce significant risk for invasive species transfer since untreated organisms could be
allowed to pass through the treatment systems and included inside larger sediment deposits. In
the absence of a baseline filter standard, there is significant risk that organisms, particularly
greater than 50 micrometers will be allowed to pass through the treatment without effect and
may contaminate the waterway.
Additionally, shell-based organisms may also pass through primary treatment without effect
unless a filter is installed.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2, excerpt 9.
Commenter Name: Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army
Corps of Engineers
Commenter Affiliation: US Army Corps of Engineers
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0632-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
845
-------
Comment: Issue 4. Ballast Water.
Reference: Vessel General Permit (VGP), Section 2.2.3.3 - Mandatory Ballast Water
Management Practices.
Discussion: The permit states vessels "...must minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water where
propellers may stir up the sediment." This is difficult to judge/enforce/comply with. Many inland
vessels operate in shallow water and in areas where the clearance between the bottom and the
propeller is very small.
Recommendation: US ACE recommends providing an exemption for inland vessels. In addition,
the language in the permit is relative and ambiguous. The permit should set forth clear guidance
for this BMP (i.e. avoid uptake of ballast water where the clearance below the keel/propeller is
less than ### feet).
Issue 5. Ballast Water
Reference: Vessel General Permit (VGP), Section 2.2.3.3 - Mandatory Ballast Water
Management Practices.
Discussion: The permit states vessels "...must minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water in
darkness...." In theory, this BMP may delay vessels because they cannot uptake ballast water in
darkness.
Recommendation: US ACE recommends removing this BMP as it is not reasonable.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2, excerpt 8.
EPA disagrees that the requirement to "minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water in darkness"
will unduly delay vessels. Additionally, EPA recognizes that to "minimize or avoid uptake of
ballast water where propellers may stir up the sediment" requires the vessel master and crew to
exercise their judgement, and in some situations (such as with some inland vessels in some
waters), it may not be possible to minimize or avoid the uptake of ballast water. Nonetheless,
EPA notes that these requirements are identical to those found in U.S. Coast Guard regulations,
and in the interest of maintaining consistency with those regulations, the Agency has not made
the suggested edits provided by the commenter.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army
Corps of Engineers
US Army Corps of Engineers
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0632-A2
4
No
Comment: Issue 7. Ballast Water
Reference: Vessel General Permit (VGP),
Section 2.2.3.5 - Ballast Water Numeric Discharge Limitations
Section 2.2.3.5.1.4 - No Discharge of Ballast Water
Section 2.2.3.5.2 - Schedule for when Ballast Water Treatment Becomes BAT
Section 2.2.3.5.3 - Vessels Not Required to Meet Part 2.2.3.5 Treatment Standards
846
-------
Discussion: The majority of USACE vessels are inland vessels that operate in one COTP Zone.
There are some vessels that transit between COTP Zones, but essentially staying on the same
inland river system (i.e. Upper Mississippi to the Lower Mississippi). USACE agrees with the
language in 2.2.3.5.3.1. that does not require vessels operating exclusively in one COTP Zone to
not have to meet the ballast water management measures.
Recommendation: This exemption should be expanded along the lines of allowing vessels that
operating the majority of the time in one COTP Zone to not have to meet part 2.2.3.5 ballast
water management measures. When these vessels operate outside of the home COTP Zone, they
can institute ballast water management measures such as no discharge, use of potable water, etc.
USACE does not think it is practical to require a vessel that operates the majority of the time in
one COTP Zone to meet the ballast water management measures because a small percentage of
the time they leave the home COTP Zone, but are still essentially operating on the same river
system.
Response: EPA notes that the COTP zone exclusion in the first bullet VGP § 2.2.3.5.3.1 is
based upon existing provisions in Coast Guard regulations (33 CFR 151.2015(a)(2)) and that
expanding that exclusion in the manner suggested would be inconsistent with that regulation,
and the more limited exclusion would still remain in effect by virtue of those regulations even if
EPA were to make the requested change to the VGP. Accordingly, EPA declines to make the
requested change. For further discussion on COTP zones, please see section 9.1.5 of this
comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gary Rosenlieb, Acting Chief, National Park Service Water
Resources Division, United States Department of the
Interior
National Park Service, United States Department of the
Interior
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0742-A2
2
No
Comment: We appreciate and support the recognition of and allowance for more stringent rules
in National Parks and other protected areas. However, we feel strongly that the first bullet point
in section 2.2.3.3 should state that ships must:
• NOT discharge ballast water into waters subject to this permit that are within or that may
directly affect marine sanctuaries, marine preserves, marine parks, shellfish beds, or coral
reefs or other waters listed in Appendix G waters (also called Part 12 waters), unless
deemed necessary for safety of crew and ship.
Response: EPA notes that the term "avoid" was used in the first bullet point § 2.2.3.3 of the
2009 VGP and is adequate to convey that discharge or uptake of ballast water in the areas
specified in that bullet are not allowed, especially as it is proceeded in the introductory text
above the first bullet by "must" (so as to provide when read in full "must avoid). Commenter
does not explain why their suggested change is necessary or why the formulation of the 2009
VGP has proven inadequate. In light of the foregoing, EPA declines to make the requested
847
-------
change.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gary Rosenlieb, Acting Chief, National Park Service Water
Resources Division, United States Department of the
Interior
National Park Service, United States Department of the
Interior
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0742-A2
6
No
Comment: Ballast water uptake requirements in 2.2.3.3 seem difficult for ships to be aware of
and thus impossible to enforce. For example, algal bloom identification may not be possible at
time of uptake, therefore better guidance is needed to identify area of lowest known risk. It
would be helpful to include language that acknowledges important contacts with state agencies,
US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Response: With respect to how a vessel operator is to learn about local infestations etc, EPA
notes that that the United States has in place a system, administered by the Coast Guard, to
provide local notices to mariners concerning aids to navigation, hazards to navigation, and other
items of marine information of interest to mariners on the waters of the United States, its
territories, and possessions. See, http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=lnmFAQ.
Additionally, EPA notes that many of the requirements found in Part 2.2.3.3 of the permit are
identical to those found in U.S. Coast Guard regulations, and in the interest of maintaining
consistency with those regulations, the Agency has not changed the permit conditions regarding
algal blooms.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gary Rosenlieb, Acting Chief, National Park Service Water
Resources Division, United States Department of the
Interior
National Park Service, United States Department of the
Interior
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0742-A2
8
No
Comment: Better compliance protocols are needed under 2.2.3.5.1 Ballast Water Management
Measures to ensure fully functional treatment system equipment, biological indicator
compliance, and discharge compliance for biocide residuals. Clear guidelines are needed for the
review of records and implementation of ship board compliance checks. Voluntary compliance
monitoring for effluents may not provide necessary protection.
848
-------
Response: EPA notes that to the extent the reference to compliance protocols involve matters
related to enforcement, such matters would be outside the scope of the VGP. To the extent this
comment refers to testing protocols for evaluating ballast water treatment systems prior to
installation, see discussion of such matters in sections 9.1 and 9.1.2 of this comment response
document. To the extent this comment refers to monitoring of ballast water discharges from
vessels, EPA notes that the VGP contains mandatory (not "voluntary) monitoring requirements;
see also discussion of monitoring issues in section 9.1.10 and 9.1.11 of this comment response
document. Lastly with respect to records, the VGP contains mandatory recordkeeping
requirements and provisions for access to vessels and records. VGP §§ 1.13 (incorporating 40
CFR 122.41(i) by reference) and 4.2 and 4.3; see also section 9.1.15 of this comment response
document. EPA did not make any changes based on this comment as the commenter did not
provide any detail supporting its apparent view that current requirements are insufficient.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
10
No
Comment: The discharge or uptake of ballast water in marine sanctuaries, marine preserves,
marine parks, or waters listed in Appendix G should be PROHIBITED, not avoided, (page 24)
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0742-A2, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
15
No
Comment: All vessels should that carry ballast water and have the potential to contaminate the
waters of the US should be required to meet the ballast water management measures including
vessels engaged in short distances; unmanned, unpowered barges, and existing bulk carriers
vessels (Lakers), (page 36)
Response: EPA believes that not requiring certain vessels, such as those vessels engaged in
short distance voyages, unmanned unpowered barges, and existing Lakers to meet the numeric
limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the permit is reasonable and appropriate. See final VGP Fact
Sheet §§ 4.4.3.4, 4.4.3.5.6; see also sections 9.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.3, 9.1.4, 9.1.5, and 9.1.6 of this
comment response document. EPA notes that the vessels listed by the commenter must all meet
the ballast water management measures found in Parts 2.2.3.1 through 2.2.3.4 of the permit (as
applicable).
849
-------
9.1.14 Ballast Water Management Plans and Training Requirements
Commenter Name: Russell E. Painter, Regulatory Affairs Manager,
McNational, Inc.
Commenter Affiliation: McNational, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: EPA should not further increase reporting burdens on vessel owners and operators
by requiring that ballast water management plans, which can contain proprietary information, be
made available to the public.
Response: With respect to public noticing ballast water management plans, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 22.
Commenter Name: Cory Sause, Environmental Coordinator, Sause Bros
Commenter Affiliation: Sause Bros
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0482-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: The EPA should not further increase reporting burdens on vessel owners and
operators by requiring that ballast water management plans, which can contain proprietary
information, be made available to the public.
Response: With respect to public noticing ballast water management plans, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 22.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 28
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question 8. Whether ballast water management plans should be made available to
the public, considering any benefits that might accrue from making the plans available to the
public and any increase in administrative burdens on both permittees and the Agency that might
result from such a requirement.
850
-------
CSA sees no reason to create the administrative burdens on the agency and the industry which
would result in making ballast water management plans available to the public. These plans are
highly technical and ship specific documents and literally would mean nothing to someone not
familiar with the ship for which it was written, including professional mariners not familiar with
the specific ship for which the plan was drafted. We agree it is important that vessels have ballast
water management plans in adequate detail as described in the propose VGP as well as the IMO
convention and likely in the USCG final rule yet to be published. Plan creation and periodic
review is an important component of the enforcement program expected under the VGP and
USCG final rule.
Response: With respect to public noticing ballast water management plans, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 22.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
8
No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.1 - Training - should include only the first sentence of the paragraph
that mandates proper training and equipment. Sentences two and three should be struck from the
permit as those topics are covered in other portions of the permit.
Section 2.2.3.2 - Ballast Water Management Plans - this requirement should be removed from
the rulemaking, or modified to allow for companies to not share potentially proprietary
information that could be obtained in such a ballast water management plan. Such management
plans are often a component of safety management systems and thus may contain proprietary
information. Therefore, the requirement to have those plans publicly available should be stricken
or modified to allow for a redaction of the permit if required to be publicly available.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that the last two sentences of Part 2.2.3.1 should be
deleted since, the commenter states, those requirements are addressed elsewhere in the permit.
These two sentences are as follows:
"As part of Ballast Water Management Plans under 2.2.3.2, a stand-alone training plan, or
other recordkeeping documentation, owner/operators must maintain a written training plan
describing the training to be provided and a record of the date of training provided to each
person trained. Persons required to be trained must be trained promptly upon installation of
treatment technology and in the event of a significant change in ballast water treatment
practices or technology."
These two sentences describe that the ballast water management plan required in Part 2.2.3.2
must include a plan for how this training will be conducted, but the actual requirement of when
851
-------
to perform such training (i.e., promptly upon installation of treatment technology and in the
event of a significant change in ballast water treatment practices or technology) is contained in
the last sentence of Part 2.2.3.1. As such, EPA is retaining these sentences as is in the final
permit.
With respect to public noticing ballast water management plans, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 22.
Commenter Name: Christian LaPense, Dann Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation: Dann Marine Towing
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? No
Comment: Other Comments and Concerns
a. Other Ballast Water Requirements (Section 2.2.3)
Dann Marine Towing recommends that EPA revise its requirement for ballast water
management training under Part 2.2.3.1 of the proposed VGP to more closely reflect its
general training requirement in Part 2. 1.6. The changes should clarify that the master,
operator, person-in-charge, and crew members who actively take part in the management of
the discharge or who may affect the discharge need only to be trained on the implementation
of ballast water and sediment management and treatment procedures required by the terms of
this permit and applicable to the vessel on which they work. The amendment should also
clarify that this training need not be formal or accredited courses, but that it is the vessel
owner or operators' responsibility to ensure these trainees are given the necessary
information to conduct ballast water and sediment management and treatment procedures in
accordance with the permit terms.
In response to EPA's request for comment on whether ballast water management plans should be
made available to the public, discussed in Part 4.4.3.2 of the Fact Sheet, Dann Marine Towing
would strongly object to such a requirement. Dann Marine Towing's ballast water management
plans are often a component of their vessel management plan or safety management system, and
as such, contain proprietary information. No public benefit could be derived from the publication
of hundreds of thousands of ballast water management plans that would outweigh the costs to
vessel owners and operators that must redact and report each plan individually, to say nothing of
the costs to the federal government to maintain and make available plan records.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that the training requirements under Part 2.2.3.1
need to be revised to more closely reflect the general requirements in Part 2.1.6. The Agency
believes these two sections accurately depict the Agency's expectations on general training
(Part 2.1.6) and on training specific to ballast water management (Part 2.2.3.1). Neither of these
provisions suggest training is required on matters beyond the vessel on which they work (and
which have a discharge subject to the VGP). See also, VGP Fact Sheet § 4.3.1.6 (training
should be conducted to ensure that crews are adequately trained to implement all the terms of
852
-------
the VGP and operate all pollution prevention equipment on board.) Also, the Agency agrees
with the commenter that the ballast water management training need not be through formal or
accredited courses, but that it is the vessel owner/operator's responsibility to ensure that training
is adequate. Because of the complex nature of ballast water management, the Agency believes
meeting this requirement may best be achieved through more formal training, although, the
permit does not specifically require such.
With respect to public noticing ballast water management plans, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 22.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
6
No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.1 - Training - should include only the first sentence of the paragraph
that mandates proper training and equipment. Sentences two and three should be struck from the
pern lit as those topics are covered in other portions of the permit.
Section 2.2.3.2 - Ballast Water Management Plans - this requirement should be removed from
the rulemaking, or modified to allow for companies to not share potentially proprietary
information that could be obtained in such a ballast water management plan. Such management
plans are often a component of safety management systems and thus may contain proprietary
information. Therefore, the requirement to have those plans publicly available should be stricken
or modified to allow for a redaction of the permit if required to be publicly available.
Response: With respect to public noticing ballast water management plans, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 22. Please also see the
response to comment EPA-HQ- OW-2011-0141-0486-A2, excerpt 8 regarding ballast water
management training requirements.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Timothy D. Sullivan, Manager of Regulatory Affairs and
Environmental Compliance, Hornbeck Offshore Operators,
LLC
Hornbeck Offshore Services
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0502-A1
1
No
Comment: Hornbeck offers the following additional comments concerning the EPA notice of
draft permit issuances.
853
-------
Section 2.2.3.2 of the Draft NPDES Vessel General Permit ("Draft"). Under Section 2.2.3.2., the
EPA will impose ballast water management practices and training requirements that the EPA
acknowledges will be separate from those mandated by the U.S. Coast Guard ("USCG"). As
such, vessel operators will be required to maintain one ballast water management plan by
incorporating two different ballast water requirements imposed by two different Federal
regulatory agencies. Such a regulatory scheme necessarily imposes duplicative requirements and
oversight, resulting in unnecessary expenditures by and confusion within the Federal government
and the regulated entities. Hornbeck therefore recommends that the VGP requirements simply
incorporate by reference ballast water management requirements imposed by the USCG.
Section 2.2.3.2 of the Draft. Further to this section, the EPA also is soliciting comment as to
whether ballast water management plans should be made available to the public. Under the
proposed section 2.2.3.2. the plans will be readily available to the EPA or its authorized
representatives. There is no demonstrated benefit in additionally providing these plans to the
general public in view of the administrative and bureaucratic burdens that would result on the
maritime industry.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that EPA should simply incorporate by reference
BWMP requirements imposed by the USCG or adopted internationally by the IMO's
Guidelines for Ballast Water Management and Development of Ballast Water Management
Plans (G4) or to accept any plan that has been approved by, or on behalf of, an Administration
which is signatory to the BWM Convention. EPA notes that the G4 Guidelines and foreign
Administration approvals referred to were developed in furtherance of the IMO BWM
Convention, which is not yet in force internationally, nor is the US signatory to that
Convention. EPA further notes that the BWMP requirements in the final permit are based on the
requirements found in 33 CFR Part 151, but that supplementation may be necessary to address
requirements unique to the VGP such as BMPs for Lakers (VGP § 2.2.3.4), BW exchange for
vessels in Pacific nearshore voyages (VGP § 2.2.3.6.2), or discharge prohibitions for VGP
Appendix G waters (VGP § 2.2.3.6.5) (i.e., the two sets of requirements are not duplicative).
Hence, a BWMP that contains information meeting the requirements of 33 CFR Part 151 will
already contain most of the necessary information, but may need to address additional
provisions specific to the VGP as applicable. EPA does specify in the VGP that a vessel can
develop one plan rather than two, provided that one plan contains all the elements required in
Part 2.2.3.2 of the VGP. Also, EPA expects that requirements of Part 2.2.3.2 of the VGP,
coupled with the rest of the permit provide adequate assurances that water quality will be
protected. However, states, territories, and many tribes do have the authority, consistent with
CWA Section 401 to impose additional requirements that it deems are necessary to ensure,
among other things, that water quality standards are not exceeded. In certain instances, such
additional requirements may be relevant to what should be included in BWMPs.
With respect to public noticing ballast water management plans, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 22.
Commenter Name: Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
854
-------
Commenter Affiliation: At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? No
Comment: 6. Ballast Water (Draft VGP Part 2.2.3s)
The Draft VGP requires that owner/operators of vessels with ballast water tanks maintain a
ballast water management plan and comply with certain ballast water management practices.
Draft VGP at pp. 24-25. The Draft VGP imposes numeric technology-based effluent limitations
that are applicable to vessels with ballast water tanks. Draft VGP at p. 26. The Draft VGP allows
vessels to satisfy the effluent limitation requirements through one of four alternatives: (1) use of
a ballast water treatment system (BWTS); (2) onshore treatment of ballast water; (3) use of
public water supply water; and (4) no discharge of ballast water. Draft VGP at pp. 27-35. The
Draft VGP has proposed a staggered implementation schedule to allow existing vessels to make
the necessary modifications in order to meet the effluent limitation requirements. Draft VGP at p
35.
The Commenters note that most of their members' vessels are equipped with ballast tanks, so
will be subject to the requirements of this Part. As an initial matter, the Commenters note that the
requirements pertaining to ballast water management plans and management practices are the
same or similar to current obligations imposed by USCG regulations. See 33 C.F.R. § 151.2035.
As noted above, EPA should revise the Draft VGP to incorporate these requirements by
reference to avoid duplicative and potentially inconsistent compliance obligations.
Response: With respect to incorporation of USCG requirements for ballast water management
plans, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0502-A1, excerpt 1. With
respect to incorporation of USCG management practices, please see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
15
No
Comment: Other Ballast Water Requirements (Section 2.2.3)
AWO recommends that EPA revise its requirement for ballast water management training under
Part 2.2.3.1 of the proposed VGP to more closely reflect the general training requirement in Part
2.1.6. The changes should clarify that the master, operator, person-in-charge, and crew members
who actively take part in the management of the discharge or who may affect the discharge need
only to be trained on the implementation of ballast water and sediment management and
treatment procedures required by the terms of this permit and applicable to the vessel on which
they work. The amendment should also clarify that this training need not be formal or accredited
courses, but that it is the vessel operator's responsibility to ensure that trainees are given the
855
-------
necessary information to conduct ballast water and sediment management and treatment
procedures in accordance with the permit terms.
In response to EPA's request for comment on whether ballast water management plans should be
made available to the public, discussed in Part 4.4.3.2 of the Fact Sheet, AWO would strongly
object to such a requirement. AWO members' ballast water management plans are often a
component of their vessel management plan or safety management system, and as such, contain
proprietary information. No public benefit could be derived from the publication of hundreds of
thousands of ballast water management plans that would outweigh the costs to vessel operators
of redacting and reporting each plan individually, to say nothing of the costs to the federal
government to maintain and make available plan records.
Response: With respect to public noticing ballast water management plans, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 22. With respect to training,
please see EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0496-A1, excerpt 10.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
12
No
Comment: 9. Ballast Water Management Plans
The EPA has requested comment on whether ballast water management plans should be made
available to the public. For its part, Canada does not intend to make these plans available to the
public. Canada believes that the principal benefit of such plans is to properly inform the master
of shipboard procedures for ballast water operations in order to protect ships, crews and the
environment. These plans are vessel-specific and, as they may take into account the trading
patterns of the vessel, they may contain proprietary information. If these plans became public
documents, it could limit the information included, which could result in lower quality advice to
the master and consequently have an impact on vessel safety. Given the technical nature of these
documents, the benefits associated with their publication are unclear.
Response: EPA agrees with the reasons presented by this commenter for not making BWMPs
available to the public. With respect to public noticing ballast water management plans, please
see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 22.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
12
No
856
-------
Comment: 2.2.3.2: Ballast Water Management Plans
We would recommend that the EPA accept Ballast Water Management Plans as per U.S. Coast
Guard requirements and Part B of the Annex to MEPC Resolution 127(53), entitled Guidelines
for Ballast Water Management and Development of Ballast Water Management Plans.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-05Q2-A1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
28
No
Comment: 4. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
4.4.3.2: Ballast Water Management Plans
Before making the ballast water management plans available to the public, we would like to get
more information as to what are the additional benefits of such a requirement. Not only would
public disclosure of the plans increase the regulatory burden for the permittee, but the
information contained therein is not readily understandable since it is highly technical. We agree
that a compliant ballast water management plan is important and that it should be part of the
VGP requirements, but in view of the foregoing, we fail to see any benefit from sharing these
plans.
Response: With respect to public noticing ballast water management plans, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 22.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 20
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question #6: Is it appropriate that vessel owners/operators outline training plans in
the recordkeeping documentation ?
LCA Response: We do not understand what EPA means by "outlining" training plans as part of
recordkeeping documentation. We have no objection to outlining training plans, providing that
what is being proposed is truly just a requirement for a description of training plans that can be
adjusted and augmented, as needed, for specific actions or requirements without having to revise
our records. This gives our members the necessary flexibility to respond to shipboard needs as
they occur but not generate additional and unnecessary paperwork for crewmembers.
857
-------
Response: The use of the term "outline" is intended to clarify that the plan will not contain the
entirety of the training materials, but rather will provide a summary (i.e., outline) of the
approach that will be used to meet these requirements.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 22
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question #8: Should ballast water management plans be made available to the
public?
LCA Response: No. These plans represent a considerable expense and take significant time to
develop. Therefore, these plans constitute and include proprietary information that directly
relates to capital expenditures and operating and maintenance costs. Knowledge of these costs by
anyone other than the owner/operator could give other interests unfair advantages in the
marketplace. For example, one company could avoid the expense of developing a ballast water
management plan simply by copying one supplied to the EPA for public consumption. Our
members consider ballast water management plans valuable property that must be protected just
like their security plan required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L.
No. 107-295).
The public interest has already been well-served in that the discharge limits are plainly stated in
the VGP and were vetted during the comment period. Ballast water management plans are the
means by which regulated entities achieve the EPA's end-of-pipe standard. If one company has
built a better mouse to produce that end-of-pipe result, it should not be required to share it with
its competitors or the general public. As recognized by Section 308(b) of the Clean Water Act,
33 U.S.C. § 1318, only "effluent data" is exempt from claims of confidentiality. Congress
wanted the public to have access to "effluent data" so that the public could confirm that the
discharger was meeting applicable effluent limitations. Even then, Congress was clear to point
out that the public had no right to access such information if its disclosure "would divulge
methods or processes entitled to protection as trade secrets of such person." Congress was, in
short, not concerned with providing the public with access as to how the discharger met
applicable effluent limitations, only ensuring that the public could confirm that the discharger
was meeting those limitations. Ballast water management plans do not constitute "effluent data"
that is required to be disclosed to the public, 40 C.F.R. § 2.302, and EPA should not mandate that
this information, which is confidential and proprietary, be made public.
Response: EPA agrees with commenter that the Agency should not require BWMPs be
submitted and made available to the public as a general requirement, where this would not raise
security or confidential business information (CBI) problems. Also, the existence of the plan
would be something EPA would look for during any inspections of a vessel. The Agency does
have the authority to request a copy of any plan and may make those records available to the
public in certain instances although operators do have the ability to claim all or some of the plan
858
-------
to be confidential business information (CBI) consistent with 40 CFR Part 2. For CBI, EPA is
obligated to handle that information consistent with 40 CFR Part 2.
EPA agrees with commenters that these plans can be highly technical and ship-specific and
likely would not be meaningful to someone not familiar with the ship (and in certain limited
instances, may cause security concerns detailing the detailed design and operation of the
vessel). EPA agrees with commenters that these plans are intended to guide the vessel
owner/operator to comply with the effluent limitations in the permit and neither it nor its
contents constitute an effluent limitation. Thus, EPA does not believe there is a need to impose
a public availability requirement such as that suggested by a commenter. The effluent limits are
stated in the VGP and open to public comment. A BWMP provides the approach an
owner/operator will follow to meet those effluent limits.
Additionally, with the sheer number of vessels that would be required to submit these plans, and
the complexity of information contained in those plans (e.g., oversized drawings) obtaining
electronic copies would be most practical although EPA does not presently have a system for
receipt and management of such information. Routine updates to these plans would further
complicate this data management effort (and EPA would not want to discourage regular
updates). Also, making these documents available to the public would impose additional burden
on the Agency to engage with the public and the owner/operators.
Finally, consistent with one commenter's suggestion, EPA does expect to continue to educate
the public about the VGP through outreach and communication on topics such as ballast water
management and other vessel discharge control practices.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Comment: P. 24 Part 2.2.3.1 (ballast water) Training
EPA describes requirements for training and the documentation thereof for those responsible for
implementation of the ballast water management plan. The language of this part, as well as in
Part 4.2 (recordkeeping) of the permit and page 72 of the Fact Sheet takes a narrow perspective
on training. In the context of international maritime operations, training can take the form not
only of an instructor led course, but also in an on-the-job instructional session, as well as a
combination of documented processes and procedures, equipment and operations manuals,
computer based training, or standards in the Safety Management System of the operator. . We
recommend the following sentence be inserted after the first sentence of this part;
Training may consist of an instructor led course, an on-the-job instructional session, documented
processes and procedures, equipment and operations manuals, computer based training, or
standards in the Safety Management System of the operator or any combination of the above.
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
7
No
859
-------
The training shall include a documented demonstration of competence in the requirements for
ballast water management.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that additional clarification is necessary to define
what is meant by the term "training." As described in Part 4.4.3.1 of the permit fact sheet, crews
must be able to effectively implement all appropriate requirements laid out in a vessel's ballast
water management plan. For vessels which have a ballast water treatment system onboard, crew
engaged in the active management of ballast water must understand how to operate and
maintain ballast water equipment. The Agency is providing flexibility to owner/operators as to
how they meet this obligation. The suggestions provided by the commenter (i.e., instructor led
course, an on-the-job instructional session, documented processes and procedures, equipment
and operations manuals, computer based training, or standards in the Safety Management
System of the operator or any combination of the above) are all suitable methods for meeting
the training requirement of the permit. The Agency disagrees with commenter that this training
must include a documented demonstration of competence although the Agency agrees that this
would be a useful tool for owner/operators to better assess the proficiency of their crew's ability
to meet the ballast water management requirements in the permit.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Comment: P.72 Part 4.4.3.1 Training - As previously discussed in comments on Part 2.2.3.1 of
the permit, EPA describes the need for additional training and the documentation thereof in for
those responsible for implementation of the ballast water management plan. The language of the
permit, and this section of the Fact Sheet should be altered to include the broader concept of
training, described in the above referenced comment on Part 2.2.3.1 of the permit.
P. 73. Ballast Water Management Plans - EPA is soliciting comment as to whether ballast water
management plans should be made available to the public, and what would be the increase in
administrative burden on permittees and the Agency that might result from such a requirement.
As noted by EPA, these reports are currently located on board and thus to impose this
requirement means that EPA would have to impose an additional reporting requirement. From
this phrasing, we infer that EPA would collect all required ballast water management plans. We
do not believe this to be a particularly practical approach, but will speak to this idea directly.
Such documents would have to be submitted electronically, including the plan, training plan,
drawings and ballast water procedures. Printed copies are impractical as the volume of paper for
individual ballast water management plans for the 80,000 plus vessels, as well as the oversized
drawings necessary to document tank arrangements, etc. would require far more space than is
practical for EPA to manage in hard copy. In that regard EPA would have to consider the digital
asset management requirements for storage and retrieval of this data.
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
43
No
860
-------
The maintenance and updating of these plans is an ongoing task, particularly as the fleet prepares
to install and manage the ballast water treatment equipment that will be coming aboard during
the life of this permit. Such updates will include flag-state and class society review and approval,
and which will present issues with respect to maintaining current copies in the EPA database. So
EPA can immediately anticipate a relatively rapid evolution of this documentation as the life
under the permit continues. The timeframes in which vessels would be required to make such re-
submittals must be tendered must also be considered.
From an operator's perspective, the burden of the requirement will not end with the submittal of
the document. If there is public interest, it is likely that many requesting copies of the document
will have follow-up questions and comments - particularly as most members of the public will
be unfamiliar with ship drawings, vessel operations, and the requirements for ballast water.
Continuing engagement with the public on these matters will take additional resources on the
part of the Agency as well as those required to prepare and submit the documents.
While EPA may feel there is a need to inform the public on ballast water management practices
in the regulated fleet, we wonder if this is not better achieved through a public information
campaign in which EPA, together with a broad spectrum of the maritime industry, communicates
with the public on the array of issues relative to ballast water, ballast water treatment, and the
environment. Such methods could include development of a web-site, public education forums or
even publications. If done with participation from a wide spectrum of the regulated fleet, CLIA
members would be willing to participate and assist EPA in such a public information effort, and
feel it would be both more informative and less burdensome than the proposal to make such
plans available to the public on request.
We note in closing, that broad distribution of vessel drawings could have an impact on security
as well, indicating the location of fuel tanks and/or shell doors by which access could be gained.
While undoubtedly many will consider this to be a far-fetched concern, people have expressed
concern about the security of LNG tankers, Ultra Large Crude Carriers, etc. This might fall into
the category of low-likelihood/high consequence, but it is nonetheless a concern with regard to
our sector.
Response: EPA agrees that these are valid concerns. With respect to public noticing ballast
water management plans, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-
A2, excerpt 22. With respect to ballast water management training, EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-
0530-A2, excerpt number 7.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
14
No
861
-------
Comment: Sediment Removal and Disposal Records
Wisconsin DNR supports EPA's proposal to require sediment removal and disposal records to be
kept and stored onboard the vessel. Wisconsin DNR's inspectors have found recordkeeping to be
a frequent area of noncompliance, where vessels have not yet had sediment removed in drydock,
or the sediment removal and disposal records are not available.
Ballast Water Management Plans (BWMPs)
Wisconsin DNR supports the proposed permit requirement of vessel-specific BWMPs. Our
inspectors have found that general carriers' associations' BWMPs are lacking in detail and
substance and are applied too broadly to have significant effectiveness or meaning.
Recordkeeping
For better compliance checking, Wisconsin DNR recommends that BWMPs be available online.
This will allow inspectors (USCG or state) to review the plans thoroughly before and after
inspecting a vessel.
Training for Vessel Crews
The "adequately trained" requirement is ambiguous. Wisconsin DNR recommends a minimum
annual training requirement.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's support for requiring certain records be retained
onboard the vessel. With respect to making BWMPs available online, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ- OW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 22 that discusses challenges associated
with submitting paper and electronic BWMPs.
Also, EPA disagrees with commenter that a minimum training frequency be established rather
than using the term "adequately trained" The Agency is not establishing a training frequency,
because how often training is needed would vary depending on vessel circumstances (e.g.,
dependent on crew turnover, reassignments of crew responsibilities, installation of new
pollution control equipment, etc.), and is instead relying on owner/operators to establish
programs that "adequately" train personnel to meet their vessel-specific needs. The permit is
written such that the master, operator, person-in-charge, and crew members are trained in the
activities that are necessary to comply with the terms of the permit specific to their
responsibilities on-board the vessel.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadians)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadians)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A3
3
No
Comment: 6. Issue: The requirement that vessel owner / operators must outline their training
plan in their record keeping documentation to show that they have made good faith efforts to
862
-------
assure their crews can adequately maintain and use pollution prevention equipment and
otherwise meet the terms of this permit.
CSA Response: The CSA supports this provision so long as it could leverage current
documentation available in company safety management systems and reduce any additional
administrative burden.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's support for training plans that rely on
documentation prepared to meet other obligations. The Agency supports the use of existing
documentation to meet the terms of the VGP provided that documentation meets all the specific
requirements of the permit. In some instances, that may require minor modifications to
supplement existing documentation.
Commenter Name: Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadians)
Commenter Affiliation: Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadians)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A3
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: 8. Issue: Whether ballast water management plans should be made available to the
public, considering any benefits that might accrue from making the plans available to the public
and any increases in administration burdens on both permittees and the Agency that might result
from such a requirement.
CSA Response: There is no foreseen benefit to making ballast water management plans available
to the public, as the draft 2013 VGP reporting requirements are deemed sufficient control
measures. This could also represent the release of proprietary technical information putting a
ship owner and its supplier(s) at risk.
Response: With respect to public noticing ballast water management plans, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 22.
Commenter Name: Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Commenter Affiliation: Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.3.2 Ballast Water Management Plans
The ballast water management plans required in existing and proposed Coast Guard regulations
mimic those adopted internationally by the IMO's Guidelines for Ballast Water Management and
863
-------
Development of Ballast Water Management Plans (G4). We recommend the EPA amend the
language at 2.2.3.2 to expressly state that any plan meeting the Coast Guard's requirements at 33
CFR Part 151 Subparts C or D; or, ballast water management plans which have been approved
by, or on behalf of, an Administration which is signatory to the BWM Convention be accepted as
meeting this section.
Response: With respect to ballast water management plans, please see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0502-A1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A3
4
No
Comment: 8. Issue: Whether ballast water management plans should be made available to the
public, considering any benefits that might accrue from making the plans available to the public
and any increases in administration burdens on both permittees and the Agency that might result
from such a requirement.
Response: There is no foreseen benefit to making ballast water management plans available to
the public. The reporting requirements are deemed sufficient control measures. Development of
these plans is time-consuming and costly. This could also represent the release of proprietary
technical information putting a ship owner and its supplier(s) at risk.
Response: With respect to public noticing ballast water management plans, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 22.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Randy Trapp, Safety, Security Manager, Dann Ocean
Towing, Inc.
Dann Ocean Towing, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0558-A1
4
No
Comment: Dann Ocean Towing, Inc. includes proprietary information in their Ballast Water
Management Plan. To have that information made available to the public would be
unsatisfactory so we would be opposed to any furtherance of reporting burdens which would
make them public.
Response: With respect to public noticing ballast water management plans, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 22.
864
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent, V. Ships
Leisure
V. Ships Leisure
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2
3
No
Comment: Item No: 3
VGP 2013 or Factsheet text: Factsheet 4.4.3.2 re 2.2.3.2 Ballast Water Management Plan
VGP 2013 or Factsheet text: "EPA is specifically requesting comment on whether these ballast
water management plans should be made available to the public?"
Comments: This is not considered appropriate as the Ballast Water Management Plan (BWMP)
is generally required to be of a standard format (per the IMO MEPC 127 (53)) and only very few
ship specific details would vary therein.
Suggestion or Proposed Text: Suggest BMP are not required to be made public but EPA may
consider making a reference to IMO MEPC 127 (53) for the recommended format.
Response: With respect to ballast water management plans, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0502-A1, excerpt 1. With respect to public noticing ballast
water management plans, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-
A2, excerpt 22.
Commenter Name: Scott Strand, Executive Director, MN Center for
Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.3.2 Ballast Water Management Plans
We support strong coordination between the EPA and USCG and the Great Lakes states to create
one ballast water management plan that will meet federal and state requirements.
Response: With respect to ballast water management plans, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0502-A1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
865
-------
Comment: 6. The requirement that vessel owner/operators must outline their training plans in
their recordkeeping documentation to show they have made good faith efforts to assure their
crews can adequately maintain and use pollution prevention equipment and otherwise meet the
terms of this permit.
We recommend that vessel owner/operators implement and document training plans that are
more than 'good faith efforts'. Our recommendation is based on the fact that poorly operated
ballast water treatment systems present a significant risk of poor, or non-, performance. Poorly
operated ballast water treatment systems are most likely to occur when crews are poorly trained.
Proper and adequate training would help avoid this unwanted, and unnecessary, consequence.
Response: EPA agrees with commenter that crews need proper and adequate training to ensure
that ballast water treatment systems are properly operated and maintained and has included
provisions in the permit to ensure such training occurs on a vessel-specific basis Vessel
owner/operators must outline their training plans in their recordkeeping documentation to show
they have made good faith efforts to assure their crews can adequately maintain and use
pollution prevention equipment and otherwise meet the terms of this permit. Commenter
doesn't satisfactory explain why this approach is not satisfactory.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: 8. Whether ballast water management plans should be made available to the public.
The requirement for publish disclosure of ballast water management plans should be no different
than the public disclosure requirements for other vessel documents by the vessel
owners/operators. Inconsistent public disclosure requirements should be avoided.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that public disclosure requirements should be the
same for all documentation required in the permit. Some information, such as effluent data, is
information that the Agency believes is appropriately and legally required to be shared with the
public. In this instance, based on comments received, the Agency believes the BWMPs are not
information that universally needs to be shared with the public. As such, the permit does not
require submission of these BWMPs. With respect to public noticing ballast water management
plans, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 22.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
866
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 22
Late Comment? No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.1. Training:
It is our recommendation the supplied O&M Manual as delivered with the system, containing
specific operational instructions, maintenance requirements and other details for troubleshooting
of the equipment be considered sufficient training materials when provided in conjunction with
additional training materials (Video Training, Instructor Led Training, etc) to be provided by the
Manufacturer to provide for future refresher training and new crewmember training after original
installation. It is common practice for installation and commissioning teams to provide one day
of training for the crew present during installation, but with likely crew-changes and normal
turnover, we would propose more clear direction how this training would be carried out beyond
the day of commissioning and support EPA requirements that onboard training be provided by
the system manufacturers.
Response: EPA agrees with commenter that the types of training identified (O&M Manual as
delivered with the system, containing specific operational instructions, maintenance
requirements and other details for troubleshooting of the equipment, and additional
manufacturer training materials such as video and instructor-led training) to be provided by the
Manufacturer) are useful tools in training staff. While in many instances, this may be a
reasonable approach, the Agency believes that, depending on the circumstances, others (e.g.,
vessel staff) can perform similar, adequate training particularly for training of new staff and
refresher training. With respect to training frequency, please also see the response to comment
EPA-HQ- QW-2011-0141-0633-A2, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Patrick Stant, President, Marmac, LLC, McDonough
Marine Service
Marmac, LLC., McDonough Marine Service
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0627-A2
10
No
Comment: We also do not believe a company's ballast water management plan should be made
available to the public since many contain proprietary information that should not be released.
Response: With respect to public noticing ballast water management plans, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 22.
Commenter Name: Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Commenter Affiliation: Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
867
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: 6. The requirement that vessel owner/operators must outline their training plans in
their recordkeeping documentation to show they have made good faith efforts to assure their
crews can adequately maintain and use pollution prevention equipment and otherwise meet the
terms of this permit.
It is recommended that vessel owner/operators implement and document training plans that are
more than 'good faith efforts'. Our recommendation is based on the fact that poorly operated
ballast water treatment systems present a significant risk of poor, or non-. performance. Poorly
operated ballast water treatment systems are most likely to occur when crews are poorly trained
Proper and adequate training would help avoid this unwanted, and unnecessary, consequence.
Response: With respect to training plans, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ- OW-
2011-0141-0612-A2, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
9
No
Comment: 8. Whether ballast water management plans should be made available to the public.
The requirement for public disclosure of ballast water management plans should be no different
than the public disclosure requirements for other vessel documents by the vessel
owners/operators. Inconsistent public disclosure requirements should be avoided.
Response: With respect to disclosure of information, please see the response to comment EPA-
HQ- QW-2011-0141-0612-A2, excerpt 8.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
5
No
Comment: Specific Comments
Section 2.2.3.1: Training - This section does not sufficiently address what determines whether a
change to ballast water management is "significant" enough to warrant additional training for
868
-------
ship owners/operators/masters. Additionally, the section should prescribe how soon after
installations or significant changes that training needs to occur.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that the permit needs to clarify when additional
training is required after installations or significant changes occur to ballast water management
systems. The permit specifies that in these instances persons required to be trained must be
trained promptly. The Agency acknowledges that "promptly" does not provide a definitive date
by when this additional training is to occur and what type of change is significant enough to
warrant additional training; however, as used in the permit, the term "promptly" means, at a
minimum, prior to use of the system by the personnel at issue. Thus, EPA expects that persons
aboard the vessel who actively take part in the management of the discharge or who may affect
the discharge must be trained as soon as possibly upon installation of treatment technology or of
a significant change to that technology or practices used in ballast water treatment. EPA
envisions that in most instances initial training will take place in conjunction with the
installation of technology such that persons that manage the system or who may affect the
discharge are knowledgeable upon commencement of discharge. Also, as used in the permit, the
term "significant" is intended to signify a change in the practices or technologies such that
operating or maintaining the equipment consistent with pre-change practices would lead to
inadequate treatment of the discharge. EPA envisions that in many instances, training
performed in response to changes in practices or technology can be much less comprehensive
than any initial training with these subsequent training efforts focusing on implications of these
changes on operation and maintenance. At no time does EPA expect key persons responsible
for managing the ballast water discharge to be untrained in the proper operation and
maintenance of ballast water treatment technologies.
9.1.15 Recordkeeping and Reporting
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
21
No
Comment: Any ballast water monitoring information that is transmitted to the Agency should
be made available to the public in electronic form. Public information on discharges will
"democratize" enforcement, allowing States and private entities and citizens to participate and
reducing the Federal Government's own enforcement burden. EPA should also make individual
ballast water management plans submitted by vessel owners available to the public, and the next
VGP should specify that these ballast water management plans are enforceable components of
the permit. This is required by the Second Circuit's decision in Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v.
EPA, 399 F.3d 486, 502- 503 (2d Cir. 2005), and it is key to public involvement and
enforcement.
869
-------
An example of a transparent and timely communication of monitoring information is seen in the
binational publication "Great Lakes Ballast Water Management Report." The report was
compiled by the Great Lakes Seaway Ballast Water Working Group, comprised of
representatives of the United States Coast Guard, the U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation, Transport Canada - Marine Safety, and the Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway
Management Corporation. Although enforcing ballast water exchange and saltwater flushing
requirements that are (as noted above) inadequate, the binational inspection program for
enforcing those requirements is excellent. The 2009 report states that ballast tanks of oceangoing
commercial ships entering the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System from outside U.S. or
Canadian waters were inspected 100% of the time, with a 97.9% compliance rate, representing
an improvement over prior years' inspection program statistics.51 We encourage EPA to join the
Ballast Water Working Group, and embrace a continual improvement process in reporting
information to the public. Additions to the annual report should be made, such as specifying the
number of ballasted versus NOBOB tanks inspected, to ensure that the most accurate information
is available to the public as this regulatory program evolves.
51 2009 Summary of Great Lakes Seaway Ballast Water Working Group, (Feb. 2010), available at
http://www.greatlakes-seawav.com/en/pdf/2008 BW Rpt EN.pdf.
Response: As stated in the Fact Sheet, EPA plans to make data (including effluent data and
NOI data) submitted to the Agency in electronic form available to the public (subject, of course,
to any applicable restrictions).
EPA is not requiring that (1) vessels submit individual ballast water management plans to the
Agency, (2) BWMPs become enforceable provisions of the permit, or (3) BWMPs otherwise be
made available to the public. Contrary to commenters' assertions, nothing in Waterkeeper
Alliance v. U.S. EPA, 399 F.3D 486 (2 Cir. 2005) requires any such provisions. While
Waterkeeper involved "plans" associated with and NPDES permit, the nutrient management
plans ("NMPs") at issue were very different than the ballast water management plans required
by the VGP. The Second Circuit's decision turned on the Court's conclusion that the terms of
the "NMPs" constituted "effluent limitations" under the CWA. Id. at 502 ("Because we believe
that the terms of the nutrient management plans constitute effluent limitations, we hold that the
CAFO Rule . . . violates the Clean Water Act.") Under the VGP, neither the BWMPs
themselves nor their terms constitute effluent limitations as defined in CWA Section 502(11)
(an effluent limitation is "any restriction established by a State or the Administrator on
quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents
...."). Development of the BWMP does not result in imposition of any additional restrictions or
limitations on the discharges regulated by the VGP; all restrictions and limitations on
discharges are established by the terms of the VGP itself. Instead, EPA is imposing the
requirement to develop and maintain these plans pursuant to CWA Section 402(a)(2) and 40
C.F.R. Section 122.43(a) as conditions to "assure compliance with" the effluent limitations in
the permit. EPA is requiring the BWMPs to focus the owner/operator of the vessel on ensuring
that the crew responsible for implementing the ballast water non-numeric effluent limits in the
permits understands those requirements.
EPA also disagrees with commenter's view that public availability would benefit public
involvement. EPA notes that, as pointed to by other commenters on this permit, plans are
870
-------
"living documents" that vessel operators update regularly. Additionally, some commenters
claim these plans contain CBI. Finally, EPA does not believe that submitting plans and
managing the information is the best use of resources for permittees or EPA in a resource
limited environment, when both the Agency's and permittees efforts are best focused on
ensuring effluent limits in the permit are met. However, EPA notes that the existence of the plan
would be something EPA would look for during any inspections of a vessel.
EPA notes that the commenter is discussing the highly effective inspection and enforcement
regime for ballast water for vessels entering the Great Lakes. EPA agrees that this sets a good
example, and further ensures that ballast water discharges will not cause or contribute to water
quality standards from vessels entering the Great Lakes. EPA does not believe, however, that
this program impacts how permittees must monitor, maintain records, or report data to EPA
under the VGP. EPA agrees, however, that it is positive to make data available to the public
when feasible, and that this increased transparency allows the public to help ensure that permit
terms are being met by permittees.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
19
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.1.1.6: Ballast Water Treatment System Recordkeeping and Reporting
The record of monitoring information should not require the type approval certificate for ballast
water treatment systems, since type approval is not mandatory under the Draft 2013 VGP.
Response: EPA notes that if a vessel is using a type-approved system, that type approval
certificate provides additional quality control information for EPA regarding whether the
vessel's ballast water treatment system is likely to meet the numeric limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of the
permit. Additionally, though not a requirement of this permit, EPA notes that the vessel
owner/operator will have to maintain a copy of the type approval certificate onboard under U.S.
Coast Guard regulations found in 33 CFR Part 151.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 33 Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.6 Ballast Water Treatment System Recordkeeping and
Reporting - Records are commonly stored electronically on company-secure internet resources.
871
-------
This requirement should be that the records are "available" on board rather than "retained" on
board.
Response: For purposes of the VGP, EPA allows the records to be stored electronically on
company-secure internet resources, provided accessibility conditions outlined in the VGP fact
sheet are met, including that the vessel operator is able to, immediately, upon request, provide
to government officials or authorized representatives:
a. Paper or electronic copies of requested records required to be maintained pursuant to the
VGP; and
b. Electronic access, using hardware and software available on the vessel or tug, to required
VGP records via electronic storage on the vessel or tug, or via direct access to an electronic
system of records stored elsewhere, provided that the location of the original record is
within the United States.
Hence, provided these terms are met, EPA notes that the intent of the commenter is generally
met by VGP Fact Sheet's interpretation of "retained" on the vessel. See Part 6.3.1 of the VGP
fact sheet for further discussion about electronic recordkeeping minimum requirements.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 28
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 66, Part 4.3.2 - Additional Recordkeeping for Vessels Equipped with Ballast
Tanks - Here the permit contains the curious requirement for records that indicate whether the
vessel has a ballast water management plan and whether IMO ballast water guidelines are on
board. In practice, the presence of the ballast water management plan will indicate whether it is
on board, and the IMO guidelines will be incorporated into the Ballast Water Management Plan,
with specificity to the operation of the vessel. We feel paragraph 2 should be deleted.
Response: EPA agrees that if a vessel has a ballast water management plan onboard the vessel,
and that plan has the IMO guidelines within them, then the permittee meets this requirement in
the permit. EPA notes that paragraph 2 is identical to the first sentence in the 2012 updated 33
CFR § 151.2070 (a)(4) and 33 CFR § 151.2070 (a)(4)(ii) (33 CFR § 151.2070 (a)(4)(i) is a new
insertion in the 2012 updated rule - the provision was previously wholly identical to 33 CFR §
151.2045 (a)(4) from the Coast Guard regulations before the March 2012 update). In the interest
of avoiding confusion by maintaining consistency with these U.S. Coast Guard regulations,
EPA has not deleted this paragraph.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
872
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
47
No
Comment: P. 101-102 Ballast Water Treatment System Recordkeeping and Reporting - As
previously discussed in comments on permit Part2.2.3.5.1.1.2, we believe the proposed language
of the permit and the Fact Sheet are over-reaching with respect to recording and reporting
operational parameter monitoring. The permit and the Fact Sheet should be altered to reflect the
suggested language previously provided.
Response: As discussed elsewhere in this response to comments document, EPA believes that
the monitoring requirements in today's permit are appropriate to ensure compliance with the
VGP's effluent limits. Please see EPA's response to each specific excerpt of the commenter's
comments. The reporting of those requirements have been streamlined to once per year and
EPA has concluded that such reporting does not represent an undue burden for vessel
owner/operators. Monitoring and reporting has been costed as part of today's permit: see the
economic analysis for additional discussion. Additionally, EPA believes that recordkeeping
requirements are reasonable, and that a significant portion of the recordkeeping for Part
2.2.3.5.1.1.2 of the permit (e.g., any parameters tracking the ballast water treatment system
performance can be recorded and maintained electronically).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A2
14
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.1.1.6 Ballast Water Treatment System Recordkeeping and Reporting. The
recordkeeping requirements proposed in VGP 2013 are overly burdensome and onerous and
provide little or no environmental protectiveness. As stated previously regarding ballast water
management plan, departures from internationally accepted standards create confusion and
greater potential for unintentional non-compliance with permit requirements, national regulations
and international treaties. Therefore, we recommend the EPA amend this section to adopt the
ballast water recordkeeping requirements in Regulation B-2 of the BWM Convention.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenters unsupported assertion that the recordkeeping
requirements are overly burdensome, and the Agency notes that those records document and
ensure that the operator is meeting the terms and conditions of the VGP. The recordkeeping
requirements in this permit are required to assist in effective implementation of the Clean Water
Act and its implementing regulations. In some cases, the recordkeeping requirements of
Regulation B-2 of the BWM convention and the requirements of the VGP overlap. Where they
do, vessels need only keep those records in one location, and the vessel crew must merely be
familiar with its location.
873
-------
Regarding ballast water management plans, EPA notes that Part 2.2.3.2 (requiring the plan) of
the Permit is fundamentally similar to the U.S. Coast Guard regulation: 33 CFR Part 151
already requires these plans. EPA designed Part 2.2.3.2 of the permit so that compliance with
33 CFR Part 151 plan requirements should also generally be compliant with Part 2.2.3.2 of the
permit. Because ballast water is subject to both the Clean Water Act and to NANPCA/NISA, it
is regulated by both the US Coast Guard and the US EPA.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 26
Late Comment? No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.5.1.1.6. Ballast Water Treatment System Recordkeeping and
Reporting: It is our recommendation that PLC developed and stored data recorded by ETV
certified and properly operated ballast water treatment systems would be sufficient for the
system parameters monitoring requirements. Provisions should be made that would allow this
data to be exported and stored on an annual basis with a two-year memory. Vessel
owners/operators should be required to maintain a paper copy of Annual Records for three years
as per this section.
Response: EPA notes that, as a business decision, as suggested by the commenter, vendors and
operators can develop software which would automatically process the functional monitoring
data from the ballast water treatment systems for easy recordkeeping ease and annual reporting.
EPA notes the commenters support for maintaining records of monitoring records onboard the
vessel for three years.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
19
No
Comment: 19. Comment on EPA's determination, including detailed explanation, that water
quality-based effluent limits for ballast water discharge are infeasible to calculate at this time.
It is our observation that Ballast Water record keeping as per section 4.3 appears satisfactory.
Response: EPA acknowledges that the WWEMA believes the ballast water recordkeeping
requirements of the permit to be appropriate.
874
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
9
No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.5.1 .1.6: Ballast Water Treatment System Recordkeeping and
Reporting - The draft permit requires vessels to keep information that shall include "The ballast
water treatment system used, its type approval certificate ..." However, as mentioned
previously. Section 2.2.3.5.1.1 does not require vessels to use Type Approved BVV1S.
This inconsistency needs to be rectified.
Response: Please see thr response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1, excerpt 19.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section
Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology (ECY)
Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECY)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0794- A2
13
Yes
Comment: 4.3, third item - The time of ballast water uptake (a.) or exchange (b.) should also be
reported along with the date. Surface waters have more plankton at night even in the open ocean.
Response: With the exception of specific information required to be maintained in Part 2.2.3.5
of the permit, EPA notes that the information required in paragraph 3 is identical to 33 CFR §
151.2070 (a)(5). EPA further notes that the information in Part 4.3 of the VGP must generally
be kept onboard the vessel as part of the recordkeeping requirements, but not all of the
information within this section must be reported to EPA. At this time, EPA does not believe
that adding the additional requirement would add value for EPA to implement and/or enforce
today's permit (and commenter doesn't explain why it would).
9.1.16 STEP
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
12
No
875
-------
Comment: Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP).
Wisconsin DNR encourages the extension of STEP or the creation of a new pilot program that
would be a strong incentive for vessel owners to install treatment systems onboard their vessels
as soon as possible. Wisconsin DNR believes it is critical to install treatment systems onboard
immediately. The idea of grandfathering participants of the program in future renditions and
requirements of the permit may be considered.
Response: EPA acknowledges Wisconsin's support for the proposed VGP's STEP
requirements. As discussed in Part 4.4.3 of the VGP fact sheet, EPA believes that the STEP
program has played, and will continue to play, a critical role in the development of effective
ballast water treatment systems. The program has encouraged pioneering vessel
owner/operators to install ballast water treatment systems, has contributed to the development
of effective sampling methods, and allowed for the collection of valuable shipboard ballast
water treatment data needed to evaluate the efficacy of ballast water treatment systems.
Furthermore, as systems are developed and refined, such programs will play a valuable role in
supporting the development of technologies which exceed the performance of the IMO
standard. EPA believes that STEP and other programs will play a key role in the development
of a greater range of systems which can meet the limits in today's permit, and will also allow a
venue for treatment vendors to develop systems to meet more stringent standards such as the
previously proposed U.S. Coast Guard phase II standard. Finally U.S. Coast Guard programs
(such as or similar to STEP) provide a mechanism for vessels to use not-yet approved BWMS
during the testing required for type approval. Hence, EPA believes that vessels enrolled in
STEP are playing and will continue to play a key role in improving our understanding of the
efficacy of ballast water treatment systems. EPA notes that the commenter provided no detail as
to how expansion or new programs would achieve commenter's goal or otherwise be designed
and run.
As noted elsewhere in this response to comment document, grandfathering ballast water
treatment systems past this permit term is not within the scope of today's permit issuance.
9.1.17 Potable Water
Commenter Name: Oral Comments from Canal Barge Company's Northern
Operation at the January 23, 2012 Public Meeting
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0469
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: For example, one of the alternative methods is to use potable water for ballast. Large
towing vessels bum a relatively large amount of fuel, at times in excess of 10,000 gallons per
day. This drastically affects their drafts, requiring them to take on ballast to keep from rising too
high in the water, which can have a negative impact on the vessel's performance. Since the draft
changes while underway, the only alternative is to use river water for ballast.
876
-------
Furthermore, many vessels cannot even access potable water easily enough to be able to use it
for ballast. For example, for Illinois Marine Towing's vessels, we only know of four places to
access potable water in the over 300 mile stretch between Lake Michigan and St. Louis. It would
be impossible for us to divert our vessels to these four facilities to take on potable water for
ballast and still be able to serve our customers. While oftentimes IMT's vessels do operate in
"short distance voyages," they all transit several locks and some of our vessels travel the all nine
locks on the river system between Lake Michigan and St. Louis, and therefore would be unable
to qualify for the "short distance voyages" alternative method. Exempting towing vessels from
the numeric discharge limits is the best way to ensure that no towing vessel is required to install
a ballast water treatment system that does not exist.
Response: EPA notes that the VGP allows for use of potable water from a public water supply
as an alternative by vessels otherwise subject to the ballast water numeric technology based
limits, rather than being a permit requirement. As such, EPA has retained this alternative in the
final VGP for those vessels that are, in fact, able to take advantage of it. With respect to
commenter's description of the practical difficulties for its vessels in employing this alternative,
and the request that towing vessels be exempted from the VGP's ballast water numeric
technology based limits, EPA notes that the final VGP does not require inland and seagoing
vessels less than 1600 GRT to meet the numeric limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the Permit. EPA
believes that this exclusion is sufficient to address commenter's concerns and request for an
exemption for towing vessels. Refer to final VGP Fact Sheet § 4.4.3.5.6.4 and the tug and
towboat-related responses to comments in section 9.1.1 of this comment response document for
further discussion.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
T. Lapene
Rowan Companies, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0475
1
No
Comment: Please consider adding an option to use freshwater generated from seawater (from
watermaker, desalinization unit, reverse osmosis etc) as a source of ballast water for both the
VGP and the sVGP. Since freshwater generated from seawater is often used for potable water on
MODUs offshore, it should qualify for use as ballast water (similar to using public water source)
as long as the system effectively removes living organisms. While this may not be practical for
vessels utilizing a very large amount of ballast water, it is not an unreasonable option for vessels
requiring moderate ballast water volumes (-2000 bbls), as long as a sufficient volume of
freshwater is available or can be generated.
Response: EPA notes that, as the comment suggests, the option of using ballast water from
onboard potable water generators (presumably in lieu of meeting the VGP's numeric technology
based limits for ballast water), potentially would be most feasible for smaller vessels and
vessels that utilize moderate ballast water volumes. In this regard, EPA believes commenter's
concerns are already addressed as a practical matter by an exemption from such standards added
877
-------
to the final VGP. As explained in Final VGP Fact Sheet § 4.4.3.5.6.4, and responses to
comments in section 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 2 of this comment response document, inland and
seagoing vessels less than 1,600 GRT are not subject to the VGP's technology-based numeric
limits for ballast water discharges. Please see section 2 of this comment response document
(EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2, excerpt 12) regarding the types of vessels that are
generally below 1600 GRT.
EPA acknowledges that some of the more commonly used onboard potable water generating
approaches, including distillation and reverse osmosis, would be expected to remove the vast
majority of living organisms before those organisms could enter the ballast water tank.
However, while the use of onboard potable generators as a source of ballast water is a
promising idea, further consideration of the ability of such systems to reliably produce water in
the volumes needed for ballast purposes and the resulting effluent quality need to be further
considered, especially for larger vessels using larger amounts of ballast water. In considering
potential use of onboard potable water generators, EPA contacted eight potable water generator
vendors. Five of those vendors believed it feasible to produce potable water in sufficient
quantities to meet vessel ballasting requirements, but only for some applications with lower
flow rates (e.g., compensating for fuel burn off, but not for ballasting and deballasting for
significant cargo loading and unloading operations). Most added the caveat that the feasibility
of using potable water generators would depend on the size of the equipment that the vessel
could accommodate. The three remaining vendors did not believe it is feasible, under any
circumstance, to generate sufficient potable water at a rate that would meet vessel ballasting
requirements. EPA does not believe that the available information is sufficient to enable a
determination that onboard potable water generators may be used for ballast water purposes at
this time. However, based on the summary information provided by these vendors and
recognizing that it is a reasonable hypothesis that some potable water generating approaches
could produce water with concentrations below the IMO D-2 limit, EPA believes that the option
is worthy of further study, and the Agency intends to evaluate potable water generators as a
ballast water treatment option for certain vessels for future permit iterations. Lastly, EPA notes
that USCG ballast water regulations at 33 CFR Part 151 Subparts C and D do not contain an
exemption for vessels using onboard potable water generators.
EPA further acknowledges that some commenters note that several vessels currently use potable
water generated onboard for ballast water (EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 13;
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1, EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1, excerpt 9). None of
the commenters advancing this option provided the type of concrete information that would
allow EPA to adopt it. EPA believes that use of potable water generated onboard holds possible
promise as a future management practice for some vessel operators that do not currently have to
meet the numeric limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP. However, as discussed above, EPA
does not believe that these technologies represent BAT at this time because they have not
undergone sufficient study to determine if both 1) their use is feasible for vessels as an effective
ballasting approach and 2) the extent to which they would successfully reduce the number of
living organisms in a discharge. EPA intends to study this issue further during the permit term,
and the Agency will reevaluate whether these technologies constitute BAT for the next VGP,
and whether their availability would allow some vessels to utilize onboard potable water
generators as a ballast water management practice.
878
-------
Additionally, EPA notes that any of these technologies could theoretically be used by vessel
operators to meet the permit limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the permit if they meet the permit
requirement of being "a system which has been shown to be effective by testing conducted by
an independent third party laboratory, test facility or test organization." (See Part 2.2.3.5.1.1 of
the VGP). EPA notes that any system that has been "type approved by the U.S. Coast Guard
under 46 CFR Part 162.060 or received "Alternative Management System" designation by the
U.S. Coast Guard under 33 CFR 151.2026 will be deemed to meet this "shown to be effective"
provision." Hence, under the existing regulatory framework, these systems can be used by
vessels as ballast water treatment technology provided they have undergone the quality
assurance and review envisioned in the VGP to ensure that systems do, in fact, remove living
organisms to successfully minimize the risks posed by unmanaged ballast water discharges. As
discussed above, EPA intends to revaluate the extent to which this upfront quality control and
review is needed to use these systems for meeting ballast water limits, particularly for smaller
vessels not currently subject to the numeric limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 31
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question 12. Whether the use of potable water generated by shipboard treatment
systems on vessels which use small quantities of ballast water, for example utilizing potable
water ballast to offset fuel consumption on research vessels, is an appropriate approach to
meeting the numeric technology-based effluent limits of the 2013 VGP. CSA believes the use of
potable water in these scenarios is an appropriate alternative to meeting the numeric technology-
based effluent limits. This water is basically drinking water either loaded from shore or made on
the vessel and does not contain concentrations of aquatic nuisance species.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0475, excerpt 1.
Additionally, EPA notes that water from a U.S. or Canadian public water supply would be one
viable approach to meet the requirements found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
13
No
Comment: The Commenters note that several vessels currently use potable water generated
onboard for ballast water. In response to EPA's request for comments on this issue, Fact Sheet at
879
-------
p. 105, the Commenters request that EPA amend the Draft VGP to allow for vessels to use such
potable water to comply with the alternative in Part 2.2.3.5.1.3 (Use of Public Water Supply
Water). The onboard process used to generate potable water from seawater, through reverse
osmosis and distillers, is likely sufficient to eliminate the organisms listed in Part 2.2.3.5 from
the ballast water stream. Accordingly, EPA should specify that onboard generated potable water
is an approved substitute for water from a public water system.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0475, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
9
No
Comment: Public Water Supply (PWS)
Similarly, Canada supports the PWS option for vessels. Again, economic concerns may limit its
use to specific circumstances, but Canada believes this is an excellent way to lower the risk of
aquatic species invasions when PWS are able and willing to provide the service. Canada
appreciates that the EPA has included use of Canadian PWS water as an acceptable way to meet
the numerical requirements of the VGP.
Canada would propose one refinement to the EPA's reference to Canadian drinking water
standards. In Canada, these standards are part of the responsibility of our provincial and
territorial governments, but consistency across the country is achieved through the Federal-
Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water. On behalf of this committee, Health
Canada publishes formal "Guidelines on Canadian Drinking Water Quality." Canada suggests
that reference to this primary document would be more appropriate and more germane to the
purpose of the VGP than the reference to the secondary "Guidance for providing safe drinking
water in areas of federal jurisdiction."
The EPA has also requested comment on the use of potable water generated by shipboard
treatment systems for ballast. Canada believes that potable water generated onboard ships is
unlikely to represent a significant vector for the transportation of aquatic life forms. Certain
Canadian government ships already use this method to produce ballast water that can be
discharged, without further treatment, at low risk. Accordingly, Canada supports the inclusion of
potable water generated by shipboard treatment systems as an appropriate approach to meeting
the numeric technology-based effluent limits of the proposed 2013 VGP.
Response: EPA notes the suggested change in reference for Canadian drinking water
requirements and has made the requested change in § 2.2.3.5.1.3 of the final VGP. With respect
to use of use of potable water generated onboard, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
QW-2011-0141-0475, excerpt 1.
880
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Director, Environment &
Sustainability, Maerks Line North America Liner
Operations
Maersk Line
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0513-A1
5
No
Comment: b. Use of ballast water from US or Canadian public water systems (2.2.3.5.1.3) is
not feasible for voyages originating in ports outside the US, and water from international
locations probably meets the same standards. We suggest that this provision be modified to allow
international treated water sources.
Response: EPA notes that the comment does not specify any particular "international"
standards, and that both the adequacy of such unspecified international standards and their
effective implementation/enforcement at the source would vary from country to country and
potentially port to port, making their actual effectiveness in control of potentially invasive
organisms uncertain. In addition, as a practical matter it would be virtually impossible to verify
that ballast water was taken on solely from such sources and that they did, in fact, meet the
applicable drinking water standards. Accordingly, EPA declines to make the requested change.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
18
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.1.3: Use of Public Water Supply Water
We suggest that the reference to U.S. and Canada be removed from this paragraph, and replaced
with provisions that would be applicable to water from any public water supply system.
Response: For reasons similar to those stated in response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0513-A1, excerpt 5, allowing use of "any" public water supply system would not provide
adequate assurance that the system in fact has adequately treated the water to effectively control
potentially invasive organisms. EPA thus declines to make the requested change.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
881
-------
Comment: Second, there is an area in particular that we have commented on with potential
impacts that EPA may not fully recognize. That is the issue of "mixed-use" tanks principally
employed for ballast water, which are also used alternately for the storage of treated or untreated
gray water, or highly treated effluent from an advanced wastewater treatment system (AWTS)1.
EPA touches on this concern in section 2.2.3.5.1.3 of the permit, which discusses the alternative
compliance strategy of using potable water for ballasting. In this part of the permit, EPA
includes requirements for management of these tanks as their utilization switches back and forth
between ballasting with potable water and "ambient water" in which we note the phrase, "such
vessel may not return to using PWS water until the tanks and supply lines have been cleaned,
including removal of all residual sediments."
On most itineraries large cruise ships sail outside of permit waters on a daily basis and are able to
store wastewater in designated tanks and discharge outside of permit waters in compliance with
regulatory requirements. Some itineraries, however, have multiple and consecutive days in
permit waters and require additional storage capacity which is frequently achieved by re-
designating a ballast water tank for storage of such wastewaters - typically gray water, as that is
the largest volume waste stream. This practice of designating a ballast tank for wastewater
storage has increased significantly as more and more jurisdictions place restrictions on cruise
ship discharges, often regardless of the level of treatment, thus requiring ships to find additional
storage capacity on board. Significantly, these waste streams are not discharged in permit waters
(for cruise ships) and so the issue is not a question of allowing their discharge but rather of the
potential for cross-contamination as the contents of these tanks changes.
This issue is further complicated when considering that ballast and/or gray water tanks, even if
designated and segregated for the remaining life of the vessel, will likely employ common pipes,
pumps and valves for internal transfers and discharges. Re-configuring the conveyance system to
wholly segregate ballast and wastewater systems would be akin to an arterial transplant. It is not
practical to retro-fit the existing fleet, and to do so would require considerable lead time to
incorporate into the construction of new ships in the future.
This even has implications in the selection of the indicator bacteria chosen for ballast water
treatment monitoring as E. coli and Enterococci are common bacteria found in gray water, and
other domestic waste waters. Detection of such contaminants in a ballast water sample may not
indicate ballast water treatment failure, but rather cross contamination in the conveyance system
of the ship.
The flexibility to use such tanks in the manner described is critical to the overall operation of
any ship which carries large number of passengers - be it cruise ships, ferries or some other
vessel that generates a large amount of gray water. This permit must be structured in a way as to
allow vessels to manage their tank usage with maximum flexibility while protecting the
environment. The issue then is how tanks must be prepared and managed as they are switched
from one use to another.
882
-------
What steps would be necessary to prepare a tank for re-designation from one use to another?
Switching a tank from ballast water to gray water presents little risk with respect to this permit as
the ballast water will be filtered during the uptake stage (hence no sediment) and disinfected
prior to discharge. Subsequent storage of gray water or other waste waters would not impact
permit compliance as this water would be discharged outside of permit waters.
Under the proposed permit this will become problematic from a regulatory perspective. A ballast
tank containing treated ballast water (as most of the current technology treats ballast water on the
uptake) could be emptied in compliance with ballast water requirements and then re-designated
for gray water storage. This gray water would be discharged outside 4NM, but would not be
treated with the ballast water equipment2. Would this gray water be subject to ballast water
treatment requirements?3 What would be necessary to allow re-designation of this tank as a
ballast water tank?
We have proposed an alternative language for section 2.2.3.5.13 Use of Public Water Supply
Water to address this concern, but recognized that it will likely require further discussion
between EPA and the industry. We invite EPA to engage in such discussion prior to finalization
of the permit, and in collaboration with the U.S. Coast Guard which is seeking to finalize its
ballast water rule in the near future.
1 We will discuss the issue with respect to gray water, although similar concerns would apply
to the other wastewaters listed above.
2 Not least because that equipment is not designed to handle the types of contaminants in gray
water; it would lead to premature failure of that technology.
3 Pending USCG final rulemaking requirements will apply out to 12NM.
Response: With respect to cleaning of tanks and supply lines by vessels using PWS in lieu of
meeting the ballast water discharge standards in VGP § 2.2.3.5, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0598-A2, excerpt 5.
With respect to discharges (including greywater) into waters not subject to the VGP, EPA notes
that the VGP's discharge limits would not apply if the discharge is into waters not subject to the
VGP. EPA further notes that such discharges are beyond the scope of the VGP.
With respect to bacteria, EPA agrees that E. coli and Enterococci may be present in greywater
and other domestic wastewaters. EPA notes that the numeric technology-based ballast water
discharge standards in VGP § 2.2.3.5 include specific limits on both E. coli and Enterococci.
EPA further notes that the commingling of ballast water with other wastestreams is an
operational or design choice made by the vessel owner/operator and that it is not technically
practicable to differentiate if the E. Coli or Enterococci in the resulting commingled discharge
came from ballast water alone, other wastestreams alone, a combination of the two, or regrowth
of bacteria in the tank holding commingled waters. In the case of a vessel that commingles
ballast water with greywater or other domestic wastewater, the resulting commingled discharge
into waters subject to the VGP would be subject to the numeric limits applicable to ballast water
as well as any such other limits as might be applicable to the greywater or other wastewater
component of the discharge. (EPA knows of no reason, and commenter does not suggest, that
both standards could not be met in practice.) In short, commingling of ballast water with other
883
-------
wastestreams does not mean that the ballast water discharge standards are somehow rendered
inapplicable.
With respect to re-designation of a tank that formerly held greywater as a ballast water tank,
EPA notes that the VGP does not have requirements related to "designation" of tanks, and
further notes that, consistent with USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.1504, the VGP defines
"ballast tank" as any tank or hold on a vessel used for carrying ballast water, whether or not
designed for that purpose. VGP Appendix A.
With respect to commenter's assertion that ballast water "will be filtered during the uptake stage
(hence no sediment) and disinfected prior to discharge," EPA notes that this would depend upon
what, if any, ballast water treatment system is installed and its treatment processes, and further
notes that no filtration system is 100 % efficient such that "no sediment" would result. With
respect to commenter's assertion that "most of the current technology treats ballast water on the
uptake," EPA notes that the choice of what type of system to install lies with the shipowner and
is not specified in the VGP, and further notes that systems which do treat on uptake do exist.
See e.g., Lloyds Report on ballast water treatment technologies.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 34 Part 2.2.3.5.1.3 Use of Public Water Supply Water - EPA offers this option for
discharge of water used for ballasting that, owing to its source, does not pose a risk of invasive
species. Potable public water supply water is in fact not the only potential source meeting this
criterion. For example, many ships create potable water on board with either evaporation or
reverse osmosis technology. Similarly, ships equipped with advanced wastewater treatment
technology can produce effluent (commonly called permeate) that can also serve as ballast water.
These sources do not present a threat of invasive species, and should be allowed (accordingly the
permeate would be subject to effluent limitations found in Section 5 of the permit for discharge
in permit waters).
The second paragraph of this section is overly restrictive when it states, "Vessels using water
from a PWS must use such water exclusively for all ballast water to avoid contamination of the
ballast water tank." This should be considered on a tank-by-tank basis. Many ships have
multiple tanks, and to require all tanks be managed exclusively with PWS if only one is so
managed is overly prescriptive.
Furthermore, the bullets associated with this paragraph introduce the concept of ambient water. It
is not clear what this term means. Untreated? Water from a foreign source? Certainly water
ballasted from the common waters of a given region ought not to be restricted from de-ballasting
884
-------
in that same area. Both types of effluent could be legally discharged when separate, and should
not be restricted if discharged together.
While restrictions may be appropriate where a vessel operates without an approved ballast water
treatment system, those that do have an IMO / USCG approved system would be adding treated
ballast water to the PWS ballast. This is particularly relevant when operating in such areas as the
Gulf of Alaska where a vessel may encounter sudden and severe changes in sea-state, requiring
rapid ballasting of tanks to add stability as well as to mitigate potential free-surface affects when
the generation of additional potable water could not be achieved in a timely manner.
This highlights the fact that for the many large ocean going vessels, and certainly for large and
medium cruise ships and ferries, ballast water tanks have evolved to be used for multiple
purposes, particularly as additional restrictions on near-shore gray water discharges have come
into force. The importance of maintaining this operational flexibility cannot be overstated, yet
we are confident that an environmentally protective alternative language can be developed for
this permit.
We recommend the following language:
Part 2.2.3.5.1.3 Use of Public Water Supply Water of Water Other Than Seawater for Ballast.
Vessels may meet the requirements of Part 2.2.3.4 by using water from a U.S. or Canadian
public water system, (both referred to as PWS in this permit), as defined in a) 40 CFR 141.2 and
subject to the requirements of 40 CFR parts 141 and 143 or b) Health Canada's "guidance for
Providing Safe Drinking Water in Areas of Federal Jurisdiction" as ballast water. Vessels using
water from a PWS as ballast water must maintain a record of which PWS they received the water
and a receipt, invoice or other documentation from the PWS indicating that water came from that
system.
Vessels may also use potable water produced on board, gray water or other wastewaters
(discharges of which are subject to the applicable effluent limitations of this permit). Discharges
in waters subject to this permit of such waters stored in ballast tanks are subject to the additional
requirements below.
1. For ships using PWS, contamination of the PWS containing tank must be prevented by the
following measures:
a) The ballast water tanks must be cleaned, including removing all residual sediments, prior
to designation of the tank as a PWS tank, and
b) A tank designated for PWS ballasting into which other waters are introduced that cannot
be discharged in conformance with the applicable effluent limits of this permit must not
be discharged in permit waters unless in accordance with requirements in Item 2 below.
c) Prior to re-designation as a PWS tank, this tank must be managed in accordance with the
flushing requirements of Part 1 above.
2. For tanks using other waste water as ballast, such as gray water or permeate from an AWTS,
which alternate between treated ballast water and gray water or other wastewaters that do not
885
-------
meet the effluent limitations of this permit, must be managed in accordance with the
requirements listed below:
a) When changing a tank usage from treated ballast water storage to gray water or other
wastewater storage:
i. The ballast water must be discharged in accordance with the ballast water treatment
requirements of this permit as applicable.
ii. Gray water or other wastewaters subsequently stored in this tank must be discharged
in accordance with the effluent limits of part 5.1.1.1.2 of this permit, other applicable
limits, or outside permit waters.
b) When changing usage from gray water or other wastewaters storage to ballast water
storage:
i. The gray water or other wastewaters must be discharged in accordance with the
effluent limits of part 5.1.1.1.2 of this permit, or outside permit waters.
ii. Prior to storage of ballast water in a tank previously holding untreated gray water or
other wastewaters, the vessel must flush the tank and ancillary equipment with
exchange of ballast water of at least one volume of the tank, when outside the waters
covered by this permit. Subsequent seawater placed in ballast in this tank must meet
applicable ballast water exchange or treatment requirements prior to discharge in the
waters subject to this permit.
This formulation is admittedly complex, but careful reading will indicate that it is at least as
protective of the environment as the proposed rule, while preserving the operational flexibility
necessary for the continued safe operation of the vessel. We add the following thoughts in
support of this formulation:
• Vessels must, of course, continue to be managed in a way that protects the safety and
security of its passengers and the vessel itself. Ballasting is an essential element of the
tools available on board to manage the ship, and the permit must provide a reasonable
and flexible accommodation of ship practices to do so.
• In the case when it would be necessary to take up seawater to ballast a tank
containing gray water due to urgent weather or other operating requirements, the
vessel would not be prevented from doing so, but would be prevented from
discharging this in permit waters. When it comes time to discharge such a tank it
would be done outside permit waters (3NM). The vessel would then have to flush the
tank prior to reintroducing either PWS or clean ballast water for discharge in permit
waters as described in the proposed wording that I have provided.
Concerns about residual gray water remaining in that tank after the flushing evolution must
consider that any subsequent discharge would be after two volumes of the tank of treated ballast
water have passed through the system (the flushing volume plus the subsequent ballast volume
loaded into the tank). Any residual gray water would be de minimis. EPA has acknowledged the
adequacy of allowing discharges from tanks containing de minimis quantities of effluents of
concern in its recent California Marine Waters No Discharge Zone ruling: see 40 CFR Part
140(b)(2)(i)(B) which prohibits discharge from tanks with more than de minimis amounts of
886
-------
sewage generated while the vessel was outside of marine waters of the state of California, which
is to say that de minimis quantities of the unwanted discharge would not be unacceptable. The
preamble to this rulemaking is more to the point in describing, "EPA has presented this
approach to the State [California] and the State agrees that the final rule is an appropriate
approach to implementing 'sufficient holding tank capacity.' " EPA then states that 'EPA did not
incorporate the commenters' proposed language requiring holding tanks to be 'discharged to the
greatest extent operationally practicable' because this is addressed by the 'more than de minimis
amounts of sewage' provisions in the final rule." Collectively these statements speak to
consideration by both EPA and the State of California that de minimis effluent contents within a
tank can appropriately been managed with the type of flexibility described in the suggested
language above.
For most cruise ships, this would be a seasonal issue - ships re-positioning to a region in which
additional gray water storage is necessary would likely re-designate one or more ballast tanks for
gray water use, and would maintain that designation for the remainder of the season. When that
season is over, and there is desire to return the tank to ballast water storage, the ship would
follow the flushing procedure described above.
The requirement that vessels utilizing PWS as ballast water must certify in their recordkeeping
documentation that they have met all the requirements of this section, does not consider the time
element of such a certification. A Captain can certify that the ship's tanks meet these
requirements for a given period of time, but cannot certify what has happened before his/her
arrival on board or what happens in the future after he or she leaves. The intent of this section is
to hold ships accountable for their choice to utilize PWS ballast, but this certification adds
nothing to that process. The records required of ballast water management should be sufficient to
provide adequate accountability and enforceability for this requirement. We recommend the
certification requirement be deleted from this section.
Response: At the outset, EPA notes that this comment seeks an extensive and complex
rewriting of VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.3 so as to fundamentally expand the scope of its exclusion from
the ballast water numeric technology based limits beyond the use of only PWS as ballast water
to create new exclusions for vessels using greywater and "other" wastewater as ballast. EPA
also notes that this "other" wastewater is left unspecified by commenter, beyond "including"
AWTS permeate. See the specific text for new VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.3 as suggested by commenter.
EPA notes that it does not have available data to enable an understanding of why an exclusion
for such a potentially wide range of wastestreams would constitute BAT or the environmental
implications of such an exclusion, nor does commenter identify or offer relevant data on such
matters in its comment. EPA further notes that the existing counterpart USCG regulations (see
33 CFR 2025(a)(2)), address only ballast water from PWS, not the expansive type of exclusion
sought by this comment. For these reasons alone, EPA believes it is inappropriate to expand the
exclusion in VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.3 along the lines suggested by the commenter. Please also see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A1, excerpt 3. With specific respect to
AWTS permeate data and its relevance to the requested exclusion, see further discussion of that
issue below. EPA also has the following observations on other specific points raised by this
comment.
887
-------
With respect to use of potable water generated onboard, please see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0475, excerpt 1. With respect to ships using AWTS permeate as
ballast water, EPA notes it does have data available on effluent from such systems with respect
to cruise ships operating in Alaskan waters (see final VGP Fact Sheet § 7.1), and notes that
AWTS permeate would be expected to meet the graywater treatment limits found in Part 5.1 of
the VGP. EPA further notes that while it would generally be expected that AWTS effluent
would have a low invasive species risk , this data does not specifically evaluate compliance
with the IMO D-2 ballast water standards of the VGP, and further evaluation of that issue is
necessary.
With respect to concerns that the second paragraph of proposed VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.3 was too
restrictive and should instead provide for consideration on a tank-by-tank basis, EPA had
intended this provision to apply on such basis. In light of this comment and the potential for
confusion on this point, EPA has revised the final VGP text on this point to more specifically
provide that the restriction applies on the basis of any given tank.
With respect to the meaning of ambient water, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
OW-2011-0141-0598-A2, excerpt 5. With respect to the particular concern that water ballasted
from the common waters of a given region ought not to be restricted from de-ballasting in that
same area, EPA notes that the VGP already contains exemptions to address such a situation as
set out in VGP § 2.2.3.5.3.1.
With respect to vessels that have an IMO / USCG approved system adding treated ballast water
to the PWS ballast, EPA notes that the proposed VGP does not prohibit this practice as such.
However, the discharge of such commingled PWS-derived ballast and treated ballast water
would still be subject to compliance with the technology based numeric ballast water discharge
standards in VGP § 2.2.3.5.
With respect to ballasting as an essential element to manage ships and the need to provide a
reasonable and flexible accommodation for this, EPA believes the VGP already does so. See
e.g., VGP §§ 2.2.3.5.1.1; 2.2.3.5.1.2 - 2.2.3.5.1.4; 2.2.3.5.3.1 - 2.2.3.5.3.4.
With respect to commenter's assertion it can be necessary to take up seawater to ballast a tank
containing gray water due to weather or operating requirements, EPA does not disagree. EPA
notes that the remainder of this comment (as to allowability of such practice) is a comment on
the operation of the revised text offered by commenter, not on the VGP as such. EPA further
notes the commenter does not point to specific provisions in the VGP that would prevent this
practice. As explained in the other responses to this commenter's concerns about mixing of
greywater and ballast water, EPA notes that such commingled waters could be discharged, but
if in waters subject to the VGP would be subject to any applicable VGP limitations on ballast
water and greywater.
With respect to residual gray water remaining after the flushing evolution, EPA notes that this is
a comment on the operation of the revised text offered by commenter, not on the VGP as such.
As explained above, such discharge would be allowable if in compliance with applicable VGP
effluent limitations.
888
-------
With respect to cruise ships' use of ballast tanks for greywater storage being a seasonal issue,
EPA notes this is a factual assertion by commenter, not a comment on the VGP, and neither
agrees nor disagrees with such assertion.
With respect to concerns about vessels utilizing PWS as ballast water certifying in their
recordkeeping documentation that they meet the requirements of VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.3, and the
request for deletion of this certification requirement, EPA notes that this certification is
necessary to enable verification of, and accountability for, compliance with this VGP provision.
EPA notes this provision would not require Captains' to certify as to vessel compliance before
their arrival or after their departure. EPA further notes that counterpart USCG regulations (33
CFR 152.2025(a)(2)) also require similar certification. In light of this, EPA declines to remove
such provision from the VGP.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 48
Late Comment? No
Comment: p. 105. Part 4.4.3.5.3 Use of Public Water Supply Water - EPA specifically requests
comment on whether the use of potable water generated by shipboard treatment systems is an
appropriate approach to meeting technology based effluent limitations. We have written
extensively on this issue and refer EPA to comments offered with respect to P. 34 Part
2.2.3.5.1.3 above.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0475, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A2
15
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.1. Use of Public Water Supply
Given the volumes of water and flow rates at which our ships regularly pump, it is not likely that
we would use water from a public water supply on any of our vessels as a matter of routine.
However, in the event that an installed ballast water management system malfunctions during a
voyage, our vessels may need to utilize PWS to allow for continued operation of the
vessel. Unfortunately, the VGP does not allow for this usage, stating that "Vessels using water
from a PWS must use such water exclusively for all ballast water to avoid contamination of the
ballast water tank." We understand the need to ensure that unscrupulous operators may attempt
889
-------
to use PWS water to skirt the intent of the permit and therefore the permit requires vessels to
clean the tanks of all residue and residual sediments. Therefore, we recommend vessels which
have an installed BWMS on board their vessel which has been in continual use in accordance
with all applicable international and national requirements, but is temporarily unable to properly
treat its ballast water in accordance with those international and national requirements due to a
system malfunction be allowed to use water from a Public Water Supply with no additional tank
cleaning requirements. Such vessels would be required to document the use of PWS in their
ballast water record book and report the system malfunction to the EPA and Coast Guard.
Response: EPA notes that commenter's suggestion would result in mixing of water taken from
a Public Water Supply (see final VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.3) with ballast water that has not been treated
due to a malfunction of the vessel's ballast water treatment system. Unlike water taken onboard
solely from a Public Water Supply in accordance with VGP § .2.3.5.1.3, this mixture would
potentially contain invasive organisms that would be released into the environment upon
discharge. In light of this, EPA declines to make the suggested change.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent, V. Ships
Leisure
V. Ships Leisure
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2
6
No
Comment: Item No: 7
VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: 2.2.3.5 Ballast Water numeric discharge limitations; VGP
2013 or Factsheet text: 2.2.3.5.1.2 - 4 - Ballast Water Management Measures (Potable Public
Water...)
Comments: Ballast Tanks may have other storage use onboard not solely limited to Ballast
Water (which presents invasive species threat). As the draft VGP makes provisions for
unitization of Potable Public Water in such tanks, other liquids that may be stored there for
operational reasons should also be recognized. These are typically untreated grey water (in order
to comply with the VGP and increase their storage capacity most passenger ships utilize their
ballast tanks to store untreated grey water for subsequent discharge when outside of permit
waters), (AWWTS) treated grey water effluent / permeate (again for the reasons above if the
vessel chooses to discharge treated greywater outside permit waters and not be subject to
monitoring), water produced onboard by evaporation or reverse osmosis etc. These liquids have
no invasive species environmental impact and as are incidental to operations should be allowed
to be discharged differently from the Ballast water requirements but maybe subject to other
discharge provisions of the permit (i.e., grey water). In cases where there is direct mixing and
contamination with ballast water and its sediments in the Ballast Water tanks/system such other
effluents should be required only then to be regarded as Ballast Water /invasive species threat
and treated accordingly. Provisions should be made for Ballast Tanks / System to be able to be
used solely for one of these other effluents (municipal water, water produced onboard, grey
890
-------
water etc) i.e., by their prior cleaning or for alternating usage by proper flushing with sea water
outside permit waters.
Suggestion or Proposed text: Vessels may store water from a municipal source, water produced
on board, gray water or other wastewaters (discharges of which are subject to the applicable
effluent limitations of this permit) in Ballast Water Tanks. Ballast Tanks, intended to be used
solely for the storage of any of the above different from invasive species threat waters, must be
cleaned and free from sediments prior to introduction of those other waters in them. Ballast
Tanks, which storage alternates between invasive species ballast water and any of the other types
of waters, must be flushed with seawater at least once with 100% of their volume (i.e., by empty-
refill method) when outside of waters subject to this permit, after they have contained invasive
species threat ballast water and before any of the other types of waters, that may be contained in
Ballast Tanks, is going to be introduced in them.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A1, excerpts 3
and 14.
Commenter Name: Scott Strand, Executive Director, MN Center for
Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.1.3 Use of Public Water Supply. We support this alternative method to
reduce risks of AIS introductions.
Response: Commenter's support for use of public water supplies is noted, and the final VGP
continues to include use of public water supplies as an alternative. Please also see the response
to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1, excerpt 9.
Commenter Name: Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law Division, New
York City Law Department
Commenter Affiliation: New York City Law Department
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0598-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.5.1.3Use of Public Water Supply, pg. 34
The City requests clarification on whether it can perform multiple fresh water flushes to clean
the tanks. While a fresh water flush might affect the salinity of the water, it would not affect the
turbidity. If fresh-water flushing of ballast water taken from one zone and returned back to the
same zone is not an option, this will add to the cost of dry-docking bills. The City requests a
definition of the terms "cleaned the ballast tanks" and "ambient."
891
-------
Response: With respect to definition of "cleaned the ballast tanks," EPA believes that VGP §
2.2.3.5.1.3 already is sufficiently clear - cleaning must take place for both tanks and supply
lines and all residual sediments removed. Such cleaning would need to be sufficient to
ensure compliance with the requirement in VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.3 that in order to qualify for the
exclusion vessels use "only" water from a PWS. See also, 33 CFR 151.2025(a)(2). The VGP
does not specify actual methods for such cleaning as it would be inappropriate to do so in light
of varying situations and vessel characteristics.
With respect to commenter's general description of "fresh-water flushing of ballast water taken
from one zone and returned back to the same zone," we take this to mean the freshwater being
used to flush tanks is from a PWS (such that the flushwater itself is not introducing non-PWS
water into the tanks). If the ballast water that is being flushed is returned to the same COTP
zone from which it was taken up, we further note this would seem to meet the exemption in
final VGP § 2.2.3.5.3.1. If the tank contains residual sediments, those sediments would require
removal, and their disposal back into waters subject to the VGP would not be allowed due to the
requirements of bullets three and four of final VGP § 2.2.3.3. See also discussion of sediment
disposal in VGP Fact Sheet §4.4.3.3.
With respect to defining "ambient," EPA notes that the ordinary dictionary usage of this term is
intended ("existing or present on all sides" (source: Merriam Webster dictionary -
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/); "surrounding; encircling " (source: American
Heritage dictionary - http://ahdictionary.com/)). In the context of "ambient" waters, this would
be the waters surrounding the vessel from which ballast water was taken, and are enumerated in
the last paragraph of VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.3 (harbor, sea, estuarine, lake, or river waters).
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Late Comment? No
Comment: 12. Comment on whether the use of potable water generated by systems on vessels
which use small quantities of ballast water is an appropriate approach to meeting the discharge
limits.
It is our observation that the mixture of potable water with ballast does not eliminate the need to
treat the ballast water onboard the vessel. We would agree that shipboard potable water would
mix with ballast water and not negatively affect treatment of the water, but would not support
dilution of the water as an effective means of treatment in accordance with ETV or EPA VGP
requirements.
Response: With respect to commenter's observation that mixing potable water with ballast
water does not eliminate the need for treatment of ballast water, EPA agrees (for reasons similar
to those set out in response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554-A2, excerpt 15), and
further agrees dilution of ballast water is not a substitute for treatment (see, 40 CFR 125.3(f)).
892
-------
EPA further notes that the final VGP does not allow for use of potable water generated onboard
as an alternative to meeting the discharge limits. Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
QW-2011-0141-0475, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
12
No
Comment: 12. Comment on whether the use of potable water generated by systems on vessels
which use small quantities of ballast water is an appropriate approach to meeting the discharge
limits.
It is our observation that the mixture of potable water with ballast eliminates the need to treat the
ballast water onboard the vessel. We would agree that shipboard potable water would mix with
ballast water and not negatively affect treatment of the water, but would not support dilution of
the water as an effective means of treatment in accordance with ETV or EPA VGP requirements.
Furthermore, with municipal potable water supplies under constant strain and already serving a
large industrial base instead of serving public water drinking requirements, it would seem that
use of potable water for this purpose would be egregious, not to mention cost prohibitive.
Response: EPA does not agree with commenter's observation that "the mixture of potable
water with ballast eliminates the need to treat;" for explanation as to why we disagree, and with
respect to the other potable supply issues in this comment, please see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2, excerpt 11.
With respect to use of municipal water supplies, EPA does not share the commenter's concerns
about potential strain on municipal water supplies nor that allowing use of Public Water
Supplies as provided in VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.3 would be "egregious and cost prohibitive." Use of
water from Public Water Supplies is provided as an alternative to use of onboard treatment of
ballast water (not a requirement), and due to limitations on uptake rates and quantity, would
likely be used only by vessels with smaller ballast water capacity. EPA further notes that should
excessive demand for use of such water, nothing in the VGP would prohibit the Public Water
Supply from limiting or preventing such usage. Lastly, EPA further notes that most ocean going
vessels engaged in international voyages (and which, due to their ocean/cargo-carrying nature
larger in size) would be unlikely to be able to practicably take advantage of this alternative as
under VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.3 this alternative is limited to just U.S or Canadian public water
supplies, and any mixing of ballast water taken from other sources renders this alternative
inapplicable.
893
-------
Commenter Name: Glenn R Germaine, President/CEO, Cetacean Marine Inc
Commenter Affiliation: Cetacean Marine Inc
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0667-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Cetacean Marine is a veteran owned small business specializing in the operation and
maintenance of research, training and offshore support vessels, as well as test range operations
and maintenance. In reviewing the options for ballast water management, we find that an
additional option for ballast water management exists to meet the requirements of Part 2.2.3.5,
but apparently is not yet under consideration. We feel that there may be other vessels subject to
the ballast water provisions of the proposed VGP that could share in this additional option, as
detailed below.
The only time Great Lakes non-cargo vessels must ballast is at the commencement of the sailing
season and when the accumulation of onboard sewage containment or the consumption of fuel
requires the shifting, uptake or discharge of ballast water. Part 2.2.3.5.1 details an alternative
means to meeting the requirements of Part 2.2.3.5 through the use of public water supply water.
This provision may prove useful for vessels that operate in close proximity to available sources
of municipal water. However, we are asking EPA to consider the use of onboard potable water
generation systems such as an onboard reverse osmosis (RO) water maker as another alternative
to meeting the requirements of Part 2.2.3.5. Onboard potable water generation systems often use
the same source water as the available municipal water supply. Furthermore, these systems are
just as capable as municipal sources at effectively removing chemical and microbiological
contaminants from water.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0475, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
14
No
Comment: Any use of Public Water Supply Water must be done in accordance with the
Compact. Additionally, while we understand why this option is included, it encourages the
privatization of water and large quantities of water for sale. Therefore, this option should be used
as a last resort to avoid the pitfalls and downward spiral that could come from the federal
government encouraging privatization of water, (page 34)
Response: With respect to "the Compact," EPA interprets this to mean the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact between the states of Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Wisconsin and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
S.J. Res. 45 (110th Cong., 2nd Sess.). EPA notes that the VGP does not interfere with current
894
-------
legally binding requirements under that Compact. See also, CWA § 510. With respect to
"privatization of water," commenter does not explain how use of water from public water
supplies would have such an effect. If commenter means usage of water from public water
supplies by private entities, EPA notes that this is generally one of the key purposes for which
public water supplies exist (e.g., providing potable water to residences and businesses). To the
extent commenter's "privatization" concern is that this alternative will result in large quantities
of water from Public Water Supplies being used for ballast water purposes, please see the
municipal water supply portion of response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2,
excerpt 12.
Commenter Name: Sarah Branch, Director, Government Relations, Offshore
Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Commenter Affiliation: Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0760-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: There are two significant changes to the 2013 VGP that are welcomed by the
offshore industry. First, we thank the EPA for listening to the industry's recommendations to
amend the ballast water requirements for vessels that only introduce municipal water into their
designated tanks and/or operate in one Captain of the Port Zone. The vessels in our membership
have designated, sealed ballast tanks but do not take on seawater for ballast. Any water that goes
into the designated ballast water tanks is fresh water. That water is then offloaded to an offshore
rig or to a facility once the vessel is back in port, never discharged into the sea. Additionally,
more than 80% of our vessels operate within on Captain of the Port Zone (New Orleans and
Morgan City, Louisiana combined).
Response: Commenter's support for the VGP provisions mentioned in this comment is noted,
and EPA further notes that the final VGP continues to have such provisions.
9.1.18 On Shore Treatment
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1
11
No
Comment: C. EPA should have considered onshore treatment.
While proposing TBELs for ballast water in the draft VGP based on what shipboard ballast water
treatment systems can achieve (i.e., the IMO D-2 ballast water discharge standards), EPA states
that "[n]ot all vessels will use onboard treatment systems to comply with discharge
requirements."74 The draft VGP allows for three other methods by which vessels can comply
895
-------
with the permit's ballast water TBELs: onshore treatment of ballast water, use of drinking water
("public water supply water" or "PWS") as ballast water, or by not discharging ballast water.75
Although each of these three alternatives represents a different technology-based approach to
reducing or eliminating invasive species in ballast water discharges, EPA does not appear to
have independently evaluated any of the three approaches in making its BAT determination that
TBELs for ballast water should be based on the IMO D-2 discharge standards. Rather, EPA
appears to have considered only shipboard ballast water treatment systems in its BAT
determination. With respect to onshore treatment, EPA specifically finds that it is not "available"
within the meaning of the CWA.76 With respect to use of PWS or ability to avoid discharging
ballast water at all, EPA appears to make no specific findings quantifying the class, category, or
number of vessels for which such an alternative approach is "available" within the meaning of
the statute, nor does it discuss whether or how the availability of such alternative approaches
bears on its BAT determination.77 Nevertheless, despite EPA's either finding that these
alternative approaches are not "available" or declining to make any specific findings, the agency
simultaneously finds that some vessels will in fact use one or more of those approaches to
comply with the draft VGP's proposed ballast water TBELs.78
To the extent that alternative technology-based approaches are in fact "available" within the
meaning of the CWA for specific categories or classes of vessels, EPA must evaluate them in its
BAT determination for those vessels and require the most stringent effluent limitation achievable
- regardless of whether that effluent limitation is achievable through use of a shipboard treatment
system or through an alternative approach. Specifically, EPA does not appear to have
independently evaluated whether there are any vessels that could achieve greater or faster
reductions (or even elimination) of invasive species in their ballast water effluent using an
alternative approach instead of shipboard treatment, but that would not do so unless required to
do so in the VGP. This is true not only in terms of ultimate compliance with TBELs - i.e.,
whether any vessels that would eventually be required by the VGP to comply with IMO
discharge standards could achieve a lower effluent limitation for invasive species using an
alternative approach - but also in terms of the timing of compliance with TBELs - i.e., whether
any vessels that under the current draft VGP would not be required to comply with IMO
discharge standards until their first drydocking after 2014 or 2016 could more quickly achieve an
equivalent or better reduction of invasive species in their ballast water discharges using an
alternative approach.
EPA's failure to fully and independently evaluate in its BAT determination the availability of
alternative approaches to reducing or eliminating invasive species in ballast water is arbitrary
and capricious, and EPA must correct this important omission from its analysis before the VGP
can be lawfully reissued.79
This is especially true for onshore treatment of ballast water, which EPA appears to have rejected
out of hand with minimal independent analysis on the ground that it is not "available" as a
treatment option.80 Not only is this finding inconsistent with EPA's own findings elsewhere in
the Fact Sheet that some vessels will in fact choose to comply with the VGP's TBELs for ballast
water using onshore treatment,81 but it is also inconsistent with the EPA SAB panel's findings on
onshore treatment:
896
-------
Use of reception facilities for the treatment of ballast water appears to be technically
feasible (given generations of successful water treatment and sewage treatment
technologies), and is likely to be more reliable and more readily adaptable than shipboard
treatment. Existing regional economic studies suggest that treating ballast water in
reception facilities would be at least as economically feasible as shipboard treatment.82
The SAB panel also conducted an extensive review of the literature on onshore treatment and
found five previous studies that compared the effectiveness or costs of onshore and shipboard
treatment, noting that "in each of these comparative studies, [onshore treatment] was judged to
be as effective or more effective, and generally cheaper, than shipboard treatment."83 Indeed,
conventional water treatment (such as filtration followed by disinfection) can result in
concentration reductions of bacteria and viruses of up to log 8 (or 100,000,000 times
reduction).84 The SAB Report also cites to a 2002 U.S. Coast Guard review of costs that finds
that onshore treatment was generally less expensive than shipboard treatment.85 In addition to
this favorable cost comparison, the SAB panel also identified a number of other "potential
advantages" of onshore treatment:
[FJewer reception facilities than shipboard systems would be needed; smaller total
treatment capacity would be needed; and reception facilities would be subject to fewer
physical restrictions, and would therefore be able to use more effective technologies and
processes such as those commonly used in water treatment. A shift from shipboard
treatment to reception facilities is in some ways analogous to a shift from household
septic tanks to centralized wastewater treatment plants.86
Although EPA identifies a number of logistical "challenges" that vessels may need to overcome
in order to discharge their ballast water to onshore treatment facilities - i.e., that onshore
facilities would likely not be available at all ports of call, that vessels would need to be able to
"move ballast water up from tanks and off the ship at a rate fast enough that the vessel can
perform cargo operations without significant and costly delays," and that "some vessels may
need to discharge part of their ballast water before arriving at berth"87 - EPA makes no effort to
quantify these "challenges" or analyze whether some vessels would be able to overcome them, if
not everywhere then at least in some regions of the country. In the absence of analysis by EPA, it
is not clear that these logistical challenges are any greater or more costly to overcome than the
challenges faced by vessels in installing shipboard treatment systems.
Given the clear potential advantages of onshore treatment, and in particular that "there are
methods available for [onshore] reception facilities that cannot be used on vessels" to treat
ballast water88 and that onshore facilities would be less likely to rely on biocides that have
potential adverse collateral impacts on human health and the environment,89 EPA must fully and
independently evaluate the availability of onshore treatment facilities as part of its BAT
determination for invasive species in ballast water discharges prior to finalizing the VGP,
including whether any existing onshore facilities could be adapted to accept ballast water from
any categories or classes of vessels.90
897
-------
Footnotes:
76 Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 103.
77 Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 104-105.
78
See Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 76 ("Estimates developed by King et al. (2010) suggest that less than half of the
vessels with ballast water discharge are likely to install onboard ballast water treatment systems. Some vessels are
more likely to use an alternative ballast water management approach, including not discharging ballast water while
in waters subject to this permit, using onshore facilities, or using freshwater as ballast.")
7Q
See, e.g., Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)
(holding that an agency decision that "entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem" was arbitrary
and capricious); NRDC v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104, 111 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ("[A]n agency rule is arbitrary and capricious if
the agency relies upon improper factors, ignores important arguments or evidence, fails to articulate a reasoned basis
for the rule, or produces an explanation that is 'so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or
the product of agency expertise.'").
80 Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 103.
81
See Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 76, quoted supra.
82 SAB Report at 96.
83 SAB Report, App. B, at B-3.
84 SAB Report at 83.
oc
SAB Report, App. B, at B-3.
86 SAB Report at 81.
87 Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 104.
88 SAB Report at 82.
89 Id. at 84.
QO
See, e.g., Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d 445, 453 (4th Cir. 1985); Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA, 760 F.2d 549, 562
(4th Cir. 1985); Tanner's Council, 540 F.2d at 1192.
Response: With respect to commenter's concern that EPA did not independently evaluate
alternatives to onboard treatment (i.e., onshore treatment, use of PWS, no discharge), EPA
notes that it did evaluate such alternatives as discussed in VGP Fact Sheet. See § 4.4.3.5.2
(onshore treatment); § 4.4.3.5.3 (use of PWS); § 4.4.3.5.4 (no discharge).
With respect to commenter's assertion that the Agency (in VGP Fact Sheet 4.4.3.5) noted that
some vessels will in fact use such alternatives, EPA notes that VGP Fact Sheet 4.4.3.5 instead
states that "some vessels are more likely to use an alternative ballast water management
approach," (emphasis added), and does not conclude that such alternatives are sufficiently
available so as to mandate their use as an alternative to onboard treatment. With respect to
commenter's reference to King et al (2010) in fn 78 of their comment, EPA notes that the King
et al discussion was with respect to vessels discharging less than 70,000 metric tons of ballast
water annually, and neither evaluated nor concluded that such alternatives to onboard treatment
for such vessels were currently available for use. See, King et al (2010) at pg 11.
EPA does not agree with commenter's apparent view that allowing for use of alternatives as an
option to onboard treatment means that such alternatives thus are available so their use must be
mandated under a BAT standard. The ability to use such alternatives will, apart from varying
vessel design and operational characteristics, depend on factors such as what cargo
loading/unloading will occur during any given port visit (which affects ballast water volumes)
and the availability of adequate onshore infrastructure (e.g., in terms of capacity and their
capability to connect with ship). In light of these varying vessel and voyage dependent factors,
898
-------
and the current absence of facilities that are designed or dedicated to serving ship's ballast water
needs, EPA cannot conclude that such alternatives are sufficiently available so as mandate their
use in lieu of onboard treatment, nor can EPA conclude that there are identifiable vessel classes
or types that can achieve greater or faster reductions of invasive species in their ballast water
effluent through use of such alternatives. In light of such confounding factors, EPA has instead
appropriately allowed for, but not mandated, the use of such alternatives.
With further respect to use of PWS water, the Agency does not have information demonstrating
the availability and locations, if any, of PWS capable of providing sufficient quantities of
ballast water, the ability of ships to connect their ballast tanks to such supplies, or the economic
achievability of using PWS water as a requirement of the permit. EPA is not exclusively
mandating this practice in today's VGP because the use of PWS water not meeting the
operational needs of many vessels, combined with EPA's belief that significant numbers of
ports do not have the infrastructure or sufficient PWS supply to provide sufficient quantities of
PWS as ballast water, means that it is not "available" in the context of BAT. EPA notes the
commenter did not provide any information indicating that there were such facilities or that
PWS supplies would be adequate.
With further respect to the no-discharge alternative, EPA notes VGP § 2.2.3.3 requires, as a
technology-based BMP, that vessels minimize the discharge of ballast water essential for vessel
operations, and that this would have the effect of mandating no discharge of ballast water
where that is feasible.
With further respect to onshore treatment, EPA notes it is unaware of any onshore treatment
facility currently available in the U.S. that is capable of meeting the VGP's § 2.2.3.5 ballast
water discharge standards, nor, despite soliciting information on the availability of such
facilities, did EPA receive information indicating they are or would become available over the
term of the VGP. The mere fact that a hypothetical onshore ballast water treatment system
might effectively protect U.S. waters does not change the fact that the Agency must still
evaluate onshore systems consistent with the CWA legal framework. More than just the
existence of technologies or facilities in other industries is necessary to enable a BAT
determination. That technology must be available and economically achievable within the
context of the discharge for which a BAT standard is being developed. The contents of ships'
ballast water (e.g., salinity, turbidity, volumes, discharge rates, organism
characteristics/concentrations) is highly variable and the combined number of vessels in a given
port needing to discharge ballast water to an onshore treatment facility at any given point of
time is also highly variable. In light of this, it cannot simply be assumed that the existence of
technologies used in facilities that treat sewage or drinking water indicates that onshore
facilities to treat ballast water somehow are "available" for purposes of a ballast water BAT
standard, nor, as discussed below, did the SAB conclude to the contrary.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that the Agency improperly foreclosed the SAB from
evaluating onshore treatment and, therefore, prevented full consideration of BAT. Please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0487-A1, excerpt 1. Indeed, commenter itself
provides numerous citations to the SAB report where it extensively discussed onshore
treatment. EPA took those SAB discussions into account, including those indicating shorebased
899
-------
facilities could be more effective and less expensive than onboard treatment. In that regard,
EPA notes that none of the studies discussed by the SAB and cited to by commenter involved
data or information from an actual onshore ballast water treatment facility, as none exist. They
either involved extrapolations or assumptions based on technologies used to treat other
wastestreams or conceptual designs or planning for ballast water treatment facilities that do not
exist and are not currently under construction. As noted by the SAB:
"Data on the effectiveness of practices and technologies other than shipboard
ballast water treatment systems are inadequate because insufficient attention has
been given to integrated sets of practices and technologies, including: * * * * (4)
options for treatment in [shorebased] reception facilities." SAB Report at pp 95
-- 96 (emphasis added).
Indeed, the SAB report acknowledges the limitations on concluding that technologies and
treatment efficacy from shorebased treatment of other wastestreams are simply transferable to
ballast water treatment:
• SAB discussion of treatment efficacy "describes what can be achieved in drinking water
treatment systems, recognizing that reception facilities would have to deal with a much
greater taxonomic diversity of organisms (from large zooplankton to microbes) and be
able to effectively treat all possible salinities (not just freshwater) [SAB report at pg. 82
(emphasis added)];
• "... it appears that several common drinking water filtration technologies available for
reception facility use could achieve the 1.5-2.7 log reductions from mean ballast water
concentrations needed to meet the IMO D-2 and USCG Phase 1 standards, although this
has not been tested with ballast water. It has not been demonstrated that these
technologies could address the extremely high numbers of organism [sic Jfound in the
ballast water of vessels after some voyages." [SAB report at pg. 83 (emphasis added)].
Moreover, the issue of shore based treatment, due to its complex and numerous issues did not
yield itself to a consensus SAB conclusion on all the relevant issues. SAB Report at pp 86 - 87.
EPA also disagrees with commenter's claim that the Agency made no attempt to quantify
challenges associated with onshore treatment and determine whether vessels would be able to
overcome them, if not everywhere, then at least in some regions of the country. The commenter
provides no data suggesting where such a practice could be implemented. Onshore systems
reasonably would involve creation of centralized facilities in a port and a vessel's ability to
store, or haul, ballast water for delivery to the treatment system. The logistics of such a system
that do not exist even in their infancy, are not "available" and "economically achievable" within
the context of the CWA. Unlike the existing funding mechanisms for development and
operation of centralized treatment facilities for sewage or drinking water (e.g., under the CWA
and SDWA), EPA is not aware of, nor does commenter point to, mechanisms for funding the
creation of the necessary onshore facilities, nor how such funding mechanisms could be
established via provisions of the VGP.
Implementing a national U.S. and international network of onshore reception facilities presents
900
-------
many other challenges which EPA also has taken into account. Even if an onshore facility were
to become available, this could not provide a complete alternative to onboard ballast water
treatment. Vessels often need to discharge at least part of their ballast water before arriving at
berth for trim, stability, safety or operational reasons. See e.g., AQIS, 1993a; Oemke, 1999;
Cohen & Foster, 2000; CAPA 2000; Rigby & Taylor 2001a; Cohen 1998; Dames & Moore
1998, 1999; Oemke 1999; CAPA, 2000, Rigby & Taylor, 2001a; California SWRCB, 2002;
California SLC, 2010; NAS, 2006.
In addition, if even one anticipated port of call for a vessel that needs to discharge ballast water
does not have available onshore treatment, that vessel would need to use an installed shipboard
treatment system, discharge untreated ballast water (in potential contravention of USCG
regulations at 33 CFR Part 151, Subparts C and D), or decline to call at that port. EPA further
notes this is not a mere domestic issue but, as oceangoing vessels move between US ports and
foreign ports, an issue for vessels when at overseas ports as well. The IMO ballast water
Convention, while not yet in force under Article 18, has been ratified by 36 countries
representing 29.07% of world merchant shipping tonnage (see IMO January 2013 Status of
Conventions), and would mandate vessel compliance with the ballast water discharge standards
by n Regulation D-2 of that Convention). Thus, it cannot be credibly asserted that shorebased
treatment will be "less expensive" than onboard treatment, as vessels would still need to have an
onboard treatment system. In addition, to use shorebased facilities, vessels would need to be
designed with retrofitted with the appropriate pipes and pumps to move ballast water up from
tanks and off the ship at a rate fast enough for their cargo operations without significant and
costly delays. To enable use from port to port and country to country it would be necessary to
establish consistent domestic and international standards (e.g., diameter, threading) for the
necessary fittings to safely and effectively connect vessels and onshore facilities. No such
standards currently exist.
For additional discussion of technology-based effluent limitations, see EPA's responses in Part
9.1.2 comments on Ballast Water BPT, BCT, or BAT levels of control.
Commenter Name: Anonymous Public Comment
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: The listed ballast water options in the draft permit are not feasible for Alaskan
commercial fishing vessels. Infrastructure is not available for on-shore disposal and the cost of
potable water makes its use as ballast water impractical. The option to not discharge ballast water
within three nautical miles defeats the purpose of carrying it.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's concern that the listed alternatives to ballast water
management systems in Part 2.2.3.5.1 of the permit (Ballast Water Management Measures) may
not be feasible for Alaskan commercial fishing vessels (or for other vessels, for that matter).
The VGP provides these as alternatives acknowledging that the alternatives may not be
901
-------
available, affordable, feasible, etc. for many of the vessels covered under the permit. EPA
analyzed the cost of the permit on regulated vessels, documented in the Economic and Benefits
Analysis of the final 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP), a copy of which is available in the
administrative record for this permit. That analysis evaluated the burden on vessels assuming
operation of an on-board ballast water treatment system. In certain instances, alternatives to
onboard treatment might be available to manage their ballast water. In these instances, the
permit provides for use of such management alternatives. In addition, EPA notes that the
overwhelming majority of commercial fishing vessels would be less than 1,600 GRT, and that,
as explained in the Final VGP Fact Sheet § 4.4.3.5.6.4, inland and seagoing vessels less than
1,600 GRT are not subject to the VGP's ballast water numeric technology based limits and that
the options commenter is concerned with are for vessels that are subject to the numeric
standards.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
11
No
Comment: Regarding the ballast water management alternatives, the Commenters' vessels
operate in the Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, and deliver catch to remote ports and areas of
Alaska. As such, in some cases, the ability to use onshore treatment of ballast water and public
water supply water will be extremely limited or non-existent. In addition, as these areas
frequently experience severe weather and rough seas, it may not be possible, due to vessel safety
and stability, to eliminate ballast water discharges within three miles of shore.
The Commenters note that it may be considerably difficult for smaller fishing vessels to install a
BWTS due to space and stability issues. Further, EPA has estimated the cost of installing and
operating a BWTS to be between approximately $300,000 and $2.5 million depending upon
vessel characteristics and treatment system. Economic and Benefits Analysis of the Proposed
2013 Vessel General Permit, at p. 64 (Nov. 30, 2011). This range would constitute a significant
expense for fishing vessels, particularly smaller vessels. Further, it is not clear if this estimate
includes the cost of retrofits and structural modifications that may be necessary to install a
BWTS given existing vessel space and stability concerns. The Commenters request that EPA
maintain the ballast water management requirements of the 2008 VGP in lieu of the BWTS
requirement if vessels can demonstrate, with appropriate documentation, that installation of a
BWTS would be cost prohibitive or structurally impossible or if a certified BWTS is not
commercially available.
Response: With respect to modifying the VGP to allow for alternatives to installation of a
BWTS in the circumstances described by commenter for those vessels subject to the technology
based ballast water discharge standards, final VGP §§ 4.4.3.5.2 - 4.4.3.5.4 allow for alternatives
to treatment system installation. EPA notes commenter's concern that such alternatives may be
of limited applicability in Alaska and that smaller fishing vessels may have considerable
902
-------
difficulty in installing a BWTS. In response, EPA notes that the overwhelming majority of
commercial fishing vessels would be less than 1,600 GRT, and that, as explained in the Final
VGP Fact Sheet § 4.4.3.5.6.4, the final VGP excludes inland and seagoing vessels less than
1,600 GRT from the permit's ballast water numeric technology based limits and believes that
this exclusion addresses commenter's concerns.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
8
No
Comment: 6. Alternatives to ballast water treatment systems.
Canada agrees with the EPA that options other than shipboard ballast water treatment and
retention of ballast onboard exist to reduce the risk of introducing and spreading non-native
species. Although these options may not apply to the particular commercial circumstances of all
vessels, they provide flexibility for operations in specific circumstances.
Onshore Treatment
Canada believes that onshore treatment is an effective way to dramatically limit the risk of
aquatic species invasions through ballast water. While acknowledging that it is unlikely for cost
reasons that such treatment facilities would become ubiquitous, and therefore that shipboard
treatment and/or retention will be the main line of defense for the foreseeable future, this option
may prove useful in specific circumstances.
Response: Commenter's points lend further support for the permit's alternatives to use of a
ballast water treatment system, to the extent those alternatives are available and applicable. The
Agency retained those alternatives in the final permit.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 34, Part 2.2.3.5.1.2 Onshore Treatment of Ballast Water - The last sentence of
the first paragraph should be amended to include, "...such discharges would therefore constitute
a permit violation unless necessary to secure the safety and security of the vessel or its
passengers or crew."
The last paragraph precludes authorization under this permit for the discharge of treated ballast
water (transferred from other vessels) from a treatment barge. EPA is foreclosing on an
903
-------
opportunity for increased regulatory flexibility in this instance when in fact the treatment
methods could achieve as good or better effluent quality than if treated on board an original
vessel. We encourage EPA to re-consider this interpretation and allow coverage of such a
treatment arrangement under this permit.
Response: EPA agrees in principle with commenter's recommendation about providing relief
when actions are taken to secure the safety and security of the vessel or its passengers or crew;
however, the Agency disagrees that additional permit language is needed to provide for such.
Part 1.13 of the permit incorporates by reference all of the standard permit conditions published
in federal regulations at 40 CFR § 122.41. Specific to the types of discharges identified by the
commenter, 40 CFR 122.41(m) provides "bypass" provisions for intentional diversion of
wastestreams from treatment when performed to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe
property damage. "Severe property damage" is defined as "substantial physical damage to
property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or
substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur
in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by
delays in production." Thus, the Agency believes the draft permit, as finalized, provides for
relief from treatment requirements when necessary to secure the safety and security of the
vessel or its passengers or crew.
With respect to commenter's concern that the VGP "precludes authorization under this permit
for the discharge of treated ballast water (transferred from other vessels) from a treatment
barge," EPA notes that such a discharge, like other discharges from treatment facilities, would
be an industrial discharge and thus outside the scope of the VGP. The VGP is necessarily
limited to discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, as that was the scope of the
former NPDES permit exclusion in 40 CFR 122.3(a). Permitting of industrial facilities, even if
they are floating craft, was never subject to that exclusion, and thus never excluded from
NPDES permitting. See final VGP Fact Sheet §§ 2.2 and 3.5.2.1 for further discussion. Thus,
wastewater discharges from a treatment barge (being used for treatment rather than as a means
of transportation) are ineligible for coverage under the VGP. Rather, such discharges require
authorization under an individual NPDES permit or an alternative general permit, if available,
with a separate analysis as to the appropriate limits and requirements. Accordingly, EPA
declines to modify the VGP in the manner suggested by this comment.
Commenter Name: Scott Strand, Executive Director, MN Center for
Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.1.2 On-shore treatment of Ballast Water
This alternative to on-board treatment seems largely unexplored. We believe that this alternative
should be more seriously considered as an option for the Great Lakes and particularly in Lake
Superior, where a handful of ports receive almost all of the discharged ballast water.
904
-------
Response: With respect to on-shore treatment as an alternative to ballast water treatment
systems, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0491-A1, excerpt 11.
Commenter Name: Holley Horrell, Mills Legal Clinic on behalf of Northwest
Environmental Advocates
Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: 3. EPA should have considered onshore treatment.
As the NRDC/NWF Comments explain, EPA improperly foreclosed the SAB from evaluating
onshore treatment and, therefore, prevented full consideration of BAT.50 Despite sanctioning
three alternatives to shipboard treatment systems (use of onshore treatment, use of public water
supply water, or no ballast water discharge), EPA did not independently evaluate these three
approaches in making its BAT determination for TBELs. We are most concerned that EPA failed
to consider onshore treatment. As discussed above, supra 1(2), EPA narrowly limited the scope
of the assessment it requested from the SAB, charging the panel to consider the "[performance
of shipboard systems with available effluent testing data," the "[pjotential performance of
shipboard systems without reliable testing data," possible developments of shipboard systems,
and the development of reliable information regarding shipboard treatment of ballast water
discharges.51 Despite these narrow charges, the SAB panel took it upon itself to expound on the
benefits of onshore treatment. The panel noted, for example, that more treatment methods are
available in onshore facilities than can be used shipboard and that conventional water treatment
processes which might be used for onshore ballast water management can effectuate up to 6-8
log reductions in concentration depending on the size of the organism.52 The SAB also cited a
plethora of literature to support findings that onshore treatment "appears to be technically
feasible," and is "more reliable," "more readily adaptable," "as effective or more effective," and
"generally cheaper" than shipboard treatment.53 As the SAB's findings reflected existing
literature, EPA could and should have fully considered those studies before eliminating onshore
treatment from the scope the SAB's evaluation and from the Agency's assessment of BAT. For a
recent summary of the wastewater reclamation options available and the level of treatment
achievable, EPA might look, for instance, to the new NAS study on "Water Reuse: Expanding
the Nation's Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater."54
Because setting TBELs at the levels achievable through onshore treatment system would protect
U.S. waters more effectively than the shipboard BAT established in the Draft VGP, EPA's
failure to evaluate onshore treatment contravenes the CWA and the basic tenets of administrative
law. TBELs based on onshore treatment's capabilities would be taking a step closer to achieving
the statutory goal of eliminating the discharge of pollutants into our nation's waters. As
discussed above, supra 1(2), ignoring extremely relevant data or evidence, like the ability of
onshore treatment facilities to achieve significantly lower invasive species discharge levels,
renders EPA's decision arbitrary and capricious.55
905
-------
See id., Section IV(C).
51 SAB Report, at 3-8.
52 Id, at 82-83.
53 Id, at 83, 96; id., App. B, at B-3.
54
NAS, Water Reuse: Expanding the Nation's Water Supply Through reuse of Municipal Wastewater" (2012). A
pre-publication copy of this study is available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php? record_id=13303. Chapter 4, in
particular, contains a detailed analysis of wastewater reclamation technology and is attached.
55 See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (holding
that it was arbitrary and capricious for an agency to "entirely fail to consider an important aspect of the problem");
NRDC, 822 F.2d at 111 (holding that an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously if it "ignores important arguments
or evidence").
Response: With respect to onshore treatment, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
OW-0141-0491-A1, excerpt 11. EPA also notes commenter's cite to the 2012 NAS study and
their provision of chapter 4 as an attachment to their comment. That study (which as of the date
of this response is now available on-line at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php7record id=1330)
addresses technologies for treatment and reclamation of municipal wastewaters which differ
substantially in their characteristics from ballast water. Because of that, and as discussed in the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-0141-0491-A1, excerpt 11, EPA does not believe that the
ability to treat municipal wastewater or drinking water means that the existence of such
technologies or facilities means that onshore treatment of ballast water is "available" within the
meaning of BAT.
9.1.19 USCG Rulemaking
Commenter Name: Public Hearing Oral Comments by WSC's Doug Schneider.
January 11, 2012
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0441
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: Adding to this timing problem is the fact that the draft VGP would require
compliance with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Final Rule on ballast water management, which
is expected to require that treatment systems obtain USCG approval or a USCG-issued
equivalency (for foreign type-approved systems). Vessel owners will not know what systems
have earned a USCG approval or equivalency until sometime after the USCG Final Rule is
published and the agency has begun issuing these determinations. We encourage EPA, in
cooperation with the USCG, to develop an appropriate phase-in schedule for vessels that are
constructed on or after January 1, 2012 and for which their owners do not have a reasonable
period during which to select and install a technology that they can verify meets all applicable
requirements.
Response: EPA has developed a phase-in schedule that is consistent with the USCG final rule.
See VGP fact sheet section 4.4.3.5.5 entitled "Schedule for when Ballast Water Treatment
becomes BAT (and therefore required)." Please also see sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 of this
906
-------
comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Yoshiaki Gonno, Naval Architect, Technical Development
Group, Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI), Marine &
Engineering Co., Ltd.
Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0464- A2
2
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Comment 1: Expected Phase-2 standards (Note/§2.2.3.5/P26)
(i) Expected discharge standards of phase-2 should be applied to only new building ship.
(ii) Detail of sampling and analyzing procedure should be defined before definition of discharge
standard of phase-2.
Background for Comment 1:
A) Necessity of encouragement of the early installation of B WTS by release the risk for ship
owner's investment.
Ship owners assume that high cycle replacement of BWTS is causes high risk investment and
they would like to wait the development of BWTS as late as possible to avoid the risk. U.S. EPA
can liberate the ship owner from the risk for first installation of BWTS by adopting our proposal
(i). There are two positive effects to ocean environments.
First, ship owners can comply with these standards appropriately without large confusion or
trouble when retrofit at dry dock will be done for existing vessels. If all ship owners install
BWTS as late as possible, repair yards may overflow to fulfill the required work because of the
congestion of the dry dock timing. Today, ship owners are afraid of the problem caused by the
congestion of the work for BWTS in dry dock in near future. This problem should be solved
quickly.
Second positive effect is expectation of higher social benefit by early installation of BWTS. We
estimated social benefit derived from encouragement of early installation of BWTS as shown on
attachment-1 for reference.
B) Voluntary Application of Phase-2 in Future
Ship owners will voluntarily try phase-2 even if existing vessel is excluded from the application
of phase-2 because ship owners whose vessel is more ecological are evaluated positively by
trader.
C) Necessity of Encouragement of Early Investment Motivation of Ship Owners
Detailed definition for sampling method encourages early voluntary installation of ballast water
treatment system because ship owners, ship builders and manufacturers can identify system
907
-------
performance in accordance with authorized method. Finally, only good manufacturer can
guarantee the performance and ship owners can invest money in installing BWTS without risk.
Moreover we can expect development of better performance BWTS by good manufacturers
through the appropriate selections of good manufacturers by ship owners.
Response: Commenter refers to the "note" in part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP, which merely states that
EPA will continue to explore new technologies to determine whether making the numeric limits
more stringent in the future is warranted. With respect to commenter's suggestions related to
limiting applicability of "phase-2 standards" to new build vessels and development of detailed
sampling procedures before definition of the phase 2 standard, EPA notes that, like the
proposed VGP, today's final VGP does not include any "phase 2 standards." Like the proposed
VGP, the final VGP's numeric ballast water discharge limits are consistent with USCG's
proposed phase 1 limits (as now contained in the USCG's March 2012 final rule). Accordingly,
commenter's concerns related to limiting phase 2 standards to new vessels and the need for
development of detailed sampling procedures for phase 2 standards are moot as such standards
do not exist.
Commenter Name: Sarah K. Branch, Director of Government Relations,
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Commenter Affiliation: Offshore Marine Service Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0474-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2) In Section 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 concerning ballast water, the EPA states "Once a ballast
water treatment system is required to be installed onboard a vessel.... "making reference to the
Coast Guard's 2009 NPRM on the installation of BWTS's onboard vessels. This is a critical rule
that has the potential to be very disruptive, impractical and costly for vessel operators and it is
still going through the rulemaking process with its conclusion yet to be seen. We request that the
EPA not base the VGP on regulations that are not yet in place and whose full requirements are
unknown to the industry it will ultimately affect.
Response: Commenter refers to the permit's provisions that outline effluent biological
organism monitoring requirements. The statement "Once a ballast water treatment system is
required to be installed onboard a vessel" is not based "on regulations that are not yet in place"
(i.e., the USCG rule at the time of the proposal of the draft VGP), as commenter contends, but
instead is based upon the implementation schedule outlined in today's VGP, which is based
upon the CWA's "best available technology" factors. See VGP fact sheet section 4.4.3.5.5 for
further discussion about the implementation schedule, and VGP fact sheet section 4.4.3.5.1.1.3
and section 9.1.10 of this comment response document for further explanation of the permit's
effluent biological organism monitoring requirements.
908
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Andreas Nordseth, Chairman, Consultative Shipping Group
(CSG)
Consultative Shipping Group (CSG)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0478-A1
5
No
Comment: Furthermore, both the VGP and the U.S. National Invasive Species Act would
require vessels to comply with requirements contained in the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) final
rule on ballast water management. This raises concerns for the CSG as that rule is neither final
nor public. The CSG understand that the rule is likely to require that ballast water management
systems undergo additional testing to obtain USCG-type approval, even in the case of systems
that have received type approval under the requirements of the Convention. Accordingly, the
CSG would instead like to see a rule established whereby such systems are recognized by U.S.
authorities on the basis of testing already completed. This would alleviate potential delays and
ensure that compliance does not needlessly interrupt international trade.
Response: The USCG issued its final rule in March 2012 (77 FR 17254) and the VGP is
consistent with that final rule as appropriate. In particular, the VGP requires vessels to meet
numeric ballast water effluent limits which are equivalent to the final USCG rule and the IMO
D-2 standard, but does not establish type-approval or testing requirements for ballast water
treatment systems, as that is the responsibility of the USCG. See generally, 46 CFR Part 162,
Subpart 162-060. For vessel owner/operators that choose to use a ballast water treatment
system, under VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.1, a system must be used which has been "shown to be effective
by testing conducted by an independent third party laboratory, test facility or test organization."
Under VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.1, a system that either has been type approved by the U.S. Coast Guard
or a system which was type-approved by a foreign Administration and received "Alternative
Management System" (AMS) designation by the U.S. Coast Guard under 33 CFR 151.2026
will be deemed to meet this "shown to be effective" provision of the VGP. By allowing for use
of "AMS" systems, the VGP thus accommodates commenter's concern that a mechanism exists
to allow for use of foreign Administration type-approved systems. Comments related to the
contents of the USCG's ballast water management rule, including Coast Guard system approval
requirements, or the National Species Act, are outside the scope of today's permitting action.
Commenter Name: LeRoger Lind, President, Save Lake Superior Association
Commenter Affiliation: Save Lake Superior Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0483-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: The recent introduction of the viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHSV) fish virus into
the Great Lakes illustrates the urgency of addressing the AIS threat to Lake Superior and its
tributaries. NISA mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security issue regulations to prevent
the introduction and spread of ANS into the Great Lakes through the ballast water of vessels (16
U.S.C. $ 4711 (b)). The Federal Administrative Procedures Act requires that the USCG follow
909
-------
its regulation (Title 33, Part 151, Subpart D) which requires that all vessels equipped with ballast
water tanks that operate in the waters of the United States must avoid discharge or uptake of
ballast water in protected waters and avoid uptake of ballast water in areas that may be infected
with harmful organisms. Why are these regulations not being enforced?
Response: Enforcement of NISA is outside the scope of today's action.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: Fourth, we are all aware that the USCG rule on ballast water treatment standards is
still not final and published and thus stakeholders have been unable to review the proposed VGP
ballast water requirements with the USCG requirements in a side by side fashion. It is our
understanding that the rule has cleared DHS/USCG and is now delayed at OMB. Such a review
is critical to ensure that the two sets of requirements regulating the same discharge are consistent
with each other. Therefore, we strongly recommend a 30 day reopening of the comment period
once the USCG final rule is published so that this comparative review can be made and input
provided to EPA if inconsistencies do exist. The reopening period would be limited only to
comments related to the ballast water requirements in the proposed VGP.
Response: EPA is required to allow for at least 30 days for public comment, but because of
public interest and the permit's complexity, including the interplay between today's VGP and
the USCG regulation of ballast water discharges, EPA provided a 75-day public comment
period. In addition, because EPA anticipated a significant degree of public interest in the draft
permit, EPA held a public hearing and a public meeting to provide opportunities for public
input, as well as a webcast and multiple webinar Q and A sessions in order to provide
information on the draft permit and answer questions for interested parties.
With respect to the request for a reopening of the comment period, EPA determined that the
comment period should not be reopened, because the procedures outlined in the NPDES
regulations specifically state that the second comment period must be at least an additional 60
days in length and this would not have expedited the decision-making process, as required by
40 C.F.R. § 124.14. Additionally, EPA believes that issuance of the final Coast Guard ballast
water discharge standard rule did not raise substantial new questions regarding the terms and
conditions in the VGP per 124.14(b).
EPA notes that as a result of early coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard and early input from
stakeholders, the VGP and the USCG final rule are consistent to the maximum extent possible.
On October 29, 2010, EPA issued a Federal Register notice announcing the opportunity to
participate in a public listening session on December 15, 2010. The purpose of the public
listening session was to seek the views of the interested public on requirements currently
910
-------
included in the 2008 VGP and any changes or additions recommended for the next VGP. The
notice sought public input on potential improvements for the next VGP. Many commenters
expressed concern that the Coast Guard's final ballast water discharge standard rule may not be
consistent with ballast water discharge requirements in today's permit. Commenters urged EPA
to work closely with the U.S. Coast Guard to ensure a nationally consistent ballast water
standard. EPA worked closely with the U.S. Coast Guard as both agencies developed ballast
water discharge standards under their respective statutory mandates, resulting in requirements
that are consistent to the maximum extent possible.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Cost of BWTS
The EPA cites costs from the USCG's 2008 Preliminary Regulatory Analysis estimated at an
average capital cost of ballast water treatment systems to meet their Phase 1/ IMO D-2 standards
between 2012 and 2021 to be $315,000 per vessel. This cost is vastly underestimated. Algoma
has received cost estimates in the range of $1.5M to $3.0M per vessel system from system
manufacturers. This cost could be significantly greater for vessels which would require multiple
systems. We re-iterate again that, with such a significant investment to the ship owner, the EPA
must provide a grandfathering mechanism that assures that for an installed BWMS the discharge
standards in place at the time of installation will remain applicable for the life of the system,
assuming that it is maintained and operated in accordance with a type-approval process specific
to the waters in which it will operate.
Algis Vanagas, Senior Vice-President Technical, Algoma
Central Corporation
Algoma Central Corporation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1
10
No
Response: EPA believes its estimate of ballast water treatment systems and installation costs
are accurate. Please see section 13 of this comment response document, including response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1,excerpt 4; EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1,
excerpt 17; and EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2, excerpt 12. With respect to the request for
a "grandfathering mechanism" in the VGP, please see the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this
comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Algis Vanagas, Senior Vice-President Technical, Algoma
Central Corporation
Algoma Central Corporation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1
14
No
911
-------
Comment: 8. Pending USCG Final Ballast Water Rule
Given that the USCG's final ruling on ballast water has not yet been issued, Algoma feels that
EPA should provide an additional comment period for the Draft 2013 VGP upon the issuance of
the USCG's Interim Final Rule. As these two federal regulatory regimes are intrinsically linked,
it is crucial to provide an opportunity to review the two regulations concurrently.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Timothy D. Sullivan, Manager of Regulatory Affairs and
Environmental Compliance, Hornbeck Offshore Operators,
LLC
Hornbeck Offshore Services
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0502-A1
5
No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 of the Draft. In this section, the EPA references the USCG's
notice of proposed rulemaking in 2009 concerning ballast water treatment systems for vessels.
Hornbeck specifically shares the concerns voiced by OMSA in its response to the Draft that the
USCG's proposed rule remains under development and has the potential to be very disruptive,
impractical and costly for vessel operators. It is requested that EPA not base its VGP on draft
regulations that are not yet in place and whose full requirements are unknown to the industry it
will ultimately affect.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0474-A1, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
12
No
Comment: In addition, the Commenters note that the USCG has proposed regulations regarding
standards for living organisms in discharged ballast water. 74 Fed. Reg. 44,632 (Aug. 28, 2009).
Because these regulations have not yet been finalized, the Commenters request that EPA ensure
that the measures contained in the final permit are consistent with the yet-to-be promulgated
USCG regulations. Further, because the USCG regulations have not been finalized, it is
uncertain when EPA certification for vessel size and class appropriate BWTS will occur. While
EPA notes that several BWTS are capable of complying with the Draft VGP limits, it is
unknown whether these systems are capable of being installed in fishing vessels.
Response: Today's VGP and the USCG final rule are consistent to the maximum extent
appropriate. EPA does not provide "EPA certification for vessel size and class appropriate
912
-------
BWTS," but instead requires use of an "effective system." See Part 2.2.3.5.1.1 of today's VGP.
The USCG final rule was finalized in March 2012, and the final VGP clarifies that an "effective
system" includes (but not exclusively) both a system type-approved by the USCG or one that
has received "Alternative Management System" designation by the USCG. Based on EPA's
review of available data, EPA determined in the final VGP that for vessels less than 1600 gross
registered tons, technologies are not available for ship board installation. See final VGP §
2.2.3.5.3.4. As commenter notes elsewhere in its full letter, commenter's vessels range in size
from 180 to 1,600 tons, and EPA believes that the vast majority of fishing vessels are below
1600 GRT. In its 2010 report to Congress, EPA estimated that there are between 59,000 and
70,000 commercial fishing vessels in the United states, the majority of which are less than 1600
gross tons with only a few exceptions (U.S. EPA. 2010. Report to Congress: Study of
Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non-
Recreational Vessels Less than 79 Feet. Figure 1.3; included below for reference).
1 10 1 DO 1.000 10.000
Cross Tons
Nott.Uas chart it based mall cpentuxuL U.S.-flagged tommeKul fishing vessels ladoite uaureerealiatti vessels, reaidlesa of
Eenfth
Scww; U, S Cemt Gtuird, MELE daraime, 2009
Figure 1,5, Relationship Between Vessel Gross Tons and Length
For additional discussion, please see VGP fact sheet section 4.4.3.5.1 and section 9.1.1 of this
comment response document.
913
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Berge, Vice President, Pacific Merchant Shipping
Association (PMSA)
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0508-A1
1
No
Comment: 1) Application of Ballast Water Treatment and Discharge Standards
The PMSA and its members appreciate the need to move forward with requirements for
treatment of ballast water and associated numerical effluent discharge standards. That strategy is
consistent with international efforts at the IMO, as well as rulemaking underway at the USCG
under the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (NAISA).
a) Harmonization of Rules
As such, it is imperative that the ballast water regulations under development by the USCG,
together with the VGP provisions covering ballast water be consistent and harmonized in both
theory and practical application. We realize that the two efforts are proceeding under separate
statutory guidelines and are not bound by the same timelines; however we see no reason that the
two efforts should not be coordinated to provide a unitary federal policy for the management of
ballast water discharges. To do otherwise would be a disservice to the environment and the
regulated population of vessels by making compliance more difficult than it need be.
Response: The USCG final rule was issued on March 23, 2012. The VGP and the USCG final
rule are consistent to the maximum extent appropriate and EPA and USCG engaged in
extensive coordination on the two efforts.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Berge, Vice President, Pacific Merchant Shipping
Association (PMSA)
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0508-A1
3
No
Comment: c) Implementation of Technology for Newbuilds
The proposal for installation of treatment technology for Newbuilds with construction dates on
or after January 1, 2012 is not reflective of the state of existing treatment technology testing and
verification and will be impossible to meet for those vessels now under construction or starting
construction in the near future.
Although the time required for new vessel construction can vary, modern shipyards are capable
of delivering vessels as soon as 9 months after construction date. The proposed VGP requires
treatment systems to be compliant with the D-2 standard as demonstrated using the ETV testing
protocol. To our knowledge, no treatment systems have yet been verified using the ETV
protocols and the limited resources available from independent testing facilities suggests that it
will take considerable time for treatment systems to demonstrate compliance under the proposed
914
-------
VGP provisions. With the very real potential for qualifying newbuilds entering service by the
end of 2012, it will be impossible for ship owners to determine compliant systems for
installation.
Adding to this conundrum, the VGP requires compliance with the USCG ballast water
management rule, which we understand will require that installed treatment systems be approved
by the USCG. Since that rule is not yet finalized, and it will take considerable time before the
USCG can complete certification of treatment systems, we again are in a situation where
qualifying vessels will have no way to determine and achieve compliance under an indeterminate
regulatory regime. The requirement for installation of treatment technologies compliant with
performance and certification standards that will not be determined until after the permit enters
force, and based on retroactive requirements for newbuilds, is both arbitrary and capricious. The
EPA must amend this provision in order to reflect the technical and logistical steps necessary to
make an accurate determination of compliance based on the best available technology. Because
compliance with the VGP requires related compliance with the proposed USCG ballast water
management rule, it is essential that solutions to this dilemma be coordinated between the two
agencies. Either the discharge performance standards or the implementation schedule (or both)
for newbuilds must reflect the abilities of the best available technology, as well as the steps
required for testing, verification and certification requirements that are part and parcel of legal
compliance for the regulated community.
Response: The final VGP reflects a schedule for "new" vessels that is consistent with the
schedule in the USCG final rule. Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-
0485-A1, excerpt 11. EPA notes that the Agency has coordinated with the USCG, and has made
requirements between the USCG rule and the VGP consistent to the maximum extent
appropriate.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Director, Environment &
Sustainability, Maerks Line North America Liner
Operations
Maersk Line
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0513-A1
6
No
Comment: c. Most vessels in international cargo trade are flagged outside the US and many
operate completely outside the US, but may be reassigned to a route serving the US. Such
redeployments are common. The proposed VGP requirement that treatment technologies be
approved using the US EPA ETV protocol is likely to exclude many vessels previously in other
services or require considerable additional time and administrative requirements for both the
shipping lines and the Agency and USCG. We suggest adoption of an equivalence table to
recognize other acceptable verification protocols.
Response: The VGP requires vessels to meet numeric ballast water effluent limits which are
equivalent to the final USCG rule standard and the IMP D-2 standard. For vessel
915
-------
owner/operators that choose to use a ballast water treatment system (BWTS), a system must be
used which has been shown to be effective by testing conducted by an independent third party
laboratory, test facility or test organization. The final VGP clarifies that a system that has been
type approved by the U.S. Coast Guard under 46 CFR Part 162.060 or received "Alternative
Management System" designation by the U.S. Coast Guard under 33 CFR 151.2026 will be
deemed to meet this "shown to be effective" provision. See Part 2.2.3.5.1.1 of today's VGP.
Thus, it is not necessary to "adopt an equivalence table," as commenter suggests.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Director, Environment &
Sustainability, Maerks Line North America Liner
Operations
Maersk Line
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0513-A1
14
No
Comment: 7. Clear alignment of EPA and USCG requirements is essential, and since this VGP
comment period closes prior to release of the USCG requirements, we suggest that EPA take
additional comments on those sections after the publication of the USCG requirements.
Response: The VGP and the USCG final rule are consistent to the maximum extent
appropriate. With respect to the request to take additional comments on the VGP after issuance
of the USCG final rule, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-
Al, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruno Pigott, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Water
Quality, Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM)
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0515-A1
2
No
Comment: IDEM advocates that the USCG approval process for ballast water treatment
systems should be finalized and in place before the USEPA establishes installation and
compliance dates for new and old ships. A timeframe should be established for how long it will
take the USCG to review and approve new systems submitted by manufacturers. Once final
USCG approval has been received, manufacturers will need to put the new systems into mass
production - develop manufacturing facilities, make equipment, develop service capabilities, and
install equipment on ships. We ask that the EPA carefully consider these important factors when
establishing a deadline by when ships will need to comply with the new Vessel General Permit.
916
-------
Response: The USCG approval process for ballast water treatment systems was finalized in
their March 23, 2012 rulemaking. EPA carefully considered factors such as manufacturing
capacity and installation times in establishing the implementation schedule for the VGP's
ballast water discharge limits. See Section 4.4.3.5.5 of the VGP fact sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
4
No
Comment: 2. Coordination With The U.S. Coast Guard Final Rule On Ballast Water
The patchwork of regulations within the Draft 2013 VGP may be further complicated by the
upcoming publication of the U.S. Coast Guard's (USCG) Final Rule on Standards for Living
Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters. Unfortunately, we will not have
sufficient time to conduct a thorough side by side analysis of the two regimes, since comments
on the VGP are due by February 21st while the USCG Rule is expected to be released by the
Office of Management and Budget sometime this month.
Although this may now be a moot point, we would nevertheless like to add our voice to that of
other stakeholders in noting that the timeline for commenting on the Draft 2013 VGP should
have been extended to allow a better coordination with the release of the Final Rule on
Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters. Indeed,
given that the two agencies are regulating the same operational discharge, logic would have
dictated that the comment period for the VGP be extended. With this in mind, we join with the
Chamber of Shipping of America and other stakeholder groups in suggesting that a
supplementary 30-day comment period be allowed after the publication of the USCG Final Rule,
with a proviso that only comments limited to ballast water requirements will be considered.
Response: The VGP and the USCG final rale are consistent to the maximum extent
appropriate. With respect to extending the 75-day public comment period for the VGP, see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
11
No
Comment: Part 2.2.3: Ballast Water
Given that international shipping is a cross border activity by its very nature, it is important to
avoid approaches that differ from the international legal regime adopted under the aegis of the
917
-------
International Maritime Organization (IMO). Although IMO Conventions allow signatory
countries to establish higher national standards, going too far beyond these standards makes it
difficult, if not altogether impossible, to maintain a coherent and feasible international regime.
With this in mind, we would like to offer the following comments with respect to section 2.2.3
on ballast water discharges.
Response: The VGP's numeric ballast water effluent limits are equivalent to the IMO D-2
standard.
Commenter Name: Tim Eder, Executive Director, Great Lakes Commission
Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Commission
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0528-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: The Commission strongly encourages the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard to
coordinate in their efforts to develop a consistent ballast water regulatory regime for U.S. waters
that is protective of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. The Commission urges the U.S.
to consult with Canada to pursue harmonized ballast water treatment standards and enforcement
mechanisms.
Response: EPA and the USCG worked closely to ensure that the VGP and the USCG final rule
are consistent to the maximum extent possible. Today's VGP contains requirements specific to
vessels entering the Great Lakes, which are consistent with Canada's proposed approach to
implementing the IMO Ballast Water Convention.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 35. Part 2.2.3.5.2 Schedule for When Ballast Water Treatment Becomes BAT -
CLIA members are aware of and support comments submitted by the World Shipping Council
with respect to the timeline for installation and operation of ballast water treatment equipment.
Particularly with respect to coordination with US Coast Guard rules, which will bridge the gap
between 3 and 12NM, the standards must be consistent.
Response: The VGP's implementation schedule is consistent with the USCG final rule.
918
-------
Commenter Name:
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
4
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Wisconsin DNR strongly recommends that EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
coordinate their efforts to develop a national ballast water regulatory framework that adequately
protects the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River ecosystem.
Response: EPA and the USCG worked closely together on the e VGP and the USCG final rule.
Comment: EPA VGP2 Conflicts with Existing and Proposed Coast Guard Regulations-
Use of Non-U.S. Type Approved BWMS
VGP2expressly allows vessels which have non U.S. Type Approved BWMSs to use such
systems to comply with the Permit. Additionally, the VGP2 states that such vessels are not
required to meet the exchange and flushing requirements. In other words, the VGP2 allows
vessel owners to operate their vessels in contravention of existing and proposed Coast Guard
regulations, and potentially, the BWM Convention.
CONCLUSION
Irrespective of the implementation dates proposed and/or adopted in the Coast Guard's proposed
rulemaking, the EPA's proposed implementation dates leave the ship owners in a situation where
they cannot possibly comply with the VGP2 requirements due to the non-existence of mandated
equipment, specifically, BWMSs which have satisfactorily completed land-based testing using
the ETV Protocol. Additionally, for reasons mentioned above, there will likely be a several
month delay between the first Type Approval and subsequent Approvals. Therefore, under the
best case scenario, there will probably only be three to five BWMS which have received Type
Approval by March 2015. This leaves vessel owners very few options for installations and
increases the likelihood that a vessel owner will not be able to install a system on board his
vessel due to lack of systems which meet the operating parameters of the vessel. The fact that the
requirements are scheduled to be implemented before the VGP2 is finalized only exacerbates the
situation and provides greater uncertainty for the vessel owner. There is no scientific basis to
require vessels to conduct BWE plus treatment, and the EPA admits as much in their Fact Sheet.
Neither the SAB Report nor the NAS Report support a conclusion that BWE plus treatment is an
appropriate TBEL or QBEL standard. Moreover, EPA has not considered the negative
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Douglas B. Schneider, World Shipping Council (WSC)
World Shipping Council (WSC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1
19
No
919
-------
environmental impacts associated with doubling the amount of air emissions resulting from
operating generators and treatment equipment.
SEE ORIGINAL COMMENT FOR TIMELINE CHART
Response: Contrary to commenter's assertion, today's VGP does not allow "vessel owners to
operate in contravention of existing and proposed Coast Guard regulations." Nothing in the
VGP overrides USCG requirements. See, VGP §§ 1.12 and 2.2.3. Although the VGP could
alone allow systems that have not been approved by the USCG to be used in lieu of exchange,
vessels that are subject to the USCG rule would be prohibited from doing so by the USCG rule.
Note that the final VGP clarifies that an "effective system" includes (but is not limited to) one
that is either type-approved by the USCG or one that has received "Alternative Management
System" designation by the USCG. EPA notes that multiple vendors have applied for Coast
Guard Alternate Management System (AMS) approval and, based on estimates by the USCG
rule in the context of their final rulemaking, EPA fully expects multiple systems to have such
Coast Guard designation in the near future (see e.g., email from Ryan Albert to Ryan Albert
contained in the docket for today's permit issuance). Please see the response to comment EPA-
HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 11. Pease see section 10.1.2 of this comment response
document for an explanation of why "exchange + treatment" was finalized in today's VGP.
EPA agrees that neither the SAB nor NAS specifically discussed exchange plus treatment.
However, other information in the record justifies inclusion of this requirement (please see
section 10.1.2 of this comment response document for further discussion). Additionally, the
SAB stated that "insufficient attention has been given to integrated sets of practices and
technologies that could be used to systematically advance ballast water management." Like
parts 2.2.3.1 through 2.2.3.4 of the permit, EPA believes that in the limited circumstances in
which it applies, exchange plus treatment is exactly the sort of integrated practice that reduces
the risk of new ballast water mediated invasions
Commenter Name: Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadians)
Commenter Affiliation: Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadians)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 20
Late Comment? No
Comment: It is strongly encouraged that the EPA provide additional time to comment on the
Draft 2013 VGP upon the issuance of the USCG's Interim Final Rule. As these two federal
regulatory regimes are intrinsically linked, it is crucial to provide an opportunity to review the
two regulations concurrently.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 2.
920
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Raymond W. Johnston, President, Chamber of Marine
Commerce (CMC)
Chamber of Marine Commerce (CMC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0541-A2
1
No
Comment: As a broadly-based, bi-national (Canada-U.S.) marine transportation industry
association, the Chamber of Marine Commerce is, first and foremost, pleased to finally see some
degree of harmonization in the U.S. for ballast water discharge standards. The EPA's proposal to
align ballast water treatment standards with International Maritime Organization ballast water
convention standards (as well as U.S. Coast Guard draft Phase I ballast water treatment
standards) is a positive step in terms of regulatory harmonization, especially in light of the past
number of years where the overlap, duplication, disharmony and resulting uncertainty
perpetuated by the lack of singularity of standards has been costly to industry and society as a
whole.
Notwithstanding the apparent convergence of ballast water standardization, there still remains
much work to be done. As noted in the sections of this submission dealing with collaboration
with the USCG and on timing and type approval, it is unfortunate that industry is being asked to
evaluate and comment on regulatory proposals that offer no proof nor assurance that they have
been completely aligned with a federal regulatory agency (USCG) who's imminent rulemaking
could theoretically render these draft proposals almost irrelevant.
Response: The USCG final rule was issued on March 23, 2012. EPA and the USCG worked
closely to ensure that the VGP and the USCG final rule are consistent to the maximum extent
appropriate.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Raymond W. Johnston, President, Chamber of Marine
Commerce (CMC)
Chamber of Marine Commerce (CMC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0541-A2
6
No
Comment: ii. EPA Coordination with U.S. Coast Guard
CMC further notes that, although the EPA stated throughout various sections of the "Proposed
2013 Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet" (Fact Sheet) that it was working closely with the U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG), ostensibly in order to align regulatory standards, it is nonetheless
troubling that this draft permit is not more closely coordinated with the USCG Final
Rulemaking.
Recognizing the importance that both agencies' regulatory actions have on a significant portion
of global industrial activity and the unfortunate overlap in their regulatory ambit over ship's
ballast water, it would seem incumbent upon EPA and USCG to work much more closely
921
-------
together and to not only agree on ballast water standards and timelines, but also to release their
regulatory proposals in tandem. Instead, industry and the public are forced to evaluate and
comment on EPA's regulatory proposals without any certainty over what the USCG's Final
Rulemaking will entail or when it is going to be published and effectively become law. In light
of this misalignment in timing, CMC suggests that EPA consider a supplementary public
comment period for the draft 2013 VGP after the USCG final rulemaking has been published.
Response: EPA and the USCG worked closely to ensure that the VGP and the USCG final rule
are consistent to the maximum extent appropriate.EPA proposed the VGP in November 2011
and USCG finalized their ballast water discharge standard rule in March of 2012. With respect
to a supplementary public comment period, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-
2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Raymond W. Johnston, President, Chamber of Marine
Commerce (CMC)
Chamber of Marine Commerce (CMC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0541-A2
8
No
Comment: iv. Timing and Type Approval
As noted above, CMC is encouraged by the EPA's proposal in the draft 2013 VGP to adhere to
IMO ballast water treatment standards. Notwithstanding, vessels can only install technology that
is technologically sound, available, economically feasible and ultimately approved for use on
vessels and in circumstances for which it was designed.
So while it is gratifying to see EPA propose alignment of ballast water regulations via the VGP
with IMO convention ballast water standards and timelines as well as apparent U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) Phase I ballast water regulatory proposals (re. USCG Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
for the U.S. Coast Guard Ballast Water Standard), such regulatory standards are meaningless if
the technology they mandate does not exist, is technically or economically impractical or
ultimately has not been approved for its intended application.
At a practical level, a number of shipowner members of the Chamber of Marine Commerce are
now in the process of significant fleet renewal. Thanks in large part to the Government of
Canada's removal of a longstanding punitive tariff of 25% on the value of foreign-built vessels,
Canada's Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway domestic shipping industry has invested in
approximately a dozen new vessels for the Great Lakes. On top of that, the largest Canadian-
based ocean-going shipping company trading in the Great Lakes is adding three (3) new vessels.
Given that the orders for these vessels are currently being processed (2012-2013), EPA's 2013
VGP effectively necessitates ballast water treatment system installation during the initial
construction of these ships. Thus, pursuant to the draft VGP, these shipping companies must
choose and install treatment systems without having any such systems previously approved by
the U.S. Coast Guard. Furthermore, given how time-consuming and complex the USCG type
922
-------
approval process can be, several years could elapse before such an approval process and
resulting system approvals are complete.
Such a conundrum is absolutely untenable. EPA must understand that no company can afford to
invest the millions of dollars necessary for such systems without absolute assurances that such
systems will be granted USCG type approval for use in the Great Lakes.
Finally, given the tremendous cost that ballast water systems represent to ship owners, CMC
suggests that the regulatory regime respect this investment by providing a grandfathering
mechanism that assures that for an installed ballast water management system the discharge
standards in place at the time of installation will remain applicable for the life of the system,
assuming that it is maintained and operated in accordance with a type-approval process specific
to the waters in which it operates.
Response: See section 4.4.3.5.1 of the VGP fact sheet, which discusses that ballast water
treatment is technologically available, and that ballast water treatment requirements in today's
VGP are economically practicable and economically achievable. In addition, please see sections
9.1.1 and 9.1.2 of this comment response document. In response to commenter's concern about
"how time-consuming and complex the USCG type approval process can be and that "several
years could elapse before such an approval process and resulting system approvals are
complete," EPA notes that the final VGP clarifies that an "effective system" includes systems
that are either type-approved by the USCG or have received "Alternative Management System"
designation by the USCG. EPA notes that multiple vendors have applied for Coast Guard
Alternate Management System (AMS) approval and that EPA fully expects multiple systems to
have such Coast Guard designation in the near future. Please see the response to comment EPA-
HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 11, and EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1, excerpt 19
for further discussion. EPA cannot include a "grandfathering mechanism" in today's VGP -
please see the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Steven A. Fisher, Executive Director, American Great
Lakes Ports Association
Commenter Affiliation: American Great Lakes Ports Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0545-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: Implementation Timeline
We urge EPA to revisit the implementation timeline and compliance deadlines proposed in the
VGP. While the proposed timeline is consistent with the IMO convention, that timeline is no
longer realistic. It is important to note that the IMO convention was finalized in 2004. At that
time the deadlines for action were well into the future and appeared reasonable. The
development of federal regulations by the EPA and Coast Guard has taken much longer than
anyone anticipated. That fact is not the fault of the regulated industry, but rather, it is the fault of
the federal government.
923
-------
There are certain realities that vessel operators will confront as they work to install ballast water
treatment equipment on new and existing vessels. EPA acknowledges that most vendors will
likely seek so-called "type approval" from the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard type approval
process will not only evaluate environmental efficacy, but will also determine if the equipment is
safe and reliable for operation on ships. Indeed, it is our view that vessel operators will be
reluctant to purchase and install ballast water treatment equipment that has not received U.S.
Coast Guard approval. As EPA knows, the Coast Guard has yet to establish a type approval
program for ballast water treatment systems. Such a program was proposed by the Coast Guard
in 2009, but has yet to be finalized. Assuming the program is launched during the first half of
this year, it will take additional time for vendors to move products through the evaluation
process. Experts have estimated that the type approval process for ballast water treatment
systems will require 28-36 months.
Once type approved, the vendor will then have to mass produce the approved product and deploy
a global installation and service capability. Finally, the EPA estimates that approximately 72,000
vessels may be subject to this permit. It is questionable whether shipyard capacity exists to
retrofit that number of ships by the deadlines called for in the proposed permit.
EPA fails to provide evidence that these "timeline realities" have been evaluated and properly
allowed for in the implementation schedule. For this reason, we challenge EPA's determination
that technology is "available." We ask that EPA provide a detailed analysis of each step in the
implementation process and estimate the time necessary for vessel operators to move through
those steps. The implementation schedule should then be adjusted accordingly.
Response: EPA believes that technology is available. In the context of the potential need to
install ballast water treatment systems, the relevant number is only that subset of vessels
actually subject to the VGP's ballast water requirements. EPA estimates that vessel universe to
be 6,934 vessels (1,665 domestic vessels and 5,269 foreign vessels), not the approximate 72,000
vessels subject to the permit. See § 2.5 of final VGP Economic Analysis. Commenter's
underlying premise that it is a "timeline realty" that shipyard capacity somehow needs to exist
to retrofit 72,000 ships by the deadlines called for in the VGP permit is thus simply incorrect.
Based on EPA's review of available data, EPA determined that for the 6,934 vessels subject to
the VGP's ballast water requirements, technologies are (or will be, pursuant to implementation
schedule) available for ship board installation. Moreover, in making that determination, despite
the IMO BWM Convention not being in force, EPA also considered the implications for
treatment system demand were that Convention to enter into force. However, EPA notes that we
acknowledge the commenters concern regarding lack of shipyard capacity, and for these
reasons, EPA has not accelerated the installation schedule from that proposed in the VGP fact
sheet. EPA recognizes that many vessels will need to enter drydock or make arrangements for
time out of service to install a ballast water treatment system and have that installation
inspected and approved by their class society and/or flag administration, that See VGP Fact
Sheet § 4.4.3.5.5, Figure 1 and associated discussion. With respect to production capacity for
treatment systems, EPA notes it also took that factor into account. See, VGP Fact Sheet §
4.4.3.5.5. See also VGP fact sheet section 4.4.3.5.1 and section 9.1 and 9.1.2 of this comment
response document. The final VGP defines a "new build" vessel as one that is constructed after
December 1, 2013. This date is consistent with the USCG final rule. For further discussion of
924
-------
the VGP's implementation schedule for ballast water treatment limits, please see there response
essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Steven A. Fisher, Executive Director, American Great
Lakes Ports Association
Commenter Affiliation: American Great Lakes Ports Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0545-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: New Vessels
We have particular concerns regarding EPA's effective retroactive regulation of new vessels.
EPA's proposed permit takes effect on December 19, 2013, yet it stipulates that any new vessel
constructed after January 1, 2012 will be subject to the discharge requirements immediately (on
December 19, 2013). To be in compliance immediately, the owner of a newly built vessel would
have to take steps to purchase and install equipment in advance of the permit's effective date.
This scenario amounts to retroactive regulation.
Because the Coast Guard has not established a type approval program and because no vendor
currently sells a Coast Guard approved ballast water treatment system (and is unlikely to do so
prior to December 19, 2013), EPA is effectively forcing vessel operators to purchase systems for
new ships that are of uncertain legitimacy from the perspective of the U.S. government. While a
number of systems have been approved by foreign administrations, the Coast Guard has made
clear that it will not accept foreign approved systems unless the manufacturer later seeks and is
granted type approval by the Coast Guard. This scenario places unreasonable risk on the vessel
operator, who is effectively being forced by EPA to purchase equipment (at considerable
expense) prior to knowing whether that equipment will ultimately be acceptable to the U.S.
government.
To avoid this risk, vessel operators will be motivated to deploy new vessels in other markets.
Ironically, EPA's proposed permit will discourage vessel operators from bringing new vessels
into U.S. waters. New ships are typically more efficient, consume less fuel and emit fewer
pollutants. These are the very ships that public policy should encourage in the U.S. transportation
market. For this reason, we urge EPA to reconsider its compliance deadline for new vessels and
adjust it to better conform to a realistic timeline.
Response: Based on this and other comments, EPA revised the final VGP to define a "new
build" vessel as one that is constructed after December 1, 2013. This date is consistent with the
USCG final rule. Please also see sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Steven A. Fisher, Executive Director, American Great
Lakes Ports Association
Commenter Affiliation: American Great Lakes Ports Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0545-A2
925
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? No
Comment: Finally, we commend your efforts to coordinate federal regulatory action with the
U.S. Coast Guard. Under current law, both agencies have jurisdiction over this issue. Both
agencies must work together to deploy a workable federal regulatory regime.
Response: EPA and the USCG worked closely to ensure that the VGP and the USCG final rule
are consistent to the maximum extent appropriate.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A2
2
No
Comment: 1. Coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard Final Rule on Ballast Water
It is our understanding that the publication of the Coast Guard's Final Rule on Ballast Water
Discharge is imminent Given the degree to which the VGP 2013 is interwoven with the Coast
Guard rulemaking, we respectfully request the EPA extend the public comment period for a
minimum of 30 days, but preferably 60 days, after the publication of the Coast Guard's
rulemaking. This will allow all parties the opportunity to carefully evaluate the two documents
side by side and provide more salient and appropriate comments to improve the quality of the
VGP 2013 and ensure harmonization with the Coast Guard rulemaking to the extent possible.
We fully understand the tight timelines the EPA is under to provide the states adequate time to
add their 401 certifications while still ensuring the final VGP 2013 is published by December
2012. We agree with the EPA's strategy of providing the states adequate time to prepare their
certifications, particularly if it results in better public interaction during the 401 certification
process. We all hope to avoid the rushed timelines, lack of opportunity for public comment on
the states' 401 certification and the implementation and enforcement chaos that ensued
publication of the first VGP.
However, we strongly believe that extending the public comment period would be tremendously
beneficial and result in a more cogent and logical document, even at the possible expense of
delaying publication of the final VGP 2013 by an equivalent 30 or 60 days. Since it is we, the
shipping community, who are most affected by any delay in the publication date of the final
VGP 2013, we respectfully request you strongly consider our recommendation to extend the
comment period.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 2.
926
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A2
4
No
Comment: In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Coast Guard required BWMSs to be type
approved by the Coast Guard, but also allowed for equivalencies. Until the Coast Guard's Final
Rule is published, we will not know to what extent the Coast Guard will accept equivalencies.
We can only assume that the Final Rule will have a similar allowance as the Coast Guard has
said, in numerous public fora, that a "bridging strategy" will be adopted to allow vessels to
continue operation. Therefore, it is likely that the Coast Guard will accept BWMSs for use in
U.S. waters, while the EPA will reject those same systems, despite the fact that they have the
same discharge standard! (This is also an example where the extension of the public comment
period could hopefully clarify differences between the two agencies' positions and allow
commenters to recommend solutions to better harmonize the agencies' regimes.)
Response: The final VGP clarifies that an "effective system" includes a system that is type-
approved by the USCG or one that has received "Alternative Management System" designation
by the USCG (which would appear to constitute what commenter refers to as a "bridging
strategy." In response to the request to extend the public comment period for the VGP, please
see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marc Gagnon, Director, Government Affairs & Regulatory
Compliance, Fednav Limited
Fednav Limited
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0559-A2
5
No
Comment: We would also like to reiterate the statement we made at the EPA information
session in Chicago that the EPA should extend the period of comment until the USCG has
published its final rule. It is impossible for the marine industry to assess now the implications of
this draft permit, without the knowledge and understanding of the USCG BWTS standards.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marc Gagnon, Director, Government Affairs & Regulatory
Compliance, Fednav Limited
Fednav Limited
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0559-A2
7
No
927
-------
Comment: Harmonization
Finally, we would like to reiterate a fundamental principle for ships and the entire marine
industry. Any laws, rules and regulations relevant to the operations of vessels have to be
harmonized between jurisdictions, and within any jurisdiction.
In the case of ballast water discharge, it is imperative that the EPA and the USCG adjust and
adapt their own regulations (permit and standard). The marine industry needs to count on stabled
and harmonized US federal rules on ballast water. Jobs in US plants and ports depend on it.
Fednav, in its capacity as an international ship operator, will comply with international
requirements regarding ballast water discharges, as anticipated by the IMO Ballast Water
Convention. We appreciate that the EPA is recognizing the same discharge standards and
hopeful that the USCG will do the same in its forthcoming Final Rulemaking. It is imperative
that the two agencies coordinate their rulemaking so that marine carriers plan the selection and
installation of systems in a timely manner, thus ensuring increased protection in US coasts and
harbors.
Response: EPA and the USCG worked closely to ensure that the VGP and the USCG final rule
are consistent to the maximum extent appropriate.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tim Eder, Executive Director and Katherine Glassner-
Shwayder, Senior Project Manager, Great Lakes
Commission (GLC)
Great Lakes Commission (GLC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0562-A2
2
No
Comment: The Commission strongly encourages the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard to
coordinate in their efforts to develop a consistent ballast water regulatory regime for U.S. waters
that is protective of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. The Commission urges the U.S.
to consult with Canada to pursue harmonized ballast water treatment standards and enforcement
mechanisms.
Response: EPA and the USCG worked closely to ensure that the VGP and the USCG final rule
are consistent to the maximum extent possible. While outside of the scope of the VGP, EPA
notes that the U.S. has long worked with Canada to coordinate on ballast water management
matters and we anticipate that would continue to be the case in the future.
Commenter Name: Pamela Parker, Vessel Discharges, Division of Water
Quality Management, Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (MEDEP)
Commenter Affiliation: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP)
928
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0628-A2
2
No
Comment: 2.2.3 Ballast Water
The proposed permit language stipulates "in addition, as a condition of the permit, all discharges
of ballast water must also comply with the applicable U.S. Coast Guard regulations found in 33
CFR Part 151." The MEDEP agrees that a unified, consistent federal approach to ballast water
regulation is desirable.
Response: The language that commenter cited has been retained in the final VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Pamela Parker, Vessel Discharges, Division of Water
Quality Management, Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (MEDEP)
Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0628-A2
5
No
Comment: 2.2.3.5.2 Schedule for when Ballast Water Treatment Becomes BAT (and Therefore
Required)
Table 6 describes when ballast water discharges from vessels will be subject to the Effluent
limitations in Part 2.2.3.5.1 of the permit. The timeline appears to be consistent with Phase I of
the U.S. Coast Guard proposal currently in OMB review. As noted in comments earlier in section
2.2.3, MEDEP agrees that a unified, consistent federal approach to ballast water regulation is
desirable and appreciates that the two schedules have been synchronized.
Response: The final VGP's implementation schedule is consistent with the USCG rule.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
23
No
Comment: a. Coordination between EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard.
There is legitimate concern with two different agencies (EPA and USCG) issuing regulations
governing ballast water that may not be identical with regard to treatment requirements and
compliance timing. It is very difficult to engineer and validate ballast water treatment systems to
meet the requirements of both rules because the final discharge standards have not been released.
929
-------
In addition, it is our understanding that the final USCG type approval procedure and port state
control requirements will not be finalized until sometime after the rule is released. Both have an
important influence on equipment design and continuing uncertainty will hinder manufacturers
from developing equipment to meet the rule(s) requirements.
Response: EPA and the USCG worked closely to ensure that the VGP and the USCG final rule
are consistent to the maximum extent appropriate, including consistency with respect to
treatment requirements and compliance timing. With respect to consistency regarding type-
approved systems, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0478-A1,
excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
9
No
Comment: In addition to stating that all ballast water discharges must also comply with
applicable US Coast Guard regulations, state that ballast water discharges must also comply with
applicable state regulations, (page 24)
Response: EPA does not believe it is necessary to add in this language, as compliance with
State requirements is already addressed by VPG § 1.11. Additionally, page 1 of the VGP notes
that "specific requirements that apply in individual states... are found in Part 6." Part 6 of the
VGP states that "EPA has attached provisions provided by states and tribes in their CWA
section 401 certifications; those that constitute effluent or other limitations or monitoring
requirements are enforceable conditions of this permit for that state's or tribe's waters."
Commenter Name: Sarah Branch, Director, Government Relations, Offshore
Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Commenter Affiliation: Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0760-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2) In the ballast water section of the proposed 2013 permit, the EPA refers to
requirements that may be regulation in the future, specifically the Coast Guard's 2009 proposed
rule on installing ballast water treatment systems on vessels. This is a critical rule that has the
potential to be very disruptive, impractical and expensive for offshore vessels and it is still going
through the rulemaking process, with its conclusion yet to be seen. We request that the EPA not
base the VGP on regulations that are not yet in place and whose requirements are unknown to the
industry.
930
-------
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0474-A1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stuart T. Theis, Executive Director, United States Great
Lakes Shipping Association (USGLSA)
United States Great Lakes Shipping Association
(USGLSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0797-A1
4
No
Comment: Draft VGP and Final Ballast Water Rules from USCG
The regulatory environment with regard to ballast water on the Lakes is currently, to be blunt, a
mess. Because of a legislative and regularity paralysis which has persisted for years, as well as
court decisions, individual States have chosen to promulgate their own sets of regulations
causing great confusion with multiple compliance requirements as vessels trade from State to
State. It has been suggested that these matters have become so burdensome that shippers are
considering or seeking alternate modes of transportation to Lakes States' destinations rather than
face the confusion, costs, paperwork and inconveniences presented by these multiple sets of
compliance hurdles. Currently, the most troublesome location is New York where it is proposed
that beginning in 2013, vessels transiting (not necessarily calling) in New York waters contain
ballast water 100 times cleaner that current IMO standards, moving toward a target of 1000 times
IMO (cleaner than drinking water). Implementation of these impossible standards is expected to
likely cause a cessation of Seaway activities for U.S as well as Canadian and other carriers,
raising troublesome international issues. These State initiatives are of course in addition to
current VGP and other assorted Federal mandates affecting ballast water and other discharges.
The States have generally all conceded that they do not wish to regulate ballast water. However,
inaction elsewhere has forced them to do so. They would happily agree to retreat in this regard.
The Lakes maritime industry has for a longtime endorsed consolidation of all of these regulations
and/or replacement which would constitute a single universal set of ballast water management
standards. To say the least, this has been an elusive goal. However, with the current activities of
EPA and USCG, we remain hopeful.
At the time of this writing, it is expected that the U.S. Coast Guard Final Rules regarding ballast
water are forthcoming very soon. We also now have before us the draft VGP. The good news is
that we understand that both agencies are looking to IMO as a guide for this process. The bad
news may be that there still may be some conflicts between what the EP A and Coast Guard
decide upon.
If these comments do nothing else, it is our urgent request that EPA and Coast Guard work
together in order to craft standards which are harmonized so that a desperately needed universal
set of regulatory standards emerges from the process in the coming months.
Response: Please see section 12 of this comment response document for a discussion of state
931
-------
requirements, including state 401 certifications. EPA and the USCG worked closely to ensure
that the VGP and the USCG final rule are consistent to the maximum extent appropriate.
Additionally, EPA notes that New York's 401 certification on the 2013 VGP does not include
numeric limits that are either 100 or 1000 times IMO.
9.2 Bilgewater
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Whitney Leake, on behalf of Patriot Maritime Compliance,
LLC
Patriot Maritime Compliance, LLC
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0447
4
No
Comment: In response to the EPA's request for comments on whether to include more stringent
bilgewater management regime for new vessels and whether to provide existing vessels with
additional bilgewater management options in the final 2013 VGP: We object to this proposal due
to the cost of replacing the OWS. Most vessels are capable of retaining slops while in waters
subject to the VGP. Why add a requirement for a more expensive piece of equipment that will
rarely be used?
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7.
EPA notes that EPA did not take comment on replacing OWS systems on existing vessels,
merely, whether to mandate better technologies be used onboard new build vessels. EPA further
notes that the commenter indicates they believe most vessels retain their bilgewater and slops
on board the vessel while in VGP waters.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tobias Mattsson, Marine Engineer, Portfolio Manager,
Parts & Service, Marine & Diesel Equipment, Alfa Laval
Tumba AB
Alfa Laval
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0465-A2
1
No
Comment: Alfa Laval Tumba AB, manufacture of oily water separators EcoStream and
PureBilge hereby submit following comments to EPA document Oily Bilgewater Separators with
reference no EPA 800-R-l 1-007.
Comment 1. Page iii
"More than one hundred bilge separators have been certified by the U.S. Coast Guard to meet the
MARPOL 15 ppm oil discharge standard. All of these bilge separators are treatment systems that
combine a gravity oil-water separator (OWS) or centrifuge with one or more additional unit
operations that "polish" the bilgewater effluent to reduce concentrations of emulsified oil."
932
-------
This section is not correct. Alfa Laval EcoStream, PureBilge 2515 and PureBilge 5015 don't
need an additional polishing unit to achieve results below 15ppm at MEPC 107(49) and USCG
46 CFR 162. Copies of USCG approval number 162.050/9095/0, 162.050/9096/0,
162.050/9097/0 and 162.050/9098/0 and DNV MED-B-5918 attached as reference in the e-mail
used to submit comments.
Comment 2. Page 6
DNV has recently introduced a new 5ppm Type Approval program. Alfa Laval have received
5ppm TA for PureBilge 2505 and 5005. Copy of the TA is attached as reference in the e-mail
used to submit comments.
Comment 3. Page 8. chapter 3.2
"A number of certified bilge separators use centrifuges instead of gravity OWS, also with one or
more additional polishing unit operations."
Refer to Comment 1. Alfa Laval EcoStream, PureBilge 2515 and PureBilge 5015 don't need an
additional polishing unit.
Comment 4. Page 8. chapter 3.3
"More than one hundred bilge separators have been certified by the U.S. Coast Guard to meet the
MARPOL 15 ppm oil discharge standard. All of these bilge separators are treatment systems that
combine a gravity OWS (or centrifuge, as noted below) with one or more additional unit
operations that polish the bilgewater effluent."
Refer to Comment 1. Alfa Laval EcoStream, PureBilge 2515 and PureBilge 5015 don't need an
additional polishing unit.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comments on supporting document EPA 800-R-l 1-007
"Oily Bilgewater Separators." Based on review of additional technical documentation provided
by Alfa Laval, EPA acknowledges that Alfa Laval's type approved EcoStream, PureBilge 2515
and PureBilge 5015 OWS systems do not incorporate additional polishing units, except as an
optional feature. EPA also acknowledges the DNV 5ppm type approval for the Alfa Laval
PureBilge 2505 and 5005. EPA notes, however, that polishing filters are often installed and
operated for many other type approved OWS systems (see Section 4.4.2 of the VGP Fact
Sheet).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tobias Mattsson, Marine Engineer, Portfolio Manager,
Parts & Service, Marine & Diesel Equipment, Alfa Laval
Tumba AB
Alfa Laval
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0465-A3
1
No
Comment: SEE TYPE APPROVAL CERTIFICATE IN ORIGINAL COMMENT
933
-------
Response: EPA thanks you for submitting the type approval certificate for the AlfaLaval
PureBilge2505 and 5005. EPA notes that the AlfaLaval PureBilge2505 and 5005 have been
type approved to meet a 5 ppm limit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tobias Mattsson, Marine Engineer, Portfolio Manager,
Parts & Service, Marine & Diesel Equipment, Alfa Laval
Tumba AB
Alfa Laval
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0465-A4
1
No
Comment: SEE TYPE APPROVAL CERTIFICATE IN ORIGINAL COMMENT
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0465-A3, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tobias Mattsson, Marine Engineer, Portfolio Manager,
Parts & Service, Marine & Diesel Equipment, Alfa Laval
Tumba AB
Alfa Laval
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0465-A5
1
No
Comment: SEE TYPE APPROVAL CERTIFICATE IN ORIGINAL COMMENT
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0465-A3, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: Bilgewater (Section 2.2.2, pgs. 22 - 23): EPA should not change the current
bilgewater requirements for new build vessels or provide additional management options for
existing vessels. Again and as discussed in the permit reopener section above, new equipment
requirements for vessels must take into account availability of equipment, shipyard capacity,
crew training and a number of installation concerns including type approval of new equipment
and the time necessary to certify new equipment to a new performance standard. As is the case
with treatment systems to manage other discharges, a great deal of money has been spent on
934
-------
equipment to adequately treat bilgewater in accordance with international and national
requirements. Imposition of new equipment requirements and/or allowing the current
proliferation of no discharge zones effectively means the significant amount of capital spent to
meet existing requirements is forfeited. Currently IMO regulates bilgewater treatment systems
through its technical standard found in Resolution MEPC.107 (49) and the US Coast Guard has
incorporated this standard in domestic regulations. If the US believes more stringent standards
are warranted, it should do so via the IMO technical development and review process when, once
completed, would apply globally. This process would include a feasibility review relative to the
availability of oil water separators which could meet a more stringent standard (5 ppm) as well as
oil content monitor capabilities to monitor at these lower levels.
Response: The permit language on which EPA sought comment would have allowed existing
ocean going vessels to elect to discharge bilgewater instead of holding it (even if it is
technologically feasible to do so), if they had the treatment capability to meet a more stringent 5
ppm standard in the permit. EPA did not propose to mandate their use for existing vessels
because EPA believed requiring existing vessels greater than 400 gross tons to install these
systems that were built prior to this permit issuance was not economically achievable. See
EPA's economic analysis on the proposed VGP, and EPA's fact sheet on the proposed VGP for
more discussion. The VGP permit language on which EPA sought comment would have
allowed new build vessels (constructed on or after December 19, 2013) greater than 400 gross
tons to discharge bilgewater into waters subject to this permit only if that discharge contained
less than 5 ppm oil and grease. It would not, however, have authorized them to discharge
treated or untreated bilgewater while the vessel is stationary and pierside. In considering
whether a 5 ppm oil and grease limit for bilgewater represented a BAT/BPT/BCT level of
control, EPA researched whether bilge separators were available which could meet these low
effluent oil concentrations, including gathering information about bilge separator treatment
systems and certification test data from a number of vendors.
EPA recognizes the financial investments required to treat bilgewater and the Agency also
recognizes that there are internationally established standards. Under the CWA, the Agency is
obligated to establish limits based on Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BAT) and Best Practicable Technology (BPT), and for the draft permit issuance, EPA
conducted a BAT/BPT analysis. Although that analysis found that systems have been type
approved to a 5 ppm limit and that there are bilgewater monitors that can detect to 5 ppm,
questions were raised by commenters regarding the precision of those meters and whether
bilgewater systems would continue to perform to this stringent standard once they were
installed onboard vessels. Commenters also asserted that EPA should first work through the
international community, and that equipment currently installed onboard vessels and
international standards and norms should be considered as EPA established final limits.
In light of comments received, EPA has not adopted a more stringent bilgewater management
regime for new vessels or to provide existing vessels with additional bilgewater management
options in the final permit for this permit term. EPA has not made these changes due to
concerns that have been raised regarding implementation that call into question whether these
systems are, in practice, "available" and actually function onboard ships as their type approval
data indicate they should (see Part 4.4.2.2 of the VGP Fact Sheet). At the time the
935
-------
draft VGP was issued for comment, EPA specifically requested input on whether there are
currently available and type approved bilgewater alarms which can be reliably set at 5 ppm.
The US Coast Guard and Navy questioned whether oil content monitors and alarms performing
at or near the 5 ppm standard are available. Though some comments presented information that
monitors and alarms have been type-approved to a 5 ppm standard, other commenters pointed
out that nothing in EPA's record (including the existence of type approvals) demonstrates that
such systems and monitors actually perform at that level under shipboard conditions. EPA was
convinced by these latter commenters that EPA should explore such issues concluding that a 5
ppm standard would represent BAT. EPA intends to seek answers to these questions to inform
the issuance of the next VGP.
Regarding comments on the need to develop standards in cooperation with IMO and consider
existing IMO regulations, EPA notes in response that we plan to work with its international
partners at the IMO to explore whether systems and alarms that do actually perform at 5 ppm are
available in the marketplace (See Section 4.4.2.2 of VGP Fact Sheet). To help inform this
process, EPA has finalized in the VGP a modified monitoring regime for new build vessels (built
on or after December 19, 2013). EPA believes gathering this monitoring information is
necessary to assess how systems actually perform onboard vessels and to help better characterize
which vessels are actually discharging in waters subject to this permit (See Section 4.4.2 of the
VGP Fact Sheet). As appropriate, EPA may also exercise its authority under CWA § 308 to
gather additional information about the performance of these systems.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 27
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question 7. Whether to include more stringent bilgewater requirements for new
build vessels and whether to provide existing vessels with additional bilgewater management
options in the final VGP.
Please see our comments in the bilgewater section above. CSA strongly stresses the need that if
more stringent standards are scientifically justified, they should be done on a global basis
through the IMO.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Commenter Affiliation: Ingram Barge Company
936
-------
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: Section 2.2.2 - Bilgewater/Oilv Water Separator Effluent - this section should be
stricken from the rule, as other regulations already guide the management of bilgewater and its
discharges. Including the requirements from other regulations under this rule would just burden
this permit without an added benefit.
Response: EPA disagrees with this commenter's suggestion to remove bilgewater
requirements from its provisions for a number of reasons. First, if bilgewater discharge was
excluded from VGP coverage, this would mean the discharge of bilgewater would become a
violation of the CWA § 301(a) prohibition against discharge without a permit. Second,
bilgewater contains pollutant such as oil, grease, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds,
inorganic salts, and metals that can cause environmental impacts to receiving waters without
appropriate environmental controls.
EPA acknowledges that bilgewater is currently regulated by MARPOL and APPS and other
regulations. EPA has included requirements from such other regimes in the VGP, when found
to be consistent with the best available technology (BAT), best practicable technology (BPT)
and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) requirements of the CWA, in order
facilitate harmonization of the VGP with other existing regimes and ensure that these
requirements are also enforceable under the VGP. We thus do not agree with commenter's
assertion that including requirements from other regulations in the VGP merely "burden[s] this
permit without an added benefit." EPA also notes that while it is appropriate to consider
requirements developed under other statutory regimes for inclusion in the VGP, the VGP is
issued under CWA § 402 of the CWA, and EPA is obligated to take into account the relevant
CWA requirements in establishing the VGP's terms and conditions, including establishment of
effluent limitations reflective of BAT/BPT/BCT as determined in accordance with the CWA,
Thus, while incorporating relevant requirements from other statutes when appropriate, the
VGP also includes other additional technology based limits consistent with BAT/BPT/BCT,
whether to supplement or add to other existing requirements or to establish new requirements
not contained in other existing regulations. EPA believes the VGP's additional bilgewater
management practices, such as reducing the volume and restricting the location and conditions
of bilgewater discharge are technologically available and economically practicable and
achievable.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Algis Vanagas, Senior Vice-President Technical, Algoma
Central Corporation
Algoma Central Corporation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1
4
No
Comment: 4. Part 2.2.2. Bilge Water Management
937
-------
In response to the EPA's request for comment on whether to alter the bilge water management
regime for new build vessels and whether to provide existing vessels with additional bilge water
management options, Algoma notes that Canadian vessels already meet a 5 ppm discharge
standard for bilge water while operating in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River (GLSLR)
therefore we can confirm that oily water separators and oil content meters capable of meeting
this standard are available and in use. If EPA intends to implement this requirement, existing
systems that are tested, verified and calibrated to work in these conditions should be
grandfathered.
Response: In response to this comment and other similar comments, EPA has included a
statement in the VGP Fact Sheet that there are systems that have been type-approved to a 5 ppm
limit are available (see Section 4.4.2.2 of the VGP Fact Sheet).
EPA acknowledges Algoma's statement that Canadian vessels already use systems type-
approved to a 5 ppm limit. However, due to questions raised by other commenters, EPA is not
finalizing a discharge standard of 5 ppm, but continues to explore the issue of whether a 5 ppm
limit represents BAT for new vessels. This exploration will include sampling bilgewater
discharges from operational vessels to get a better sense of these systems actual onboard
performance. Additionally, as discussed elsewhere in this comment document, EPA intends to
explore the 5 ppm issue further with the international community. Please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0465-A5, excerpt 1.
As part of its efforts to generate shipboard data as to how these systems are currently
performing, EPA has included monitoring provisions for bilgewater discharges from new build
vessels which will discharge into waters subject to this permit. In addition, as an incentive for
vessels which use systems that meet 5 ppm, EPA has included in the final permit a reduced
frequency monitoring incentive for those vessels who demonstrate their oil and grease
discharge is below 5 ppm on at least two consecutive sampling events (see Section 2.2.2.2 of
the permit).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0497-A1
6
No
Comment: * a prohibition against the discharge of bilge water; and
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0497-A1, excerpt 10.
Commenter Name: Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
938
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0497-A1
10
No
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: 6. The VGP relies on insufficient BMPs to mitigate the environmental impacts of
bilge water discharges. These discharges should be prohibited.
The VGP proposes a suite or BMPs for vessel bilge water discharges. These practices include
prohibitions from releasing chemicals such as dispersants, detergents, emulsifiers, chemicals, or
other substances that remove the appearance of a visible sheen in their bilge water discharges.
DEC recommends an outright prohibition of the discharge of bilge water in all waters of the
United States. Bilge water is waste water accumulated in the bottom part of a vessel from the
engine room and other mechanical parts of the vessel. It is typically contaminated with
petroleum including volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds like benzene and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons. Even with the BMPs in the VGP, bilge water could contain elevated
level of hazardous chemicals that could be harmful to the ecosystem. The discharge of bilge
water qualifies as a pollutant discharge from a point source, pursuant to the Clean Water Act and
State law, and should be properly regulated to protect the waters of the United States.
Response: EPA agrees bilgewater discharges are appropriate for inclusion in the VGP and has
included in the permit prohibitions on bilgewater discharges where technologically available
and economically achievable, as follows:
• Vessels greater than 400 gross tons shall not discharge untreated oily bilgewater into
waters subject to the permit.
• Vessels greater than 400 gross tons that regularly sail outside the territorial sea shall not
discharge treated bilgewater within 1 nm of shore technologically feasible.
• Vessels greater than 400 gross tons shall not discharge treated bilgewater into waters
referenced in Appendix G unless the discharge is necessary to maintain the safety and
stability of the ship.
EPA does not consider it technologically available or economically achievable to prohibit the
discharge of bilgewater anywhere from any size of vessel and commenter does not provide
concrete information demonstrating that it is. Vessel owner/operators generate bilgewater in
numerous ways, including having precipitation and wave water wash onto the boat and enter
into the bilge. Vessels must periodically drain this bilge. For vessels which never leave waters
subject to this permit and which do not have access to adequate onshore facilities, vessel
owner/operators must discharge the bilge to neighboring waters to maintain the safety and
stability of the ship.
However, EPA notes that these vessel owner/operators must discharge that bilgewater to the
standards set out in this permit and they must apply appropriate treatment. Additionally, vessel
owner/operators must minimize the discharge of this bilgewater. Whether treated by an oily
water separator or untreated, vessels must not discharge oil in quantities that may be harmful
939
-------
and must minimize the discharge of bilgewater. EPA has no information that indicates
bilgewater discharges that meet the permit's limits would violate any water quality standards.
As discussed above, EPA does not believe it is neither technologically available nor
economically achievable to completely prohibit vessels from discharging any bilgewater to
waters subject to this permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
5
No
Comment: Section 2.2.2 - Bilgewater/Oilv Water Separator Effluent - this section should be
stricken from the rule, as other regulations already guide the management of bilgewater and its
discharges. Including the requirements from other regulations under this rule would just burden
this permit without an added benefit.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commenter Affiliation: Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: Bilgewater: EPA proposes allowing newly built vessels over 400 GT to discharge
bilgewater only if the oil content is below 5 ppm, and there is an alarm that rings if that amount
is exceeded. In the inland river system environment, we have found that particles, such as silt,
interfere with the ability of Oily Water Separators to function as designed, and make these
systems expensive to maintain in order to ensure they are reliable. Decreasing the ppm
requirement will only compound these problems and the resultant cost. Therefore, EPA should
exempt vessels travelling on the inland river system from this requirement until such systems are
designed that are reliable and cost-effective.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Timothy D. Sullivan, Manager of Regulatory Affairs and
Environmental Compliance, Hornbeck Offshore Operators,
LLC
Hornbeck Offshore Services
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0502-A1
4
940
-------
Late Comment? No
Comment: Section 2.2.2. of the Draft. The EPA requested comments on changing oily water
separator requirements from 15 parts-per-million to 5 parts-per-million ("ppm"). Compliance
efficiency will be best achieved by paralleling International Maritime Organization standards,
presently at 15 ppm. that are established with full U.S. Government consultation and
participation.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
9
No
Comment: 5. Bilgewater/Oilv Water Separator Effluent (Draft VGP Part 2.2.2s)
EPA has requested comments on whether to alter the bilgewater management regime for certain
size and new build vessels to allow discharge of treated bilgewater only if the oil content is at or
below 5 ppm. Draft VGP at p. 23.
The Commenters note that the applicable USCG regulations require 15 ppm oily-water
separating equipment for the processing of oily mixtures from bilges on vessels greater than 400
tons. 33 C.F.R. § 155.360. In addition, the relevant regulations require the testing of bilge alarms
at this oil concentration. The Commenters request that EPA ensure that any bilgewater
requirements, including any effluent limit and monitoring obligations, are consistent
with existing USCG requirements to prevent overly burdensome and potentially contradictory
compliance obligations.
In addition, the Commenters are concerned that bilgewater treatment systems capable of meeting
a 5 ppm concentration, along with associated alarm functions, may not be readily available,
economically practical, or capable of being installed in existing or new-build fishing vessels
given space and other seaworthiness considerations. For vessels with existing bilgewater
treatment systems, this may involve replacement of the entire unit, which would impose
additional costs.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Director, Environment &
Sustainability, Maerks Line North America Liner
Operations
Commenter Affiliation: Maersk Line
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0513-A1
941
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Late Comment? No
Comment: 8. Bilge water/OWS Effluent: (2.2.2) — All Oil Content Meters (OCM"s) are
currently approved under MEPC. 107(49) that requires a 15ppm effluent limit. The 5ppm
requirement is inconsistent with this. There are some requirements for 5ppm (inland waters in
Canada, and some RO"s require 5ppm for vessels to get a „Clean" notation). We suggest that the
requirement be aligned with international practices.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Dan Grommersch, President, Compass Water Solutions
Commenter Affiliation: Compass Water Solutions
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0519-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Gentlemen:
Compass Water Solutions appreciates the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recognition
that today's oily water separator technology can produce lower discharge levels and we offer our
comments in support. Compass Water Solution has been a designer, manufacturer and supplier
of United States Coast Guard (USCG) approved bilge water separators meeting International
Maritime Organization (IMO) standards for more than 30 years.
It is our opinion that there is ample, available technology to achieve 5 PPM or less oil discharge
levels in processed bilge water on board ship. The more capable equipment presently built to
meet IMO MEPC 107(49) requirements produces effluent under 5 PPM as evidenced by MEPC
107(49) test results. Application of the principles of integrated bilge systems and proper bilge
management aids in the effective operation of this equipment on board ship. Our experience with
our own equipment demonstrates continuous, less than 5PPM performance both on test and
shipboard.
The proposed amendments to the Vessel General Permit do not seem to offer enough incentive to
employ this better technology. They apply only to ocean going vessels above 400 GRT when in
the waters covered by the permit. These vessels transit in and out of the territorial waters and
generally have provision to store bilge and either pump ashore or discharge outside the permits
waters. Further these vessels cannot presently pump within 1 NM of land and when they do
discharge bilge, do so through approved separators and monitors.
Verification of separator performance is not specifically addressed by the proposed language and
no test or certification requirement is dictated for the separator. Therefore, ship owners who
would like to comply with 5 PPM will not have equipment certification to aid in equipment
selection. The vessels covered by the proposed 5PPM language are presently required to meet
IMO and USCG requirements. Wide spread use of equipment capable of meeting 5 PPM is best
achieved through the IMO and should include a uniform certification process.
942
-------
Initial Analytical Monitoring: The proposed permit requirements rely on the monitor to prevent
discharge of greater than 5 PPM. Few administrations (Canada is one exception) certify bilge
monitors to 5 PPM and there is no international and uniform test requirement for such
certification. Alternately, the EPA method of initial monitor accuracy verification by grab
samples of bilge discharge is difficult for the ships force to properly accomplish. Further
it appears that less than 5 PPM results required are more indicative of either the initial bilge
quality or the effectiveness of the oily water separator not the monitor accuracy. Monitor
capability is best determined through a certification test as required IMO and by Canada.
Maintenance Analytical Monitoring: Presently, monitor accuracy checks can be performed on
board ship with a known test fluid. Accuracy tests are required for the monitor at renewal of the
International Oil Pollution Prevention certificate usually every 5 years. This type of test would
more accurately determine the monitor accuracy at 5 PPM.
Much attention is being paid in the proposed language to the reduction from 15 PPM to 5 PPM
for ocean going vessels over 400 GRT. Vessels that remain in the territorial waters or are less
than 400 GRT appear to be allowed to discharge unprocessed bilge and fall under the "do not
create a visual sheen" discharge criteria. Meeting this criterion is presumed and failure to do so
can only be determined after creating a sheen. There are considerable variables other than oil
PPM which cause or more importantly prevent sheen. Since the VGP applies to commercial
vessels greater than 79ft, has there been analysis as to the quantity of bilge water discharged by
vessels under 400 GRT and the possible oil amount discharged under the no visual sheen
criteria? Simple low cost separation systems can remove oil from bilge water for vessels under
400 GRT that discharge small quantities of bilge. These should be considered.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. In response to this comment and other similar
comments, EPA has included a statement in the VGP Fact Sheet that that there are systems that
have been type-approved to a 5 ppm limit (see Section 4.4.2.2 of the VGP Fact Sheet). Please
see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7 regarding EPA's
decision not to adopt a more stringent bilgewater management regime for new vessels or to
provide existing vessels with additional bilgewater management options, As a consequence of
this decision, the commenter's concerns regarding verification of separator performance, initial
analytical monitoring, and maintenance analytical monitoring are no longer germane.
In addition, for certain vessels (vessels built after December 19, 2013 greater than 400 gross
tons that may discharge bilgewater into U.S. waters), EPA is requiring annual monitoring of
their bilgewater effluent to inform the Agency about how systems actually perform onboard
vessels and to help better characterize which vessels are actually discharging in waters subject
to this permit. While analytical shipboard sampling can be challenging, EPA disagrees that
annual analytical monitoring will be difficult for ships to properly accomplish. Vessel
owner/operators such as cruise ships in Alaskan waters conduct monitoring on a regular basis,
some undoubtedly with the assistance of onshore analytical labs (e.g., see
http://www.admira1tvenvironmental.com/Environmenta1Samp1ing.htm1 (note, EPA is merely
documenting the existence of such services and not endorsing this vendor)). EPA took
comment on a proposed monitoring approach which would have required monitoring on
943
-------
multiple occasions per year. In today's final permit, EPA has reduced that monitoring schedule
to one time per year for new build vessels. If vessel operators choose, this monitoring can be
conducted during the course of the vessel's annual survey. Additionally, EPA has included in
the final permit a reduced frequency monitoring incentive for those vessels who demonstrate
their oil and grease discharge is below 5 ppm on at least two consecutive sampling events (see
Section 2.2.2.2 of the permit). EPA disagrees with the commenter that effluent monitoring will
not assess monitor accuracy. The reading of the oil content meter is required to be recorded so
that oil concentration measured by the laboratory can be compared to the oil content meter.
Moreover, nothing in this permit relieves vessel owners/operators of requirements to subject
each oil content meter and each control section of an oil discharge monitoring system to a
functional test that includes the operations listed in 33 CFR § 157.12f and is conducted as
outlined in 46 CFR § 162.050 on a suitable test bench prior to delivery.
The response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7 addresses EPA's plans
to work with its international partners at the IMO to explore the availability, performance, and
testing/certification of bilgewater treatment systems and oil content monitors as capable of
meeting 5 ppm oil and grease content in the marketplace.
Regarding bilgewater permit requirements for vessels less than 400 gross tons that remain in
waters subject to the VGP, Part 2.2.2 of the permit includes multiple requirements for such
vessels. For example, all vessels must minimize the discharge of bilgewater into waters subject
to the permit (e.g., minimizing the production of bilgewater or disposing of bilgewater on shore
where adequate facilities exist). The commenter also incorrectly states that that the sole
criterion for bilgewater discharge is the prohibition from creating a visual sheen. Per Parts 2.1.4
and 2.2.2 of the permit, all discharges of oil, including oily mixtures, from non-MARPOL
vessels must not contain oil in quantifies that may be harmful, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 110
(causing a sheen is only one criterion to use in determining discharges of oil in quantities as
may be harmful). See 40 CFR 110.3. In addition, the commenter incorrectly states that meeting
this criterion is presumed and that failure to do so can only be determined after creating a
sheen. As discussed in Section 4.4.2.1 of the VGP Fact Sheet, smaller vessels must demonstrate
that the discharge of bilgewater is sufficiently clean by periodically conducting a visual sheen
observation. EPA has utilized the visual sheen test as a reliable indicator as to whether oil,
including oily mixtures, are being discharged in quantities that may be harmful. Furthermore, as
discussed in Section 4.4.2.1 of the VGP Fact Sheet, if the vessel owner cannot be assured that
the bilgewater will not cause a sheen on the surface of the receiving water, then bilgewater must
be held onboard for onshore disposal.
EPA agrees with the commenter that there are considerable variables other than oil PPM which
cause or more importantly prevent sheen. For these reasons, Part 2.2.2 of the Permit includes
multiple additional bilgewater discharge prohibitions (e.g., prohibition on using dispersants,
detergents, emulsifiers, chemicals, or other substances that remove the appearance of a visible
sheen in their bilgewater discharges; prohibition on the addition of substances that drain to the
bilgewater that are not produced in the normal operation of a vessel; prohibition on the use of
oil solidifiers, flocculants, or other additives except as part of an oil water separation system).
EPA has little data and information regarding the quantity of bilgewater discharged by VGP
944
-------
vessels under 400 gross tons and the possible oil amount discharged. However, EPA's Study of
Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non-
Recreational Vessels Less than 79 Feet (http://cfpub.epa. gov/npdes/vessels/reportcongress.cfrn)
may provide some indication of bilgewater characteristics for smaller VGP vessels. Note that
many of the study vessels do not discharge bilgewater, opting to instead contract with a
shoreside facility for bilge cleaning and bilgewater removal. Among those vessels that
discharge bilgewater and were sampled by EPA, four of the seven vessels used some type of oil
collector (sorbent pads, rags, etc.). Oil and grease was detected in all bilgewater samples with
concentrations ranging from 1.1 to 43.6 ppm, with average and median oil concentrations of 9.3
and 5.2 ppm, respectively. Based on data and field observations from EPA's vessel sampling
program, as well as information from secondary data sources, EPA estimates many smaller
commercial vessels generate, on average, between 10 and 15 gallons per day (gpd) of
bilgewater depending on the vessels' configuration and intended use; however, EPA noted that
vessels might generate as little as 2 gallons of bilgewater or as much as 750 gallons of
bilgewater per day.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
10
No
Comment: Part 2.2.2: Bilgewater/Oilv Water Separator Effluent
The EPA is seeking comment on possibly changing the bilgewater management regime by
lowering the oil content of discharges from 15 ppm to 5 ppm for existing vessels discharging
treated bilgewater within 1 nm from shore, and for new vessels discharging bilgewater in waters
covered by the Permit. Should the EPA choose to modify the current regime in this way, we
would recommend that it use the international monitoring requirements for oily water separators
that are already in place, rather than introducing additional requirements under the U.S. regime.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 21
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question #7: Should bilgewater requirements be more stringent for new builds?
Should there be more management options for existing vessels?
LCA Response: No. The oily-water separator systems approved by the U.S. Coast Guard already
represent BAT. There is nothing in the record of this proposed permit that would suggest some
945
-------
deficiency in the current requirements pertaining to bilgewater, or any other valid reason to
change the bilgewater requirements for existing vessels or new builds. If EPA has such
information, it should make it available to us for review and comment.
We note that on page 66 of the VGP Fact Sheet the EPA states, "since the Agency believes that 5
ppm-capable systems do exist, EPA, with the support of the United States Coast Guard, plans to
seek input from our international partners at IMO as to whether that body should consider
amending MARPOL Annex I to require a phasing in of a 5 ppm oil and grease discharge limit
for certain new vessels. Existence of systems does not automatically equal a necessity for such
systems, so again, if EPA has information indicating a new ppm limit is necessary, it should be
made available for review and comment.
Response: EPA notes that the full justification for considering a 5 ppm bilgewater limit was
made available for comment with proposal of this permit. That information included a fact
sheet discussion of the information EPA had gathered regarding treatment system performance
and availability. The commenter is encouraged to review the proposed VGP fact sheet to review
that discussion as he deems appropriate.
EPA disagrees with the commenter's apparent view that best available technology should not
be required unless "some deficiency in the current requirements" is found; under the CWA,
EPA is required to promulgate effluent limitations for conventional, toxic and non-conventional
pollutants corresponding to the relevant technology-based control required by the CWA. As
technologies improve, the Agency fully expects to make such limit more stringent in the future,
in line with the capabilities of treatment systems and the capability of testing protocols to
establish that systems can achieve these limits.
EPA has determined that an effluent limit of 15 ppm, in combination with the various
management practices for certain vessels contained within the VGP, represents BAT/BPT/BCT.
EPA has not determined that oil separator systems type approved by the Coast Guard alone
represent BAT/BPT/BCT. However, vessels may use U.S. Coast Guard type approved systems,
in combination with the management measures specified in the permit, to meet permit limits
that EPA has determined to represent the BAT/BPT/BCT level of control under this permit.
With regard to EPA's decision to exclude more stringent requirements from the permit, please
see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 41
Late Comment? No
Comment: Pp. 59-62. Regarding Bilgewater effluent limits of oil content 5 ppm or less. Here
EPA requests comment and documents its rationale and proposed language for the reduction of
946
-------
the applicable effluent limit for bilge water from 15 to 5 ppm which EPA is considering. The
current permit and the proposed permit require discharges of bilge water meet the requirements
under Annex I to MARPOL which sets a 15 ppm limit on discharge of oil in bilge water. EPA is
requesting comment on whether to require a 5 ppm oil concentration limit for new build vessels
greater than 400 gross tons which elect to discharge bilge water into waters subject to this
permit.
CLIA believes that the permit should continue to match the requirements of Annex I to
MARPOL and the relevant U.S. Coast Guard regulations, which impose a limit of 15 ppm.
There are no analyses offered in the Fact Sheet suggesting that this limit is not protective.
The Fact Sheet at p. 62 says that new systems can achieve 5 ppm versus 15 ppm, but footnote 13
on that page describes evaluation of bilge water sampling data for armed forces vessels using
various treatment systems which did not consistently achieve oil concentrations of less than or
equal to 5 ppm. The question for a permit compliance perspective is can the new systems
consistently achieve less than 5 ppm. Occasionally, on average, or most of the time, is not
sufficient when needing to comply with a limit. Additionally, it must be considered that the IMO
standard for Oil-Content Meters is an accuracy within + / - 5 ppm. Thus the lower standard may
in fact drive the practical oil content as low as 0 ppm, which is not a practicable limit for vessel
operators.
EPA has not made a BAT/BPT determination in this proposal re technologies that treat bilge
water to a 5 ppm limit for oil and grease (FS at 66). EPA plans to discuss this issue with member
countries at IMO (FS at 66). EPA and the U.S. should work through the effective and established
IMO processes to revise MARPOL Annex I, if there is in fact a need to do so, rather than to
consider unilateral regulation via this revision to the VGP. While requiring a more stringent
standard for bilge water discharges closer to shore seems laudable, does this difference really
provide an environmental benefit? Dilution from a moving vessel is quite rapid, oil and grease is
not a persistent contaminant, and there isn't even a water quality standard for oil and grease. It is
well understood that discharges from vessels achieve a rapid and significant diluting effect.12
This is discussed at length in numerous reports found on the EPA cruise ship web-site which
provides a formula of:
Dilution Factor = [4 x (Vessel beam in m) x (Vessel draft in m) x
(vessel speed in m sec-1) ] / (discharge rate in m3sec-l)
A sample calculation is demonstrative. For a typical vessel of 32 meters beam and a draft of 8
meters, discharging at a rate of 10m3/hour ( 0.0028 m3/sec)13 while travelling 6 knots (3.087
m/sec), the resulting dilution ratio would be more than 1.128 million: 1. This means that a
discharge of 15ppm would yield a resulting concentration of:
[ 15 xlO -6 ] / [ 1.13 x 10 6 ] = 13.27 x 10 -12 or 13.27 parts per trillion
While admittedly an effluent limit of 5 ppm would result in a concentration only a third of this,
the result is clearly in the realm of no measurable impact on the receiving waters. One then must
947
-------
consider the costs. In addition to the cost of enhanced equipment for processing and detecting oil
at this lower concentration, as well as the analytical costs and administration, the result will be a
higher degree of rejected water which cannot be discharged and must be landed ashore. There it
will be sent to a treatment facility for processing, which may or may not remove more oil (permit
limits for wastewater treatment plants typically have FOG limits higher than 15 ppm, and their
discharge is usually stationary and relatively close to shore).
This analysis ultimately begs the question as to whether the benefits outweigh the costs. CLIA
has long believed that it is appropriate to move in concert with international requirements where
they address the issue at hand. The IMO of course has requirements for bilge water, and there is
benefit for EPA to conform to this international standard, particularly when the demonstrated
environmental benefits are questionable, as discussed above. CLIA strongly urges that EPA
leave the bilge water standard in conformity with MARPOL Annex I. A requirement for periodic
calibration of the oil content meter, with record keeping requirements to demonstrate
compliance, is the appropriate means of monitoring this effluent limit.
P. 67. Regarding Initial and Annual Monitoring to Assure Accurate Oil Content Monitor
Calibration. EPA requests comment on language under consideration that would require initial
and maintenance monitoring for discharge of bilge water under and effluent limit of 5 ppm.
Again, CLIA recommends that EPA defer to the international IMO standard for the reasons cited
above. Calibration of oil content meters is a current and reliable process for which EPA does not
present data to the contrary. Additionally, imposition of such stringent requirements run the risk
of encouraging vessel owner / operators to manage their bilge water outside the requirements of
this permit, which may in fact result in vessel management of this waste stream outside the
review of EPA compliance systems. With this in mind, and the demonstrated marginal benefit of
a 5ppm limit, CLIA again recommends that EPA align with the IMO regulatory regime for
maximum environmental benefit and regulatory control.
12 See USEPA, Cruise Ship Assessment Report,pp. 2-36 through 2-38, December 2008
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/vwd/cruise ship disch assess report.cfm and the Alaska Science Advisory Panel,
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters, Section 1, pp. 1-2, November 2002
http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/CTuise ships/SciencePanel/documents/impactofcruiseship.pdf
13
Bilge water discharge rates are universally lower than sewage or gray water discharge rates, typically 5 to 10
m3/hour.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7
regarding EPA's decision not to adopt a more stringent bilgewater management regime for new
vessels or to provide existing vessels with additional bilgewater management options, EPA
appreciates the commenter's input regarding treatment costs, accuracy of oil content meters,
and initial and maintenance analytical monitoring. EPA notes, that while the Agency believes
including a 5 ppm would result in a reduction of oil discharges and other pollutants from
bilgewater in the long-term, the Agency was evaluating a 5 ppm limit as a technology-based
limit and, consistent with the CWA, based its BAT determination on what technologies were
both available and economically achievable. The response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7 also discusses EPA's plans to work with its international partners at
the IMO to explore whether systems and alarms that do actually perform at 5 ppm are available
in the marketplace, and to expand the international market for such systems.
948
-------
EPA further notes that it disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that bilgewater discharges
are of insignificant environmental concern. Bilgewater is a mixture of water, oily fluids,
lubricants and grease, cleaning fluids that can contain a variety of pollutants including
oil/hydrocarbons, oxygen-consuming parameters, suspended solids, metals such as arsenic,
copper, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium and zinc and organics such as benzene,
chloroform, hexachlorocyclohexane isomers, ethyl benzene, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide,
naphthalene, phenols, phthalate esters, toluene, trichlorobenzene, trichloroethane, and xylene
(Phase I Final Rule and Technical Development Document of Uniform National Discharge
Standards, EPA, 1999). EPA is also concerned about the cumulative impacts of numerous
vessels releasing bilgewater in nearshore, estuarine environments or in waters with limited
circulation, hence EPA's permit requirements to minimize bilgewater generation and
restrictions on the location and operational condition of discharge. See Section 4.4.2.1 of the
VGP Fact Sheet and The Economic and Benefits Analysis of the Final 2013 Vessel General
Permit for additional information.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadiens)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadiens)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A3
4
No
Comment: 7. Issue: Whether to include more stringent bilgewater requirements for new build
vessels and whether to provide existing vessels with additional bilgewater management options
in the final VGP.
CSA Response: The CSA does not deem it necessary to include more stringent bilgewater
requirements for new builds as the current technology is assessed as the BAT.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Marc A. Ross, Executive Director, Rock the Earth
Commenter Affiliation: Rock the Earth
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0547-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: Rock the Earth recommends that the 2013 VGP adopt a more stringent bilgewater
management regime for new vessels and provide existing vessels with additional bilgewater
management options.
949
-------
Rock the Earth recommends that the language suggested in the Proposed 2013 Vessel General
Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet should be inserted into Part 2.2.2 of the final VGP.
Response: As explained in the VGP Fact Sheet and response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7, EPA is not including in the VGP a more stringent bilgewater
management regime for new vessels or additional bilgewater management options for existing
vessels.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent, V. Ships
Leisure
V. Ships Leisure
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2
2
No
Comment: Item No: 2
VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: Factsheet 4.4.2.2 re VGP 2.2.2 Bilge Water / Oily Water
Separator Effluent VGP 2013 or Factsheet text: "EPA is specifically seeking comments whether
to change the bilgewater management options?" (i.e., 5 ppm discharge including its analytical
monitoring or others).
Comments: We do not consider further changes to management practices are feasible or
economically practicable and achievable in light of existing technologies.
With regards to the suggested 5 ppm limit: as the IMO (MEPC 107 (49) per 2.2 and previous
relevant resolutions, i.e., MEPC 60 (33),) specified accuracy of (Oil Content Meters) OCMs is
+/- 5 ppm, the suggested 5 ppm limit might practically mean a requirement for a 0 ppm
discharge.
The analytical monitoring / sampling would not be practicable either as OCMs are checked the
Class Organization for accuracy during the IOPPC renewal surveys according to manufacturers'
instructions (IMO MEPC 107 (49) per 4.2.11). Furthermore IMO MEPC 107 (49) part 4
recommends the ISO 9377-2:2000 chromatographic method for determination of hydrocarbon oil
(and MEPC 60 (33) - infrared spectography per 4.2), while it is understood that EPA envisages
method 1664 (gravimetric) and this may lead to some inconsistency with the original type
approval of method for an OCM.
Furthermore the 15 ppm limit is considered also from a practical point of view the limit above
which oily sheen can be observed by human eye.
Suggestion or Proposed Text: We recommend not to change the VGP practices for bilgewater
management with regards to further lowering the limit to 5 ppm or requiring analytical
monitoring.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7
950
-------
regarding EPA's decision not to adopt a more stringent bilgewater management regime for new
vessels or to provide existing vessels with additional bilgewater management options. EPA
notes the commenter's concerns that some oil content meters have low precision. For this, and
other reasons discussed in the fact sheet and this response to comments section, EPA has
established limited analytical monitoring for new build vessels' discharges.
Commenter Name: Robert C. North, President, North Star Maritime, Inc.
Commenter Affiliation: North Star Maritime, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0567-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: VGP, Part 2.2.2 and Fact Sheet, Part 4.4.2: EPA is specifically seeking comment on
whether to alter the bilgewater management regime for new build vessels and whether to provide
existing vessels with additional bilgewater management options. Comments: The current IMO
technical standard for oily water separators (OWS) and oil content meter/ bilge alarms (OCM) is
Resolution MEPC. 107(49) and USCG standard is based on this. OWS and OCM arrangements
are designed, tested and approved on this basis. While there are some type approved OWS at 5
ppm, and OCMs may read below 15 PPM, the proper way to do this is through the IMO to
debate a need to lower standard to 5 ppm and then develop a technical standard to reflect that.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: 7. Whether to include more stringent bilgewater requirements for new build vessels
and whether to provide existing vessels with additional bilgewater management options in the
final VGP.
It is our recommendation that EPA not confuse, or distract attention from, the current focus on
ballast water discharges. If bilgewater is determined to be an issue in the future then it should be
addressed separately.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7.
EPA develops permit requirements for each permitted discharge to reduce or eliminate the
discharge of pollutants through levels of control technology specified under the CWA.
Bilgewater contains both conventional and toxic/non-conventional pollutants, and is thus
subject to effluent limitations based on BCT/BPT/BAT under the CWA. EPA rejects the
commenter's assertion that it's consideration of permit requirements for bilgewater have
confused or distracted attention from EPA's consideration of permit requirements for ballast
951
-------
water. Please also see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
8
No
Comment: 7. Whether to include more stringent bilge water requirements for new build vessels
and whether to provide existing vessels with additional bilgewater management options in the
final VGP.
It is recommended that EPA not confuse, or distract attention from, the current focus on ballast
water discharges. If bilgewater is determined to be an issue in the future then it should be
addressed separately.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Brent Paine, Executive Director, United Catcher Boats
(UCB) and Glenn Reed, President, Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
United Catcher Boats (UCB) and Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0630-A2
3
No
Comment: 2.2.2 Bilgewater/Oily Water Separator Effluent - NOTE (Part 4.4.2.2 of the VGP
Fact Sheet)
We believe the future imposition of a 5ppm oil-content standard for bilgewater may be
appropriate for new vessels but that a requirement for existing vessels to retrofit would not be
economically feasible and in some case may face technical barriers due to ship design and
layout.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army
Corps of Engineers
Commenter Affiliation: US Army Corps of Engineers
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0632-A2
952
-------
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
1
No
Comment: Issue 1. Bilgewater
Reference: Vessel General Permit (VGP), Section 2.2.2 - Bilgewater/Oil Water Separator
Effluent.
Discussion: The permit has specific provisions for vessels greater than 400 gross tons but does
not specify provisions for vessels less than 400 gross tons. There is no specific language for the
discharge of treated vs. untreated bilgewater for vessels less than 400 gross tons.
Recommendation: US ACE recommends adding specific provisions for vessels less than 400
gross tons.
Issue 2. Bilgewater
Reference: Vessel General Permit (VGP), Section 2.2.2 - Bilgewater/Oil Water Separator
Effluent and Appendix A.
Discussion: Per Appendix A "Bilgewater" means the wastewater from a variety of sources that
accumulates in the lowest part of the vessel (the bilge). There is no distinction as to what type of
compartment the bilgewater accumulates in.
Recommendation: US ACE recommends expanding the definition of bilgewater to have two
"origin" classifications: 1) Bilgewater from Machinery Spaces; 2) Bilgewater from
Non-Machinery Spaces/Voids. For bilgewater from non-machinery spaces/voids where there is
no presence/possibility of oil contamination, untreated bilgewater discharge should be
authorized. For bilgewater from machinery spaces, the water must be treated prior to discharge.
Issue 3. Bilgewater
Reference: Vessel General Permit (VGP), Section 2.2.2 - Bilgewater/Oil Water Separator
Effluent.
Discussion: The permit does not contain any language on "Shaft Sump Bilge Discharge."
Recommendation: US ACE recommends adding language in the permit to allow untreated shaft
sump bilgewater discharge. The shaft/stern tube penetration through the hull will always leak
some amount of seawater. Shaft/Stern tube seals minimize the amount of water that leaks into the
vessel. Modern US ACE vessels are designed with a sump under the shaft penetration to capture
the water that leaks into the vessel. The sump is isolated and has automatic bilge/sump pumps to
discharge the accumulated water. The water does not come in contact with the bilgewater in the
space and is believed to be free of oil. It is essentially being returned to the sea. Specific
language/guidance on this particular discharge needs to be addressed. Part 2.3.(g) of the
Proposed sVGP contains language regarding this specific issue and may be a good reference to
developing language in the Proposed VGP.
Response: Regarding Issue 1, contrary to the commenter's understanding, Part 2.2.2 of the
VGP includes multiple bilgewater discharge requirements applicable to all vessels regardless of
size. For example, Part 2.2.2 of the permit specifies that all bilgewater discharges must not
contain oil in quantifies that may be harmful, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 110, and includes a
requirement to minimize the discharge of bilgewater into waters subject to the permit. EPA has
also included additional requirements specific to large vessels whose bilgewater discharges
pose increased risk for potential environmental impact and whose size and operational
953
-------
conditions provide increased opportunity to mitigate these potential impacts. EPA has not
identified the need for additional permit requirements specific to non-MARPOL vessels to
distinguish between treated and untreated bilgewater, nor has the commenter provided any
recommended requirements or rationale for such requirements.
Regarding Issue 2, treatment of bilgewater based on origin, EPA has not differentiated between
machinery and non-machinery bilgewater in the final permit requirements. Part 2.2.17 of the
Permit provides vessel owners/operators the option to directly discharge non-oily machinery
wastewater, provided it is free from oils in quantities that may be harmful pursuant to 40 CFR
110 and any additives that are toxic or bio accumulative in nature. Regarding treatment of
bilgewater from machinery spaces, see the response to Issue 1 above.
Regarding Issue 3, based on the facts described by the permittee, this discharge is authorized if
it is not oily and if it meets all other applicable permit requirements. EPA requires that vessel
owner/operators minimize the discharge of bilgewater; however, there may not be any available
techniques or approaches to minimize this specific discharge subset.
Commenter Name: Antony Chan, Engineering Manager, Victor Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Victor Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0780-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: Thank you for the email.
We have read your document on bilgewater separators. The report is very thorough although we
would recommend you also add our data sheet (which is attached) in Appendix A along with the
other manufacturers' data sheets.
With regards to Appendix B, would this be included in the final report and released to the
general public? We are concerned about the informal tone of the emails/notes as we were not
aware these would be made available to the general public when we responded. In particular, as
we have stated actual figures for our equipment in our statement, these are prone to fluctuations
according to currency exchanges, discounted bulk purchases and inflation. However we are
happy for the information supplied to be made public.
Finally we would like to learn who this final publication is intended and aimed for and
where/when it would be released,
Thank you for your help,
Kind Regards,
Antony Chan
Engineering Manager, Victor Marine
954
-------
Original Message
From: Fan.Shirley@epamail.epa.gov [mailto: Fan.Shirley@epamail.epa.gov] On Behalf Of
VGP@epamail.epa.gov
Sent: 14 December 2011 19:30
To: Undisclosed Recipients
Subject: Thank You - OWS Vendors
Dear oily water separator vendors,
You are receiving this e-mail because you recently provided information about your bilgewater
separators to EPA. We'd like to thank you once again for working with EPA and providing us
that information. We used the information to inform a technical development document on
bilgewater separators: that document is located at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vgp bilge.pdf.
In turn, this technical development document was used to help inform the draft 2013 Vessel
General Permit (VGP) and Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP). You can view these draft
permits at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/vgpermit.cfm.
The public will have 75 days to comment on the draft VGP and sVGP. Comments must be
submitted on or before February 21, 2012. EPA seeks the views of the interested public on
requirements currently contained in the draft VGP and sVGP (and the accompanying fact sheets
and economic analyses), and any changes or additions recommended for the final VGP and
sVGP. If you would like to submit comments on the proposed permits, please follow the
instructions on the attached newsletter.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comments on supporting document EPA 800-R-l 1-007
"Oily Bilgewater Separators." Regarding intent and audience, the document EPA 800-R-l 1-007
"Oily Bilgewater Separators" is a technical document intended to summarize EPA's evaluation
of the effectiveness of bilge separators for concerned citizens, the regulated community, and
other interested organizations. It is available for download on EPA's public website and is in
the VGP docket for today's permit issuance. EPA thanks the commenter for providing
information that we believe helped the Agency best summarize the state of bilgewater treatment
and system availability.
9.3 Gravwater
No comments.
9.3.1 Storage Capacity
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
11
No
955
-------
Comment: Section 2.2.15 - Graywater - in regards to this section, we would like to note that
inland waterway vessels cannot store graywater.
Response: EPA acknowledges this comment and notes that requirement for vessels that cannot
store graywater can be found in Section 2.2.15 of the permit. As discussed in Section 4.4.15 of
the VGP Fact Sheet, EPA does not expect existing vessel owner/operators to install graywater
treatment storage capacity to meet the requirements of Part 2.2.15 of the permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
9
No
Comment: Section 2.2.15 - Graywater - in regards to this section, we would like to note that
inland waterway vessels cannot store graywater.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 11.
9.3.2 Soaps and Detergents
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent, V. Ships
Leisure
V. Ships Leisure
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2
9
No
Comment: Item No: 10. VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: 2.2.15 Graywater and Appendix A -
definitions for "non-toxic (soaps and detergents)" and "non-bio accumulative"
VGP 2013 or Factsheet Text: Vessel owners/ operators must use phosphate-free and non-toxic
soaps and detergents, as defined in Appendix A of this permit, for any purpose if gray water will
be discharged into waters subject to this permit. Soaps and detergents must be free from toxic or
bio accumulative compounds
Comments: see comments under item referenced as No.l above.
Suggestion or Proposed text: see proposals under item referenced as No.l above.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2, excerpt 1.
956
-------
9.3.3 Managem ent Practices
Commenter Name:
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Chamber of Shipping of America
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
39
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Gravwater (Section 2.2.15, pgs. 45 - 47): There is great detail included in this
section that we believe is unnecessary relative to vessels greater than 400 tons and vessels that do
not travel more than 1 nm from shore. CSA believes the foundation of graywater management is
included in the first sentence of this section which reads "All vessels must minimize the
discharge of graywater while in port". We agree but believe the requirements can be more clearly
stated as follows. Following from the sentence above, this means that vessels should minimize
the production of graywater in port unless they have sufficient holding capacity to collect the
graywater and discharge once they depart from port. If a vessel has insufficient holding capacity,
they must collect and hold up to the volume of holding capacity. If their port stay exceeds this
capacity, they should be permitted to discharge. The key to this regulatory framework lies in the
phrase "capacity to store graywater for a sufficient period". Put another way, a vessel should
never discharge graywater if it has holding capacity available.
Response: EPA respectfully disagrees with the commenter that the graywater management
requirements in Part 2.2.15 of the permit for vessels greater than 400 tons that do not travel
more than 1 nm from shore are too detailed. EPA believes that the graywater management
requirements contained in the VGP strike the appropriate balance of identifying the general
requirements while leaving flexibility in their implementation by not prescribing detailed
specific requirements.
While EPA agrees with the commenter that a primary concern of the VGP for these vessels is to
minimize the discharge of graywater in port, the commenter's suggested revisions overlooks
other important goals such as minimizing the overall discharge of graywater in US waters,
including waters listed in Appendix G, using methods such as minimizing the production of
graywater, disposing graywater onshore, and installing onboard treatment to achieve the
graywater treatment standards. The commenter's suggested revisions also do not address the
important goal to reduce the environmental impact of graywater discharges by minimizing the
discharge of kitchen oils and of phosphate-containing or toxic soaps and detergents.
Commenter Name: Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
17
No
957
-------
Comment: 10. Gravwater (Draft VGP Part 2.2.15)
The Draft VGP states that "[a]ll vessels must minimize the discharge of graywater while in port.
For those vessels that cannot store graywater, the owner or operator and their crews must
minimize the production of graywater in port." Draft VGP at p. 45.
The Commenters are concerned that some fishing vessels, given size limitations, have limited or
no capacity to store graywater while in port. Accordingly, these vessels will have to discharge
graywater, particularly during times when crewmembers are living aboard the vessels. Because
the term "minimize" is ambiguous, the Draft VGP does not clearly define vessel
owner/operators' compliance obligation.
The Commenters request that the Draft VGP be revised to include a definition of "minimize,"
and that the definition accommodate those vessels that must discharge graywater due to storage
capacity limitations.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's concern and note that the definition of minimize,
which was included in Part 2 of the draft permit has been added to the definitions section
(Appendix A) of the permit also. EPA believes this definition satisfies the commenter's
concerns. As discussed in the fact sheet, EPA does not expect vessels to install storage capacity
for graywater if they do not already have such capacity onboard. In terms of practices to
minimize the discharge of graywater, EPA believes mariners can implement common sense
measures to reduce graywater discharges while shoreside (e.g., not doing laundry while pierside
and stationary, avoiding showers while pierside and stationary IF the mariner has other valid
options (shoreside facility or they can reasonably wait until the vessel is underway).
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: ISSUES COMMON TO BOTH VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT (VGP) & small
VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT (sVGP)
Graywater (sVGP page 6, section 2.7 & VGP page 45, section 2.2.15): There are particularly two
issues in this section that we would like to point out.
The draft permits stipulates that excess oils used during cooking not be discharged. How is a
small commercial fishing vessel with minimal galley space going to meet a zero discharge of
cooking oils when washing dishes? This sentence should be deleted as other federal regulations
make it clear that dumping a pan of cooking oil overboard is illegal.
The EPA proposed that all vessels must minimize graywater discharges in port. (Again the
definition of "in port" would mean any place the vessel is anchored even in remote locations
958
-------
taking refuge from weather and not a port as in a harbor with many vessels and likely not much
flushing action.) Most commercial fishing vessels don't have the capacity or ability to store
graywater so there is no choice but to discharge some amount of graywater when tied up in the
harbor. Crewmembers often live on the vessel during the fishing season while in port thus
complicating the requirement to minimize graywater discharge and production. EPA has not
provided any guidance or standard of "minimize" discharge vis a vis compliance. UFA
recommends that EPA strike the word "must" from this section and encourage an operator to
minimize graywater discharge as reasonably able.
Response: In response to the commenter's concern regarding cooking oils, EPA notes that the
permit requirement at Part 2.2.15 is not "zero discharge" of cooking oil, but rather to "minimize
the introduction of cooking oil to the graywater system". Part 2.2.15 of the permit further
describes practices to minimize the introduction of cooking oil to the graywater system, such as
removing as much food and oil residue as practicable before rinsing dishes. This practice could
be as simple as using a paper towel to wipe down the inside of a used pan before washing that
pan. EPA believes such practices are well suited to vessels with minimal galley space such as
small commercial fishing vessels and are already common practice.
As specified at Part 2.2.15 of the permit, oil from the galley and scullery may not be discharged
in quantities that may be harmful as defined in 40 CFR Part 110. In addition, Part 1.2.3.3 of the
permit specifies that discharges of used or spent oil no longer being used for their intended
purposes are not eligible for coverage under the permit. These requirements are also in
existence in other places in U.S. federal law (e.g., CWA 311). EPA disagrees that these VGP
provisions should be removed and that they are reflective of ongoing practices for most vessel
owner/operators.
With respect to permit requirements for vessels that cannot store graywater, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 11.
The VGP includes a definition of "minimize" to Appendix A of the permit. In consideration of
the requirements and limitations provided by this definition, EPA disagrees with the commenter
that the word "must" should be deleted from Part 2.2.15 of the permit.
With respect to the definition of "in port", please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-
2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 20.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Oswald Inglese, Jr., Director, Water Permitting and
Enforcement Division, Connecticut Department of Energy
and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP)
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection (CT DEEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0523-A1
2
No
959
-------
Comment: ISSUE 2: Graywater. We are looking for some clarification on what "Untreated
Grayavatel-' and "Treated Graywater" mean. Does the term "Graywater" as defined in Section
2.2.15 actually mean "Untreated Graywater"? Does any level of treatment applied to
"Graywater" render it "Treated Graywater" or must some specific level of treatment be applied?
We note that neither "Untreated Graywater" nor "Treated Graywater" is defined in Appendix A
of the proposed VGP.
Response: The term "graywater" is defined in Appendix A of the permit, and the graywater
management requirements provided in Part 2.2.15 apply to all graywater regardless of whether
the graywater is untreated or treated.
Part 2.2.15 does provide certain alternative management requirements for graywater that meets
the treatment standards and other requirements contained under Parts 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 or 5.2.1
and 5.2.2 of the permit. For example, graywater meeting these standards and other requirements
is exempted from certain requirements to stored graywater onboard or to dispose of graywater
onshore if appropriate facilities are available.
In response to this and other comments, EPA has added a definition of "untreated graywater" in
Appendix A of the permit to clarify the specific graywater management requirements provided
at Parts 2.2.15.1, 5.1.2.1, and 5.2.2.1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574- A2
9
No
Comment: 2.2.15 GRAYWATER
The EPA proposes that all vessels must minimize graywater discharges in port. If a vessel cannot
store it, its production must be minimized while in port. This is problematic for several reasons.
First, our vessels are not equipped to store graywater so there is no alternative to discharging
some amount while in port. It is important for the Agency to understand that crewmembers may
live on vessels for some period of time when the vessel is in port thereby complicating a
requirement to minimize graywater discharge and production. We recommend the Agency
encourage vessel operators to minimize these discharges while in port and strike the term "must"
from this section. GSSA members understand the need to minimize these discharges while in
port and crewmembers use shoreside facilities for showering and laundry when they are
available.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1, excerpt 3
regarding permit requirements for vessels that cannot store graywater and regarding the
commenter's recommendation to delete the word "must" from Part 2.2.15 of the permit.
960
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Pamela Parker, Vessel Discharges, Division of Water
Quality Management, Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (MEDEP)
Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0628-A2
7
No
Comment: 2.2.15; 5.1.1.1; 5.2; and 5.3 Graywater.
Extend the standards for graywater while in port or pier side to No Discharge Areas (NDAs).
The proposed standards provide enough compliance flexibility for differently configured vessels
to enable the same standards to cover NDAs without significant additional burden on the vessels.
Including NDAs provides regulatory consistency with the additional protection from pollutants
justified by the NDA review process and is within the regulatory scope of this permit.
Suggested language "All vessels must minimize the discharge of graywater while in port or
when within the boundaries of a No Discharge Area as defined in 33 USC § 1322(f)(3). (f)(4)(A)
and (f)(4)(B).
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's recommendation that graywater management
requirements for vessels that are in port should be extended to No Discharge Areas (Zones). No
discharge zones are designed to give states an additional tool to address water quality issues
associated with vessel sewage discharges. Vessel sewage characteristics differ significantly
from vessel graywater characteristics based on concentrations of key parameters such as
biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, nutrients, and pathogens. Additionally,
states wishing to establish no discharge areas are required to undergo an evaluation that
specifically takes into account factors associated with sewage and its management. States
concerned about the water quality issues associated with vessel graywater contamination in No
Discharge Zones have the opportunity to add permit conditions through the State CWA §401
certification process.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Issue 10. Graywater
Reference: Vessel General Permit (VGP), 2.2.15 - Graywater
Discussion: This can be a confusing section. The section talks about minimizing production of
graywater, no discharge if you have storage, if you don't have storage you can discharge,
distance from shore, use of shore-side facility, and effluent requirements under
5.1.1./5.1.2/5.2.1/5.2.2. The graywater section needs to be simplified.
Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army
Corps of Engineers
US Army Corps of Engineers
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0632-A2
7
No
961
-------
Recommendation: US ACE recommends simplifying this section. If the vessel does not have
storage, graywater must meet the standards in 2.2.15 or 5.1.1.2. If the vessel has graywater
storage, either shore-side disposal or treated graywater overboard disposal should be allowed.
Make it simple.
Response: While EPA agrees that Part 2.2.15 of the permit is somewhat complex, this
complexity is due to the varied management measures different vessel types can reasonably
employ to effectively manage graywater. Additionally, these requirements can be appropriately
applied to vessels with widely varying characteristics, ranging from small tug boats to large
ocean going container vessels. Hence, while acknowledging this section's complexity, EPA
disagrees with the commenter's recommendations to simplify the graywater management
requirements. EPA believes that the graywater management requirements contained in the VGP
strike the appropriate balance between the goals of the VGP to reduce the environmental impact
of incidental vessel discharges (e.g., minimizing the discharge of graywater in port, minimizing
the production of graywater, encouraging alternative disposal options, encouraging onboard
treatment, and reducing the amount and quantity of pollutants contained in the vessel
discharges) and the regulatory burdens associated with those requirements.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section
Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology (ECY)
Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECY)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0794- A2
8
Yes
Comment: 2.2.15 says graywater can be discharged onshore. Make clear that "onshore" means
to a permitted treatment system. Otherwise, the discharge might be to ground.
Response: EPA agrees with commenter and notes that as specified by Parts 2.2.15.1, 5.1.1.1.1,
5.2.1.1.1, 5.2.1.1.5, and 5.3.1.2.1 of the permit, appropriate reception facilities are those
authorized for use by the port authority or local municipality and treat the discharges in
accordance with its NPDES permit.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: Graywater (sVGP page 6, section 2.7& VGP page 45, section 2.2.15): There are
particularly two issues in this section that we would like to point out.
962
-------
The draft permits stipulates that excess oils used during cooking not be discharged. How is a
small commercial fishing vessel with minimal galley space going to meet a zero discharge of
cooking oils when washing dishes? This sentence should be deleted as other federal regulations
make it clear that dumping a pan of cooking oil overboard is illegal.
The EPA proposed that all vessels must minimize graywater discharges in Port. (Again the
definition of in Port" would mean any place the vessel is anchored even in remote locations
taking refuge from weather and not a port as in a harbor with many vessels and likely not much
flushing action.) Most commercial fishing vessels don't have the capacity or ability to store
graywater so there is no choice but to discharge some amount of graywater when tied up in the
harbor. Crewmembers often live on the vessel during the fishing season while in port thus
complicating the requirement to minimize graywater discharge and production. EPA has not
provided any guidance or standard of "minimize" discharge vis-a-vis compliance. UFA
recommends that EPA strike the word "must" from this section and encourage an operator to
minimize graywater discharge as reasonably able.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-05Q5-A1, excerpt 3.
9.3.4 Sewage
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Chamber of Shipping of America
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
18
No
Comment: Graywater Mixed with Sewage from Vessels (Section 2.2.25, pg. 50): CSA does not
understand the dual application of graywater and sewage requirements to graywater once it is
comingled with sewage. We believe that the application of the more stringent standard e.g.
sewage should be applied to this co-mingled discharge since once the graywater enters the
sewage system and piping, it will be treated in accordance with the requirements found at 33
CFR 159 which address marine sanitation devices.
Response: EPA has found that the limits for graywater imposed by the permit represent the
necessary level of control consistent with 40 CFR 125.3 technology-based treatment
requirements even when the graywater is mixed with sewage. The commenter does not explain
how the fact that the sewage component of such mixtures is already regulated by another CWA
program provides a basis for imposing a standard that does not reflect these technology-based
requirements for graywater when mixed with sewage and EPA does not believe that it does.
Accordingly, EPA maintains that dual application of graywater and sewage requirements are
appropriate for discharges of graywater mixed with sewage from vessels.
The discharge of graywater is incidental to the normal operation of vessels, and thus is
appropriately included as an eligible discharge under the VGP. As explained in the fact sheet, it
963
-------
is impossible to regulate the combined constituents separately, so combined discharges remain
subject to today's permit as well as the requirements of CWA Section 312. Furthermore, as the
permit clearly states, discharges of sewage from vessels are not required to obtain an NPDES
permit. The VGP merely advises vessel owner/operators of the obligation to meet the
requirements of CWA Section 312 and its implementing regulations for discharges of sewage.
Thus, a commingled discharge of sewage and graywater must meet both the VGP's effluent
limits for graywater found in Parts 2 and 5 of the Permit, as well as any applicable requirements
for the discharge of sewage found in CWA Section 312 and its implementing regulations.
Commenter Name: Edmund B. Welch, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)/
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0510-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: In a separate letter dated February 21, 2012, the Passenger Vessel Association
(PVA) submitted its primary comments on the proposed revision to the EPA Vessel General
Permit.
In that letter, PVA recommended that the proposed revision to the Vessel General Permit's
definition of the term "sewage" be clarified to incorporate a reference to section 312(a)(10) of
the Clean Water Act (the definition of the term "commercial vessels") and indicated that this
recommendation would be supplemented by a more detailed additional submission.
Even though they may engage in commercial operations, passenger vessels (such as ferries,
dinner boats, and excursion vessels) that sail on the Great Lakes do not fall within the Clean
Water Act's definition of "commercial vessels;" therefore, their discharges of graywater are not
governed by section 312 of the Clean Water Act.
For purposes of the Marine Sanitation Device section of the Clean Water Act (section 1322 of
title 33 United States Code; section 312 of the Clean Water Act, as amended), the term "sewage"
is defined in subsection (a)(6). In most instances, it means "human body wastes and the wastes
from toilets and other receptacles intended to receive or retain body wastes." However, the
statutory term has a broader meaning with respect to the Great Lakes. In that region with respect
to commercial vessels, the term "sewage" includes graywater. Graywater is defined in subsection
(a)(ll) to include galley, bath, and shower water.
The proposed revision to the Vessel General Permit defines the terms "sewage" and "graywater"
in a manner that is consistent with the language of section 312 of the Clean Water Act.
It is important to note that the broader statutory definition of "sewage" for purposes of the Great
Lakes applies only to "commercial vessels."
Section 312 of the Clean Water Act defines the term "commercial vessels" in subsection (a)(10).
It means "those vessels used in the business of transporting property for compensation or hire, or
964
-------
in transporting property in the business of the owner, lessee, or operator of the vessel." Section
312 does not use the term "transporting property or persons for compensation or hire."
Contrast the narrower definition of subsection (a)(10) with the broad definition of the terms "new
vessel" and "existing vessel" found in subsection (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Clean Water Act. They
embrace "every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being
used, as a means of transportation on the navigable waters ..." Thus, not all vessels fall with
section 312's definition of the term "commercial vessels."
Since the broader definition of the term "sewage" to include graywater is to be used in the Great
Lakes only for commercial vessels that transport property for compensation or hire, not for the
more expansive group characterized as "every description of watercraft," the question is whether
a Great Lakes passenger vessel operating as a dinner boat, excursion vessel, or ferry is a
commercial vessel for the purposes of section 312 of the statute. Clearly, the answer is "no."
While passengers on such a vessel likely pay compensation to the operator for their carriage, it
cannot be reasonably or fairly asserted that these individuals are "property." Had Congress
wished for the more expansive definition of "sewage" to apply to passenger vessels on the Great
Lakes, it would have defined the term "commercial vessels" as "those vessels used in the
business of transporting property or passengers for compensation or hire. Instead, Congress
chose to use the narrower term in the statute.
In addition, property is generally inanimate and material. Passengers are living human beings. In
the United States, the concept of humans as property vanished with the constitutional abolition of
slavery.
The analysis above leads to the conclusion that graywater discharges from passenger vessels
operating on the Great Lakes are not governed by section 312 of the Clean Water Act. Instead,
just as for graywater discharges from passenger vessels that operate on other waters of the
United States, the graywater discharges are discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel. They are authorized discharges under the EPA's current Vessel General Permit and its
proposed revision to the Vessel General Permit.
Thus, it is appropriate to clarify the proposed permit's definition of the term 'sewage" to read as
follows: "... means human body wastes and the wastes from toilets and other receptacles
intended to receive or retain body wastes except that with respect to commercial vessels (as that
term is defined in section 312(a)(10) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended) on
the Great Lakes, the term "sewage" also includes galley, bath, and shower water."
Response: In response to this and other comments, EPA is highlighting the discussion at Part
1.2.3.2 of the permit regarding sewage discharges. Specifically, EPA clarifies that under CWA
section 312(a)(6), the definition of sewage includes graywater discharges from "commercial
vessels" (as defined in CWA section 312(a)(10)) operating on the Great Lakes. If a vessel
operating on the Great Lakes is not a "commercial vessel" as defined in CWA section
312(a)(10), the vessel's graywater discharges are eligible for coverage under this permit, and
are subject to the additional permit requirements in Part 2.2.15.1.
965
-------
Additionally, EPA declines to specifically opine on the issue of what constitutes a "commercial
vessel" under Section 312 of the Clean Water Act at this time, However, the permit does note
that if the vessel is a "commercial vessel" under section 312 of the Clean Water Act, you are
subject to that sections graywater requirements on the Great Lakes. If the Vessel is not a
"commercial vessel" under Section 312 of the Clean Water Act, but it is a "VGP covered"
vessel, then the vessel must meet the numeric limits found in Part 2.2.15 of the permit for their
graywater discharges into the Great Lakes. Please see Part 4.4.15 of the Fact Sheet for
additional discussion.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Issue 11. Sewage
Reference: N/A
Discussion: US ACE is aware that sewage is not part of the permit and is covered under Section
312 of the CWA.
Recommendation: USACE recommends adding the language from Section 312 of the CWA to
the permit for easy reference and information.
Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army
Corps of Engineers
US Army Corps of Engineers
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0632-A2
8
No
Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's suggestion to reference language from CWA 312
for ease of understanding, but the Agency does not believe it is appropriate to directly
incorporate language from Section 312 into to the permit. As discussed in Part 1.2.3.2 of the
permit, discharges of sewage from vessels are not required to obtain NPDES permits; therefore,
incorporating sewage regulations from Section 312 of the CWA and its implementing
regulations into the permit would not be appropriate as it may create confusion regarding
regulatory applicability.
9.3.5 Great Lakes
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A2
10
No
Comment: 8. Graywater - As indicated in Section 1.2.3.2 of the draft VGP2, graywater
discharges from "commercial" vessels (as defined in Section 312[a] [10]) of the federal Clean
Water Act) that operate on the Great Lakes are regulated under Section 312 of the federal Clean
966
-------
Water Act, rather than the VGP2. However, graywater discharges from "noncommercial" vessels
(including those that operate on the Great Lakes) are eligible for coverage under the VGP2.
Michigan recommends the draft VGP2 be modified to better clarify which vessel types are
considered "commercial" or "noncommercial" by the USCG. If the USCG considers large and
medium cruise ships and large ferries to be "commercial," then Sections 5.1.1.1, 5.2.1.1 and
5.3.1.2 of the draft VGP2 should be modified to clarify that graywater discharges from such
vessels that operate on the Great Lakes are prohibited.
Response: The Agency generally notes that we expect there to be very few, if any, vessels
which are not "commercial vessels" under Section 312 of the Clean Water Act which would
also be VGP regulated vessels operating on the Great Lakes. Nonetheless, other commenters
have stated that they believe their vessels are not "commercial vessels" under Section 312 of the
Clean Water Act. Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0510-A1,
excerpt 1 for additional discussion.
Additionally, EPA disagrees that Part 5 of the permit should be modified to discuss graywater
requirements for commercial and noncommercial vessels because Part 1.2.3.2 of the permit
states that if a vessel operating on the Great Lakes is not a "commercial vessel" as defined in
CWA section 312(a)(10), the vessel's graywater discharges are eligible for coverage under this
permit.
9.3.6 Monitoring
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Russell E. Painter, Regulatory Affairs Manager,
McNational, Inc.
McNational, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1
5
No
Comment: EPA should raise its graywater monitoring requirements for newly constructed
vessels to those that have beds or berths for 14 or more crew members, as opposed to 10. Towing
vessels may have overnight accommodations for as many as 12 crew members, but generate very
little graywater.
Response: In response to this and other comments, EPA has revised the graywater monitoring
requirement at Part 2.2.15.2 of the permit to apply to applicable vessels with at least 15 crew
rather than at least 10 crew for the reasons discussed in Section 4.4.15.2 of the VGP Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name: Cory Sause, Environmental Coordinator, Sause Bros
Commenter Affiliation: Sause Bros
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0482-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
967
-------
Comment: Further, it's our belief that the EPA should raise its graywater monitoring
requirements for newly constructed vessels to those that have beds or berths for 14 or more crew
members, as opposed to 10. Towing vessels may have overnight accommodations for as many as
12 crew members, but generate very little graywater.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Late Comment? No
Comment: Relative to the new requirements found in 2.2.15.2 for new vessels, CSA questions
the ability to take the requisite samples and have them timely analyzed by a certified laboratory.
During a recent survey conducted by CSA, we noted two entities that actually tried to conduct
these analyses; however a number of times the samples were not delivered to the laboratory in
sufficient time to produce reliable analyses. CSA would request EPA to elaborate on how this
could be done for vessels that are not normally in close proximity to analytical laboratories
recognizing that testing for the parameters included in this section require the use of analytical
experts knowledgeable in the technical aspects of testing for BOD, fecal coliform, suspended
solids, pH, and total residual chlorine.
Response: While EPA recognizes that vessel graywater sampling and analysis poses some
technical and logistical challenges, EPA is confident that such challenges can be overcome with
adequate planning. For example, many cruise ships operating in Alaskan waters routinely
sample and analyze their graywater and sewage discharges. As another example, EPA
successfully sampled and analyzed graywater samples from large cruise ships in Alaska in 2004
and 2005 and from multiple vessels throughout the US in 2009 for its Study of Discharges
Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non-Recreational
Vessels Less than 79 Feet. EPA also acknowledges that vessel owners and operators will need
to either train crew on proper sampling techniques or hire qualified contractors to provide these
services and has taken these factors into account in its economic analysis prepared for today's
permit.
However, based on this comment, to ease the logistical challenges associated with monitoring
pathogen indicators with short holding times (i.e., fecal coliform, e.coli), EPA has revised the
permit to note that Fecal Coliform or e. coli must only be analyzed once per year if vessels have
difficulty analyzing the results within recommended holding times. This allows the vessel
operator to schedule the monitoring of these biological parameters with shorter holding times at
times when other activities may be ongoing (e.g., annual survey). All other parameters must
continue to be monitored twice per year for applicable vessels. EPA notes all of these other
parameters have longer holding times (at least 48 hours).
968
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
12
No
Comment: Section 2.2.15.2 - Gravwater Monitoring - this section should be modified to
increase the proposed maximum crew capacity from 10 to a capacity equal to 15 or greater
crewmembers before graywater monitoring requirements would be applicable to the vessel. The
increase in the crew number would allow for such monitoring as there would be sufficient
number of crew members to do such work and vessels of the size to accommodate such crew size
would be more likely to have graywater discharge concerns.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Roger Harris, Senior Vice President - Operations,
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0488-A1
5
No
Comment: Fourth, EPA should raise its graywater monitoring requirements for newly
constructed vessels to those that have beds or berths for 14 or more crew members, as opposed to
10. Our towboats may have overnight accommodations for as many as 12 crew members but
generate very little graywater.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: Christian LaPense, Dann Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation: Dann Marine Towing
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Late Comment? No
Comment: b. Gravwater Requirements (Section 2.2.15)
Dann Marine Towing believes that the proposed graywater monitoring requirements at section
2.2.15.2 should be amended to apply to vessels that provide overnight accommodation to at least
14 crew members, as opposed to a maximum of greater than or equal to 10. Many large towing
vessels have the capability to accommodate 10 crew members overnight, but only rarely, if ever,
969
-------
do so. For these vessels, the amount of graywater effluent regularly produced is small relative to
larger commercial vessels, but the costs imposed by the proposed requirement to conduct and
analyze biannual sampling, as well as the attendant recordkeeping and reporting rules, would be
burdensome.
Dann Marine Towing does not believe that there is any environmental benefit in requiring
overburdened towing vessel crews, which are already performing best management practices to
reduce the environmental impacts of graywater, to monitor and sample such small volumes of
graywater discharge. Raising the trigger for graywater monitoring to 14 or more crew members
would help ensure that the vessels subject to the requirement have sufficient resources to conduct
routine sampling and can provide EPA with consistent, reliable data.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
10
No
Comment: Section 2.2.15.2 - Graywater Monitoring - this section should be modified to
increase the proposed maximum crew capacity from 10 to a capacity equal to 15 or greater
crewmembers before graywater monitoring requirements would be applicable to the vessel. The
increase in the crew number would allow for such monitoring as there would be sufficient
number of crew members to do such work and vessels of the size to accommodate such crew size
would be more likely to have graywater discharge concerns.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commenter Affiliation: Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: CBC urges EPA to fix issues related to three other discharges. Graywater: EPA
proposes requiring newly constructed vessels with beds or berths for 10 or more crewmembers to
monitor their graywater. According to the Fact Sheet, vessels with fewer than 10 beds "tend to
produce less graywater" and "tend to have lower revenues," so graywater monitoring would be a
burden for them. EPA should raise that threshold to 14 crewmembers, since, while towing
vessels usually do not carry more than 10 crewmembers, they may accommodate up to 14 for
trainees or other authorized company visitors. Regardless of whether or not a towing vessel
carries 10 or 14 crewmembers, they all "tend to produce less graywater" and "tend to have lower
970
-------
revenues" due to the fact that they are mostly owned by small businesses, so they shouldn't be
required to monitor their graywater.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
16
No
Comment: Graywater Requirements (Section 2.2.15s)
AWO believes that the proposed graywater monitoring requirements at section 2.2.15.2 should
be amended to apply to vessels that provide overnight accommodation to at least 14 crew
members, as opposed to a maximum of 10 crew members. Many large towing vessels have the
capability to accommodate 10 or more crew members overnight, but only rarely, if ever, do so.
For these vessels, the amount of graywater effluent regularly produced is very small relative to
larger commercial vessels, but the costs imposed by the proposed requirement to conduct and
analyze biannual sampling, as well as the attendant recordkeeping and reporting rules, would be
highly burdensome.
Although graywater is generated at varying rates, a 2000 report analyzing graywater discharges
prepared for the International Council of Cruise Lines estimated that approximately 0.20 cubic
meters of graywater is generated per person per day. Using this estimation, a towing vessel with
a crew of up to 10 would generate a maximum of only 2 cubic meters of graywater a day.44 The
report found that a typical cruise ship traveling at a conservative four knots (4.5 miles per hour)
and discharging 600 cubic meters of graywater over a four-hour period would experience a
dilution factor of 2.25x10-5, reducing the concentration of constituent pollutants by many orders
of magnitude. While the dilution zone for towing vessels may not be as large as that used in the
calculations for an oceangoing cruise ship, towing vessels average speeds of 4 to 10 knots and,
with graywater discharge volumes 300 times less than the typical cruise ship, it is logical to
assume that the amount of constituent pollutants discharged in graywater by towing vessels is far
less, and that their concentrations are also significantly diluted.
AWO does not believe that there is any environmental benefit in requiring overburdened towing
vessel crews, which are already performing best management practices to reduce the
environmental impacts of graywater, to monitor and sample such small volumes of graywater
discharge. Raising the trigger for graywater monitoring to 14 or more crew members would help
ensure that the vessels subject to the requirement have sufficient resources to conduct routine
sampling and can provide EPA with consistent, reliable data.
44
Kim, Don K., P.E. 2000. Report on the Analysis of Graywater Discharge. M. Rosenblatt & Son Arlington, VA.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 5.
971
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Director, Environment &
Sustainability, Maerks Line North America Liner
Operations
Maersk Line
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0513-A1
10
No
Comment: Presently there are no monitoring requirements for gray water, however the VGP
introduces this for new construction, adding yet another cost and burden on the crew.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 5.
EPA notes that the Agency considered the burden associated with performing graywater
monitoring in both the economic analysis for this permit and will continue to do so as part of
the Agency's obligations in completing Information Collection Requests (ICRs).In prescribing
the monitoring and reporting provisions of the VGP, EPA balanced the need for obtaining
relevant information from vessels about their graywater discharges with the administrative
burdens associated with collecting, submitting, and receiving information and data from the
affected vessels.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William R. Barr, Vice President Safety & Compliance,
Amherst Madison, Inc.
Amherst Madison, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0524-A1
6
No
Comment: Graywater monitoring requirements for newly constructed vessels need to be raised
to fourteen crewmembers from the current ten crewmembers. Common knowledge tells us a
crew of 14 generates minimal amounts of gray water in comparison to larger cruise ships and
ocean freighters.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Patsy Root, Senior Regulatory Affairs Specialist, IDEXX
Laboratories
IDEXX Laboratories, Inc
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0526-A1
2
No
972
-------
Comment: Comment 3: Fecal coliform as an indicator has been changed to E coli and/or
enterococci in most other Clean Water Act-based testing. These improved indicators are used
under both wastewater discharge permits and the newly proposed Water Quality Criteria
(EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0466), including the use of E coli or enterococci for beach monitoring.
IDEXX recommends the Agency allow the option to monitor graywater for either: E coli,
enterococci or fecal coliform. Other sections within the Agency have invested significant time
and financial resources to determine that enterococci and E coli are the best indicators and
predictors of threat to human health. Allowing vessel operators to test and report for either E
coli, enterococci or fecal coliforms aligns this section with other sections of the Agency.
Relevant sections include: 2.2.15.1 ii); 2.2.15.2; 5.1.1.1.2; 5.2.1.1.2; 5.1.2.2.1; page 131 of the
proposed Permit where total live bacteria are listed on the form.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that studies support the use of E. coli and
enterococci (instead of fecal coliform) as indicators of microbiological pollution, and that
certain EPA monitoring programs have responded by changing from fecal coliform to E. coli
and enterococci. However, EPA is retaining fecal coliform monitoring and treatment standards
for graywater to maintain consistency with the VGP treatment standards for graywater,
monitoring and treatment standards for Title XIV: Certain Vessel Operating in Alaska (33 CFR
159, Part E), and other international precedents. However, EPA notes that cruise ship operators
must also conduct monitoring for E. Coli for the reasons discussed by the commenter, among
other things. Additionally, in light of this comment, EPA is giving vessel owner/operators the
option of monitoring for either fecal coliform or E. coli under Part 2.2.15 of the permit. As
discussed above, in order to maintain consistency with the statutory provisions of Title XIV, the
Agency has not included the option of not monitoring for fecal coliform for Cruise Ships.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 31
Late Comment? No
Comment: Page 71, Part 5.1.2.2.1 Initial Monitoring - This section establishes a process,
similar to that employed under 33 CFR 159 requirements for cruise ships operating in Alaska.
The General Permit is silent with regard to where those samples must be taken; in Alaska, the U
S. Coast Guard does not accept data from labs outside the U. S., therefore, a ship initiating
Alaska service from Asia, for example, must hold gray water until providing data from U. S.
labs. This has resulted in the undue delay of discharges from an otherwise properly functioning
advanced wastewater treatment system. We request that EPA accept sampling test results from
labs outside the U.S., as long as the test procedures are consistent with those described in EPA
test methods or equivalent tests to ensure compliance with VGP effluent standards, such as the
Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories (CAEAL) and the Standards
973
-------
Council of Canada (SCC) or those of the European Committee for Standardization (CEN),
amongst others.
This section adds E. coli, total phosphorous (TP) ammonia, nitrate/nitrite and Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN) to the requirements for initial monitoring of gray water discharges - ostensibly
so that EPA may gather more information to consider whether additional effluent limitations are
appropriate. In fact there is already an ample volume of data for EPA to evaluate the discharge
with respect to these analytes. With respect to E. coli, as indicated on EPA's website,
"Escherichia coli (E. coli) is part of the group of fecal coliform"s4. The overwhelming data from
Alaska cruise ship monitoring finds fecal coliform well below acute water quality standards -
thus E. Coli must be similarly below limits and to sample for it is redundant.
Regarding nutrients, these analytes are reported in the twice annual "unannounced samples"
collected from ships discharging in Alaska under "Murkowski" rules (also required by the
Alaska Cruise Ship General Permit). Additionally there is considerable data available in a
number of EPA, state and local reports in the literature document these analytical results. Hence
further sampling requirements for these analytes under this permit are un-warranted.
A key element that is often lost in the analysis of these data is the importance of what is the
mixture of waste water entering the system. Different systems, ships and even itineraries can
determine the mix of gray water and black water entering the AWTS system, with consequent
impacts on the nutrient or bacteria concentrations in the discharge. This is particularly important
in assessing Best Available Technology as the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation's Science Advisory Panel has found (see http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/
cruise ships/SciencePanel/index.htm).
Analysis on a mass-loading per passenger per day indicates that the effluent is comparable to or
better than that of most municipal treatment facilities ashore. The potential impacts however are
considerably less due to the far smaller discharge volume from ships, the intermittent nature of
the discharge (changing time and place on virtually a daily basis) and the fact that most of the
discharges occur when the vessel is under-way. The large and significant dilution behind a
moving vessel has been documented in previous comments to the 2008 EPA permit and other
forums and will not be repeated here. These factors lead the 2001 Alaska Science Advisory Panel
to conclude that:
It is evident from these estimates that the discharged water will have little impact on the
natural nutrient cycle. Accumulation of nutrients in sediments will also be very small. 5
In that regard, we believe EPA has sufficient data in hand to support the determination that a
nutrient limit is not warranted, and therefore further gathering of data is not necessary or
appropriate in the context of the VGP. We recommend that monitoring for E. coli, total
phosphorous (TP) ammonia, nitrate/nitrite and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) be deleted from
the permit.
These comments are also applicable to initial monitoring requirements for medium cruise ship
generated treated gray water found in Part 5.2.2.2.1.
974
-------
Page 72, 5.1.2.2.2 Maintenance Monitoring - In addition to incorporating the comments
regarding nutrient and E. coli monitoring above, maintenance monitoring requirements must
consider that many cruise ships have elected to withhold the discharge of treated gray water and
treated gray water mixed with sewage until outside permit waters except in Alaska. This is done
as Alaska is the principal operating area for cruise ships in which vessels spend as much as four
consecutive days in permit waters. With that in mind, many ships discharge in permit waters only
during the Alaska season, essentially the second and third calendar quarters of the year. With that
in mind we recommend the following language:
After demonstrating the effectiveness of their system, vessel owners/operators must collect
and analyze one sample per quarter for each calendar quarter in which the vessel discharges
in waters subject to the requirements of this permit.
Records of the sampling and testing results must be available on board for a period of 3
years in the vessel's recordkeeping system.
As the Alaska permit and Murkowski rules require more frequent sampling than once per
quarter, and require priority pollutant sampling twice during the season, compliance with those
requirements will meet the requirements specified in the EPA permit. We note that we have
deleted reference to the nutrient and E.coli monitoring pursuant to comments above, and have
changed the recordkeeping element to require that records be available on board to reflect that
much of this information is maintained on company intra-net systems rather than in hard-copy on
board.
EPA must describe how analytical data drawn while the vessel is outside U. S. Waters are to be
handled under this General Permit. It is entirely possible; in fact it is likely, that wastewaters
sampled outside the United States will have been discharged before the vessel enters waters
subject to this permit. The State of Alaska, in implementing their cruise ship permit for black
water and gray water, has determined that samples drawn outside of that state neither satisfies
monitoring requirements, nor is subject to reporting requirements under the permit. EPA must
provide clarification as to how such "extra-territorial" data would be governed under Part 2.3.1
as well.
As previously commented, records of sampling and testing results ought to be available, "on
request" as ship board archiving as a practical matter is more problematic than at shore based
facilities.
These comments are also applicable to maintenance monitoring requirements for medium cruise
ship generated treated gray water found in Part 5.2.2.2.2.
Page 72, Part 5.1.2.2.3 Monitoring Reporting - Monitoring reporting requirements to EPA's e-
reporting system are reasonable. EPA should assure that the e-reporting system can receive
monitoring reports several times during the year rather than once annually as it is sensible to
coordinate reporting with the Alaska season. For ships authorized to discharge but choosing not
975
-------
to do so, the e-reporting system must allow indication that no discharges have occurred within a
given quarter and therefore no monitoring data is being submitted for that quarter.
These comments are also applicable to monitoring reporting requirements for medium cruise
ships found in Part 5.2.2.2.3.
4
http://www.epa.gov/katrina/fecal.html.
See The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters, Alaska Science Advisory Panel, 2001,
p. 52.
Response: EPA agrees with commenter that EPA has not specified where samples must be
taken for initial monitoring. EPA does specify that sampling and analysis must be conducted in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 136. However, vessel owners/operators that have already received
certification for continuous discharges from an AWTS and seek to satisfy VGP initial
monitoring requirements based on data submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard to meet the
requirements of Section 1411(b) of Title XIV, Pub. L. 106-554 (Dec. 31, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763)
[Certain Alaska Cruise Ship Operations] (codified at 33 USC 1901 note) will need to abide by
the requirements of that program. EPA has not reviewed or approved the alternative test
procedures listed by the commenter (i.e., Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical
Laboratories, Standards Council of Canada, and European Committee for Standardization);
however, 40 CFR Part 136 includes provisions for the application and approval of alternative
test procedures for nationwide use, approval of alternate test procedures for limited use, and
method modifications and analytical requirements.
Regarding the commenter's remaining statements on initial monitoring, EPA reminds the
commenter that a vessel owner/operator that has already received certification for continuous
discharges from an AWTS and submitted data to the U.S. Coast Guard to meet the requirements
of Section 1411(b) of Title XIV, Pub. L. 106-554 (Dec. 31, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763) [Certain
Alaska Cruise Ship Operations] (codified at 33 USC 1901 note) does not need to conduct initial
monitoring. Consequently, for these vessels, EPA agrees with the commenter that monitoring
for the additional parameters E. coli, total phosphorus, ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, and Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen would not be required for the initial monitoring. However, EPA disagrees
with the commenter that such monitoring is redundant and un-warranted for other vessels that
have not sought certification for continuous discharge from an AWTS and have not submitted
data to the U.S. Coast Guard to meet the requirements of Section 1411(b) of Title XIV, Pub. L.
106-554 (Dec. 31, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763) [Certain Alaska Cruise Ship Operations] (codified at
33 USC 1901 note). EPA also believes that the permittee can easily collect samples for these
additional analytes as they conduct their maintenance monitoring under that Act, or as they
conduct the other maintenance monitoring to meet the terms of the VGP. EPA's rationale for
requiring initial monitoring data for the additional parameters is provided in Section 7.1.2.3 of
the VGP Fact Sheet.
Additionally, regarding maintenance monitoring, EPA's rationale for requiring monitoring for
the additional parameters E. coli, total phosphorus, ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, and Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen is provided in Section 7.1.2.4 of the VGP Fact Sheet. In addition, in response to this
comment, EPA modified the permit to clarify that sampling and testing need only be conducted
once per quarter for any quarter the vessel discharges graywater into waters subject to the
976
-------
permit. EPA notes that electronic recordkeeping is acceptable, provided the records meet the
requirements at Part 4.2.1 of the permit. As with initial monitoring, EPA has not specified
where samples must be taken but does specify that sampling and analysis must be conducted in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 136.
Regarding monitoring reporting, EPA is currently building the monitoring reporting system.
The Agency will explore different design elements to the system, including various ways
permittees can submit monitoring data. EPA thanks commenter for their feedback on the design
of the reporting system to be consistent with permit requirements.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and
Governmental Affairs, Foss Maritime Company
Foss Maritime Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0560-A2
6
No
Comment: Foss is also concerned with the graywater monitoring requirements under section
2.2.15.2. Our crewmembers are not trained in the science of laboratory sampling nor would
providing this training be appropriate for their job functions as mariners. It is also not possible to
safely sample graywater discharges which are generally well below the waterline of the vessel.
The best practices under the current VGP are more than sufficient to address the small amount of
graywater discharges from our vessels and biannual sampling should not be considered in the
VGP. If EPA requires more scientific data on the constitution of graywater than perhaps EPA
scientists can randomly sample graywater discharges from selected vessels.
Response: With respect to a change in monitoring requirements based on number of crew,
please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1, excerpt 5.
With respect to the technical and logistical challenges of graywater monitoring, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 16.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
13
No
Comment: Analytical monitoring of graywater should be required by an approved lab.
Otherwise, there is no way to determine that the results are accurate and the vessel is meeting the
performance standards required under the VGP.
Response: The VGP requires that graywater monitoring be conducted according to 40 CFR
977
-------
Part 136. EPA believes this requirement is adequate to ensure that the test results are accurate
and that vessels are meeting the performance standards.
9.4 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Wash water
Comment: P.50 Part 2.2.26 - Exhaust Gas Scrubber Wash Water Discharge - Section 2.2.26
outlines treatment standards and monitoring requirements for discharge of wash water from
exhaust gas scrubbers. Both the text of the permit and the fact sheet states that the requirements
are consistent with Section 10 for Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (EGCS) (resolution
MEPC. 184(59)) (The IMO Guidelines). While the requirements set forth in the permit are
derived from Section 10 of the IMO Guidelines and are generally consistent with that section, the
other 9 sections of the IMO guidelines allow for EGCS design and operations that are different
from those specified in Section 2.2.26 of the EPA VGP.
EPA's decision not to adopt the IMO guidelines in their entirety, sets the U.S. up to regulate
these systems differently from all other Parties to MARPOL Annex VI. These differences,
perhaps unintended, may eliminate the use of some types of ECGS, may pose compliance
challenges for other EGCSs and will impose additional costs for all. The consequence could be
to raise sufficient market effects as to suppress development of this technology at a time when
the maritime industry and EPA are trying to find multiple avenues to address the SOx issue with
respect to marine fuels.
The draft EPA VGP differs from the IMO guidelines in the following substantive ways:
• Certification under the IMO Guidelines. There are two ways that IMO "permits"
operation of EGCSs: Scheme A - Unit Certification with Parameter and Emission checks
(Section 4 of the IMO Guidelines); and Scheme B - Continuous Emission Monitoring
with Parameter Checks (Section 5 of the IMO Guidelines). The draft EPA VGP does not
appear to allow for operation of EGCS under Scheme A, but only under Scheme B.
Section 4.1 of the IMO Guidelines (Scheme A) allows for unit certification (or "type
approval") of an EGCS. The procedures for certification of an EGCS are specified in
Section 4.2. After Administration approval of an ECGS, additional units meeting the same
specifications, can be manufactured and installed on ships. As described in Section 4.3,
EGCS units must then be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the
type approval. On-board procedures for demonstrating compliance are included in Section
4.4 and require only that the EGCS unit was installed as specified in the Engineering
Technical Manual (ETM), that the ship is in possession of a SOx Emission Compliance
Plan (SECP), and the shipboard personnel perform a daily spot check of emission and
Commenter Name:
Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
57
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
978
-------
discharge parameters. It appears then that the units certified under Scheme A would not
be allowed to discharge in U.S. waters as they do not meet the requirements of Section
2.2.26 of the EPA VGP. If EPA does not allow operation of EGCS certified under IMO
Scheme A, the U.S. will be regulating these systems in a manner that is different from all
other Parties to MARPOL Annex VI. Although the U.S. has made its general preference
for Scheme A understood at the IMO, EPA should not use this unilateral revision of the
VGP as a substitute for working through the effective and well-established IMO process
for regulating these very important systems via MARPOL Annex VI.
Response: The commenter is correct that the treatment standards and monitoring requirements
for exhaust gas scrubber discharges included in today's permit apply regardless of the scheme
under which the exhaust gas scrubber system was manufactured or type approved. EPA
disagrees with commenter that the language in the permit, as written, per se excludes any type
of system, nor was it EPA's intention to do so. In fact, any revisions that were made to the final
permit were made to better align with the IMO guidelines while maintaining consistency with
Clean Water Act requirements.
The permit requirements establish numeric effluent limits and monitoring requirements for any
system which has a discharge into waters subject to the permit consistent with EPA's
obligations under the CWA. EPA's monitoring requirements were imposed in accordance with
40 CFR 122.48, 122.43, 122.42 and other applicable requirements that provide for permit writer
best professional judgment of the amount of monitoring necessary to yield data which are
representative of the monitored activity, including, when appropriate, continuous monitoring.
EPA did not consider that a "type approval" approach such as that suggested by the commenter
would meet these requirements. Please see Part 4.4.2.26 of the VGP fact sheet for additional
discussion of EPA's rationale for the appropriateness of the exhaust gas scrubber permit
requirements. Please also see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0451-A1,
excerpt 2, regarding monitoring requirements for exhaust gas scrubbers, including incorporation
of less burdensome requirements than proposed in the draft permit.
Additionally, in future permit iterations, if EPA determines that EGCS technologies are
functioning as designed and not discharging excessive pollutants into waters subject to this
permit, the Agency may modify the monitoring regime as appropriate.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 58
Late Comment? No
Comment: Fact Sheet P. 146 states: EPA has found that use of these technologies (EGCS) is
economically achievable for several reasons. First, as described above, the limits are
fundamentally similar to an existing international standard; one to which treatment
manufacturers are currently designing their equipment. By adopting these limits, EPA is
979
-------
applying no additional burden. As documented above, EPA's failure to adopt the IMO guidelines
in their entirety sets the U.S. up to regulate these systems differently from all other Parties to
MARPOL. These differences, perhaps unintended, may eliminate the use of some types of
EGCS, may pose compliance challenges for other EGCSs and will impose additional costs for
all.
Response: With respect to exhaust gas scrubber requirements, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-053Q-A2, excerpt 57.
9.4.1 Treatment Standards
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Lee Bracegirdle, Marine Technical Advisor, Hamworthy
Krystallon Ltd.
Hamworthy Krystallon Ltd.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0435-A1
1
No
Comment: the section 10.1.2. l(ii) of MEPC 184(59), be retained in the discharge criteria (refers
to pH mixing zone for wash water discharge) in order to maintain harmonization with MARPOL.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0451-A1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: 2.2.26.1.1, pH
Discussion: In the proposed VGP it is stated that the pH should comply with the following
requirements: "The discharge washwater from the exhaust gas scrubber treatment system must
have a pH of no less than 6.5 measured at the ship's overboard discharge, with the exception that
during maneuvering and transit, the maximum difference between inlet and outlet of 2.0 pH units
is allowed. This difference is to be measured at the ship's inlet and overboard discharge."
In the IMO Resolution MEPC.184(59) chapter 10.1.2.1 there is also second method to comply
with requirements, and this method is not included in the draft VGP. It should be included,
however, with two minor modifications to that wording:
1. The IMO text includes a requirement to demonstrate effluent pH "at rest in harbour". For
main engines this measurement cannot be undertaken at rest, as they typically cannot be
fully loaded at rest, in contrast to generator engines. In the first sentence of §10.1.2.1
(ii), the text "(at rest in harbour)" should be omitted.
Jussi Kreula, Wartsila Finland Oy
Wartsila Finland Oy
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0451-A1
1
No
980
-------
2. The wording "demonstrate or" should be added before "measured". This would also
allow utilization of modern Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) technics.
Measurements 4 meters outside a ship moving at full speed and power are not easy. Both
proposed modifications are purely procedural, providing a procedure for demonstration of wash
water discharge of main engine EGC systems, without changing the wash water discharge
criteria itself.
Proposal: Add to proposed VGP: "During commissioning of the unit(s) after installation, the
discharge washwater plume should be demonstrated or measured externally from the ship and
the discharge pH at the ship's overboard pH monitoring point will be recorded when the plume at
4 meters from the discharge point equals or is above pH 6.5. The discharge pH to achieve a
minimum pH units of 6.5 will become the overboard pH discharge limit recorded in the ETM-A
Response: Based on this and other comments, EPA has revised the final permit to include a pH
limit of 6.0 applied at the point of discharge (as compared to the pH limit of 6.5 in the proposed
VGP) in order to better reflect BAT. The standard also maximizes consistency with the IMO
guideline. EPA did not adopt the IMO language verbatim because it is inconsistent with EPA's
application of discharge limitations. EPA typically applies discharge limitations for the purpose
of compliance monitoring at either 1) the point of discharge into waters of the U.S. or 2) at
some point within the control of the permittee. Additionally, EPA believes that it is
impracticable to require vessel owner/operators to monitor four meters from their vessel hull on
a regular basis - hence, assuring compliance with these numeric limits in the permit would be
challenging. Furthermore, EPA typically requires that the sampling is representative of the
monitored activity. Based on this same rationale, EPA declines to adopt the commenter's
suggestion to include "demonstrate" and to allow the use of Computational Fluid Dynamic
techniques in lieu actually measurement of the effluent discharge to assess compliance with the
effluent limit. EPA believes the reporting of both continuous and periodic monitoring of
parameters listed in 2.2.26.2.2 and 2.2.26.2.3 of the permit is necessary to assure compliance
with the permit's limits for this discharge, and will provide EPA with data representative of the
discharge being monitored. Exhaust gas cleaning systems are still in their early development.
EPA expects that these systems will only be installed on a few ships during this permit term
(2013-2018). As EPA gets better information about the performance of these systems, collected
in part through these monitoring efforts, the Agency can reevaluate the frequency and breadth
of required monitoring. For more discussion on the final limit, how it was derived by EPA, and
why EPA thinks the limit is adequately protective, see section 4.4.26 of the factsheet.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
or ETM-B.
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Shipping of America
Chamber of Shipping of America
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
19
No
981
-------
Comment: Exhaust Gas Scrubber Treatment Standards (Section 2.2.26, pgs. 50 - 53):
CSA applauds the EPA for inclusion of the newly agreed upon IMO provisions governing EGS
effluents and treatment standards. While we recognize this technology to be developing and not
in widespread use aboard vessels, we expect this option to be seriously considered by vessel
owners faced with the incredible increase in costs associated with low sulfur fuels. We would
urge EPA to work closely with the USCG on a related issue concerning adequacy of shore
reception facilities for EGS residues.
Response: EPA acknowledges CSA's support for the exhaust gas scrubber effluent permit
limits. While the creation and use of a shore reception facility is important for managing EGS
residues, their disposal and adequacy of those facilities is beyond the scope of this permit since
they are not point sources subject to this permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Algis Vanagas, Senior Vice-President Technical, Algoma
Central Corporation
Algoma Central Corporation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1
12
No
Comment: 7. Part 2.2.26 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Discharges.
The proposed permit requires that "The discharge washwater from the exhaust gas scrubber
treatment system must have a pH of no less than 6.5 measured at the ship's overboard discharge,
with the exception that during maneuvering and transit, the maximum difference between inlet
and outlet of 2.0 pH units is allowed. This difference is to be measured at the ship's inlet and
overboard discharge." IMO Resolution MEPC. 184(59) chapter 10.1.2.1 provides a second
method to comply with this requirement. This method should be included in the draft VGP,
however with the following two minor modifications:
• The IMO text includes a requirement to demonstrate effluent pH "at rest in harbor". For
main engines this measurement cannot be undertaken at rest, as they typically cannot be
fully loaded at rest, in contrast to generator engines. In the first sentence of §10.1.2.1 (ii),
the text "(at rest in harbor)" should be omitted.
• The words "demonstrate or" should be added before "measured". This would also allow
utilization of modern Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) techniques.
In addition, it is not practical to conduct measurements at the overboard discharge on a ship
moving at full speed. We propose the following addition to the draft VGP: "During
commissioning of the unit(s) after installation, the discharge washwater plume should be
demonstrated or measured externally from the ship and the discharge pH at the ship's overboard
pH monitoring point will be recorded when the plume at 4 meters from the discharge point
equals or is above pH 6.5. The discharge pH to achieve a minimum pH units of 6.5 will become
the overboard pH discharge limit recorded in the ETM-A or ETM-B."
982
-------
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0451-A1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Oswald Inglese, Jr., Director, Water Permitting and
Enforcement Division, Connecticut Department of Energy
and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP)
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection (CT DEEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0523-A1
4
No
Comment: ISSUE 4: Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge. There appears to be only
limited data in the record for the exhaust gas scrubber washwater. However, some of this data
seems to indicate that several of the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs") in that
wastestream have the potential to exceed State water quality criteria. EPA, in its support
document for exhaust gas scrubber washwater (EPA-800-R-11-006), seems to suggest that
application of a mixing zone could be used so that applicable criteria could be met in stream.
However, many, if not all, of the PAHs are pollutants classified as "carcinogens" or pollutants
with "high potential to bioaccumulate or bioconcentrate" and as such, pose an adverse
environmental impact independent of dilution through application of a mixing zone. For these
classes of pollutants, we would expect that applicable criteria be met end-of-pipe. Should EPA
proceed to establish PAH limits for the exhaust gas scrubber washwater discharge in the near
future, we ask that these limits be established without the use of a mixing zone exhaust gas
scrubber washwater discharge in the near future, we ask that these limits be established without
the use of a mixing zone exhaust gas scrubber washwater discharge in the near future, we ask
that these limits be established without the use of a mixing zone.
Response: EPA notes that a mixing zone was not included when developing the discharge
limitation for PAH for this permit. The effluent limits were developed, consistent with the IMO
standards, to include a normalized flow rate when establishing the PAH concentrations. This
concentration is adjusted upwards for lower flow rates and downwards for higher flow rates. In
addition, the PAH concentration in the washwater must be measured downstream of the water
treatment equipment, but upstream of any washwater dilution or other reactant dosing unit, if
used, prior to discharge. Thus, for the purposes of compliance, the limits included in the permit
must be met prior to or at the point of the "end-of-pipe" discharge. EPA believes that the
application of the limit prior to the inclusion of any washwater dilution or reactant dosing
addresses the concerns raised by the commenter. EPA does not believe that dilution is an
appropriate method to mitigate the impact of PAHs. Therefore, EPA believes that this limit, as
it is included in the permit, will ensure the discharge does not cause exceedances of water
quality standards.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
983
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
18
No
Comment: Treatment Standard for pH. The pH criteria specified in Section 2.2.26.1.1 of the
draft EPA VGP is substantively different from that specified in Section 10.1.2 of the EGCS
Guidelines. Section 10.1.2 (ii) of the IMO Guidelines states: During the commissioning of the
units after installation, the discharged wash water plume should be measured externally from the
side of the ship (at rest in the harbor) and the discharge pH at the ship's overboard pH
monitoring point will be recorded when the plume at 4 meters from the discharge point equals or
is above 6.5., the discharge pH to achieve a minimum of 6.5 will become the overboard pH
discharge limit recorded in the ETM.
This section was excluded from the draft EPA VGP and as such positions the U.S. as regulating
these systems in a manner that is different from all other Parties to MARPOL Annex VI. EPA
has long implemented lower pH limits of 6.5 s.u. because this has been achievable by use of
BAT ashore. The same evaluation of BAT cannot be ascribed to sea-going applications.
The sea water scrubber installed on Holland America Line's Ms. Zaandam was designed to
conform with Section 10.1.2 (ii). This system has been tested with the pH plume measured at the
side of the ship as specified by IMO. This sea water scrubber is conformant with the IMO
requirement (consider, the use of more "reaction water" in the process would merely introduce
the buffering effect of more seawater inside the hull of the ship. The same buffering reaction
occurs within the 4 meters of the vessel under the IMO rule, but allows vessel operators to avoid
the mechanics and energy consumption, and associated emissions, that would be incurred by
pumping this additional water through the system).
The IMO language should be included in the EPA VGP. Without this clause, the seawater
scrubber such as the one installed on Ms. Zaandam cannot be used inside 3NM in permit waters,
precisely where it will provide the most public health and welfare benefit.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0451-A1, excerpt 1.
In addition, for the reasons explained in section 4.4.26 of the factsheet, EPA believes it is
reasonable to expect that a properly functioning system can achieve a pH of no less than 6.0 for
their washwater discharges in most circumstances. Therefore, the revised limit reflects best
available technology and remains fundamentally similar to an existing international standard.
Because the Holland America Line's ms Zaandam installed the technology before finalization
of this permit requirement and the technologies have been in an early development phase, if the
operators of the ms Zaandam are unable to use their existing scrubber because the VGP limits
cannot be met, an individual NPDES permit might be appropriate for this specific discharge.
Please see Part 1.8 of the permit for discussion of individual permits.
Commenter Name: Douglas B. Schneider, World Shipping Council (WSC)
Commenter Affiliation: World Shipping Council (WSC)
984
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1
8
No
Comment: B. Comments on the Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge Standards
The draft VGP states that vessels equipped with exhaust gas cleaning systems that result in
washwater discharges must meet the numeric effluent limits found in part 2.2.26.1 and the
monitoring requirements set out in part 2.2.26.2. The draft VGP explains that these limits are
consistent with the IMO guidelines set forth in section 10 of IMO resolution MEPC. 184(59). We
fully support EPA's plan to adopt numeric effluent limits and monitoring requirements for
exhaust gas scrubber washwater discharges that are consistent with existing IMO guidelines. We
note, however, that the VGP's proposed requirements vary from the IMO guidelines in two
respects.
The first concerns a 15-minute exception to the PAH limits specified in the IMO guidance. The
IMO guidance allows for a 100% exceedance in the continuous PAH limits for a 15-minute
period during a 12 hour interval to allow for an abnormal start up of the exhaust gas 9 scrubber
unit. The draft VGP (part 2.2.26.1.2) would only allow for a 20% exceedance in the continuous
PAH limits for a 15 minute period during a 12 hour interval. We urge the EPA to align its
exemption allowances with the IMO guidelines so that vessels may standardize procedures and
operate under consistent rules worldwide.
Response: EPA has revised the final permit to include the exceedance provision for PAH
limits, consistent with the IMO guideline. The relevant IMO guidelines allowing for the 15
minute exception for PAH limits were inadvertently excluded in the proposed permit and have
been added to the final VGP. For more information, see section 2.2.26.1.2 of the permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Donald Gregory, Director, Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems
Association (EGCSA)
Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association (EGCSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0571-A2
1
No
Comment: The EGCSA and its members have reviewed the proposed 2013Vessel General
Permit (VGP) as it pertains to Exhaust Gas Cleaning System overboard discharges.
The EGCSA has the following comments and proposals which we believe will enhance the intent
of the 2013 VGP proposals and avoid unintended consequences.
Item 1. Para 2.2.26.1 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Treatment Standards. 2.2.26.1.1 pH
EGCSA strongly recommends that the section in the IMO Guidelines for Exhaust Gas Cleaning
Systems pertaining to the alternate method for setting the pH limit at the overboard discharge is
included in the 2013 VGP. The paragraph from the Guidelines follows;
985
-------
During commissioning of the unit(s) after installation, the discharged washwater plume should
be measured externally from the ship (at rest in harbour) and the discharge pH at the ship's
overboard pH monitoring point will be recorded when the plume at 4 metres from the discharge
point equals or is above pH 6.5. The discharged pH to achieve a minimum pH units of 6.5 will
become the overboard pH discharge limit recorded in the ETM-A or ETM-B.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0451-A1, excerpt 1.
9.4.2 Continuous Monitoring
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
20
No
Comment: Monitoring of PAHs. Page 51 of the permit and page 147 of the permit fact sheet
uses the term phenanthrene equivalents, and the fact sheet states "the concept of phenanthrene
equivalents is not well established and needs to be explained or replaced." Holland America Line
is monitoring for all 16 PAHs when they collect wash samples from Ms. Zaandam for laboratory
analysis. We requested that Trios, the manufacturer of the in-line PAH probe (EnviroFlu-HC) for
that system, provide a detailed comment to help explain the concept of phenanthrene
equivalents. Below is what Trios provided for this purpose:
"The typical relative composition of PAH (polyaromatic hydrocarbons) from an EGCS discharge
measured with GC-MS methods (16 US-EPA PAH) was ca. 50% phenanthrene, ca. 10%
fluorene, fluoranthene and pyrene, respectively and 20% others.
EnviroFlu-HC works in the following manner - For the online monitoring a sensor was required,
which monitors all of the 16 PAH via fluorescence, due to the low concentrations of the detected
PAH. EnviroFlu-HC excites the fluorescence of a water sample at 254 nm with a xenon flash
lamp and detects the emission at 360 nm. These are the typical excitation and emission
wavelengths for PAH. As the emission intensity varies for the 16 PAH at 360 nm the sensor is
adjusted to measure all relevant PAH at their separately detected intensities at 360 nm and for a
typical concentration of diesel. Phenanthrene has been found to be the most abundant PAH in
diesel and also in the seawater scrubber discharge water. For the facilitation of calibration
phenanthrene was chosen as calibration compound. All other 15 PAHs are also measured in their
relative emission intensities relative to phenanthrene and quantitatively distinguished based on
their fluorescence intensity. Nowadays a solid calibration cap is available, which contains a
defined amount of phenanthrene. This cap can be mounted on the top of the sensor.
986
-------
The calibration and the measurements of the EnviroFlu-HC have been studied over several years
and have been confirmed by separate PAH via GC-MS, which could be supplied at a later stage
to support the data."
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for providing additional information on phenanthrene
equivalents and automated methods for monitoring PAHs. Based on this information, EPA has
retained the continuous monitoring for phenanthrene equivalents. However, EPA included
language in section 2.2.26.2.1 of the final permit to clarify that the vessel owner/operator must
continuously monitor for PAH discharges where continuous monitoring technologies are
available. EPA also clarified that availability includes the technology's robustness, reliability
and ability to perform over for a minimum of two years. Provided automated probes for use in
EGCS mature, the probe data generally correlate to the analytical monitoring data, and there are
not indications that PAHs are not being discharged in concentrations that are likely to cause or
contribute to water quality standards violations, EPA can reevaluate the frequency of analytical
monitoring versus reliance on automated probe results in future permit iterations. EPA notes
that the Agency has reduced the analytical monitoring frequency. Please see section 9.4.3 of
this comment response document for further discussion.
9.4.3 Quarterly Monitoring
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Lee Bracegirdle, Marine Technical Advisor, Hamworthy
Krystallon Ltd.
Hamworthy Krystallon Ltd.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0435-A1
2
No
Comment: In addition we note the requirement for quarterly analysis of wash water effluent, it
is generally felt that this could become a very onerous requirement for analysis companies from
the perspective of controlled sample collection and analysis, would it not be as effective to
extend the recommended number of samples to be collected in Appendix III of MEPC 184(59) to
make this an annual requirement on vessels using technical abatement to meet the requirements
of MARPOL Annex VI?
Response: With respect to monitoring frequencies, please see the response to comment EPA-
HQ-QW-2011-0141-0451-A1, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jussi Kreula, Wartsila Finland Oy
Wartsila Finland Oy
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0451-A1
2
No
Comment: 2.2.26.2.2 Quarterly Analytical Monitoring
987
-------
Discussion: In the proposed VGP it is stated that the vessel owner/operators must collect and
analyze one sample per quarter for each of the constituents analyzed in Part 2.2.26.2.3.
The water sampling onboard is challenging due the fact that it may take several days before
samples can be delivered to the laboratory onshore. The content of the water changes during time
so the analyzed results may not represent the scrubbing water or the discharge water at the time
of the sampling.
There are no limits for metals, temperature, dissolved oxygen and PAH other than phenanthrene
in the proposed VGP so the sampling is for data collection rather than demonstration of
compliance as wrongly stated in 2.2.26.2.2.
Furthermore, it is not possible to demonstrate compliance by analyzing discharge water only, as
a background sample is also needed. Also, in isolation without recording scrubber load and other
operating parameters, the sampling is useless.
The combination of reporting frequency and magnitude of monitored parameters is unreasonable.
Proposal: The frequency of the sampling should be same as in the IMO Resolution
MEPC.184(59) chapter 10.1.5.2: "At each renewal survey nitrate discharge data is to be
available in respect of sample overboard discharge drawn from each EGC system with the
previous three months prior to the survey".
2.2.26.2.3 Analvtes for Quarterly Analytical Monitoring
Discussion:
In the proposed VGP it is stated that also temperature and the dissolved oxygen must be analyzed
from the water. When the water is taken to water sample bottle, the dissolved oxygen in the
water will change during time because chemical reactions will consume oxygen from the water.
The laboratory results will not describe dissolved oxygen in the scrubbing water or in the
discharge water at the time of the sampling.
Temperature measurement which is performed in the laboratory will not describe real water
temperature in the scrubbing water or discharge water at the time of the water sampling.
Proposal: The temperature and the dissolved oxygen should be removed from the list in the
chapter 2.2.26.2.3
Response: EPA acknowledges commenters' concern that sampling may be a challenge in that
it may take time before samples can be delivered to the laboratory onshore and the composition
of the sample may change; however, the Agency notes that use of approved test methods
ensures that samples are analyzed in a timely fashion to ensure sample integrity to avoid such a
situation. To that end, EPA believes adequate resources exist to provide necessary monitoring
services. EPA believes that these monitoring and analysis procedures can be performed by
having the necessary sampling equipment on-board the vessel (e.g., prepared bottles) or where
vessel operators are unable to perform these monitoring activities, such as when the vessel is
unable to take on the additional physical burden that must be taken on by the crew when
988
-------
sampling, that they contract these services. EPA expects that many port service companies will
offer necessary sample collection, handling, and analytical services where necessary, including
meeting the necessary holding times for the different parameters. Similarly, EPA notes that
many labs will supply complete kits with reagents and preservatives, as appropriate, already
added to the bottles such that the vessel crew need only fill the bottle with the sample.
Regarding the sampling schedule, based on comments received, EPA made changes to the
analytical monitoring requirements between the proposed VGP and this final VGP. Those
changes were designed to reduce burden and provide vessel owner/operators with additional
flexibility for when they sample while allowing EPA to better characterize the performance of
exhaust gas scrubber systems. In addition, as the commenter suggested, these revisions better
align with current monitoring schedule included in IMO Resolution MEPC. 184(59) chapter
10.1.5.2. Specifically, EPA amended the monitoring provisions to require that monitoring must
happen 2 times during the first year, with each sampling event being no less than 14 days apart.
This is to provide vessel owner/operators with flexibility when they sample, while generating
the data needed to evaluate system performance. Vessels then need only sample one time per
year thereafter. Furthermore, to better align with IMO and gain a better understanding of both
the pollutant loading from exhaust gas scrubber systems and removal efficiencies of any
treatment, EPA has required the sampling of inlet water (for background), water after the
scrubber (but before any treatment system) and discharge water and to analyze these samples.
EPA's monitoring requirements were imposed in accordance with 40 CFR 122.48, 122.43,
122.42 and other applicable requirements that provide for permit writer best professional
judgment of the amount of monitoring necessary to yield data which are representative of the
monitored activity. EPA acknowledges the total number of monitoring events is greater than
that of MEPC. 184(59) since EPA requires annual monitoring for each year of permit coverage;
however, the Agency believes more frequent analysis of this discharge is necessary for EPA to
accurately characterize pollutants in discharges from this emerging technology and verify
compliance with effluent limitations. In addition, EPA believes the inclusion of the additional
monitoring locations, consistent with the IMO resolutions and the commenters' suggestions,
will assist EPA in providing assurance that if these technologies are developed and used widely,
discharges can be controlled to the extent necessary (i.e., representing the best available
technology economically achievable) and such that they are unlikely to cause or contribute to
exceedances of water quality standards. EPA expects to use the results of this monitoring to
establish future permit terms.
EPA has explicit authority to require generation of such data under CWA Section 308 and
EPA's implementing regulations. These discharges can be highly acidic, and can also contain
traces of oil, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals and nitrogen (see Exhaust
Gas Scrubber Washwater Effluent, EPA-800-R-11-006, November 2011). Washwater volumes
of 2.8 million gallons per day are estimated from a 10 MWh engine. While EPA anticipates
very low numbers of vessels will potentially be releasing this discharge, the risk of this
discharge was analyzed in EPA's Biological Evaluation for this permit (copy in the docket for
this permit) due to the very large volume and frequency of discharges, along with the
potentially high risk posed by the concentration and types of pollutant discharged. Accordingly,
EPA is requiring more frequent analysis than that in MEPC 184(59) and for a full suite of
989
-------
pollutants found to be present in exhaust gas scrubber discharges. EPA believes the monitoring
burden is appropriate for the usefulness of the data to demonstrate compliance and the
performance of these exhaust gas scrubber systems.
Regarding the suggestion to remove temperature and dissolved oxygen from analytical
monitoring requirements, based on the short maximum holding times allowed prior to sample
analysis, section 2.2.26.2.3 of the final permit has been revised to remove these two parameters.
Also, the Agency notes that while monitoring for those pollutants with numeric effluent
limitations is considered compliance monitoring and to assess performance of continuous
monitoring probes, analysis of samples for pollutants for which no numeric limits are included
in the permit is required, consistent with CWA §308, to better assess the operational
performance of these emerging technologies. As appropriate, the permit requires collection of
both influent and effluent samples for purposes of demonstrating compliance with permit limits
that are based on values dependent on the quality of the source water. Measuring inlet water,
water after the scrubber (but before any treatment system) and discharge water will also help
the Agency answer several questions regarding selenium raised by the Fish and Wildlife
Service during the Agency's ESA consultation. This approach of monitoring at multiple
locations in the treatment process will help the EPA better characterize whether previously
observed high selenium values are caused by exhaust gas scrubber effluent, or as EPA suspects,
are due to matrix interference caused by seawater.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Algis Vanagas, Senior Vice-President Technical, Algoma
Central Corporation
Algoma Central Corporation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1
13
No
Comment: 2.2.26.2.2 - Quarterly Analytical Monitoring - The proposed VGP states that vessel
owner/operators must collect and analyze one sample per quarter for each of the constituents in
Part 2.2.26.2.3. Water sampling onboard is challenging due to the fact that it may take time
before samples can be delivered to the laboratory ashore for proper analysis. The content of the
water may change during the time delay and may not represent the actual scrubbing water or the
discharge water at the time of the sampling.
Furthermore, it is not possible to demonstrate compliance by analyzing discharge water only, as
a background sample is also needed. Also, recording scrubber load and other operating
parameters is needed in order to make the sampling meaningful. The combination of reporting
frequency and magnitude of monitored parameters is unreasonable. We propose that the
sampling frequency be consistent with IMO Resolution MEPC. 184(59) chapter 10.1.5.2: "At
each renewal survey nitrate discharge data is to be available in respect of sample overboard
discharge drawn from each EGC system with the previous three months prior to the survey".
2.2.26.2.3 - Analytes for Quarterly Analytical Monitoring - The proposed VGP requires analysis
of temperature and dissolved oxygen in wastewater. Given the lack of analytical facilities on
990
-------
board vessels, laboratory results for these parameters are unlikely to be representative. It is
suggested that temperature and dissolved oxygen be removed from the list of required analytes.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0451-A1, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Director, Environment &
Sustainability, Maerks Line North America Liner
Operations
Maersk Line
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0513-A1
12
No
Comment: In addition, while scrubber discharge requirements are aligned with IMO guidelines,
the quarterly analytical monitoring requirements go beyond IMO.
We suggest that these added crew demands be considered carefully in finalizing on-board
requirements.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0451-A1, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
25
No
Comment: 2.2.26: Exhaust Gas Scrubber Treatment Standards
We are pleased with the EPA's adoption of the IMO provisions on exhaust gas scrubber
requirements, since, as consistency in regulatory requirements is key for our industry. However,
the quarterly monitoring requirements add an extra burden on the crew since they go beyond
what is requested by the IMO.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0451-A1, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Late Comment? No
Comment: Quarterly Analytical Monitoring.
991
-------
The analytical monitoring specified under Section 2.2.26.2.2 is required on a quarterly basis,
which is substantively different from that specified under Appendix II of the IMO Guidelines.
While the suite of required parameters is the same, required quarterly monitoring under the
permit for five years is substantially different from requested annual sampling in the IMO
guidelines. The permit fact sheet and the economic benefits analysis recognize this fact, however
it is likely that the cost burden has been substantially underestimated. In consulting with an
analytical services provider, the costs to analyze one suite of samples as required by the draft
EPA VGP was quoted as approximately $1250.00, per sample if collected domestically, and up
to $1875.00, per sample if collected internationally. This does not include any administrative
costs incurred by the shipping company, only that of the laboratory subcontractor. Additionally,
it is necessary to collect samples of the influent and the effluent to determine the difference
between the parameters as required by the permit. Hence the cost per suite of samples is between
$2500.00 and $3750.00, 6 to 9 times EPA's estimate. At these rates the quarterly sampling
program could cost between $50,000 and $75,000 over a 5 year permit cycle. We recommend
that EPA reduce the frequency of analysis semi-annually for the first year and then annually
thereafter.
Additionally, as with other effluents for which monitoring is required by this permit, EPA should
limit applicability of this effluent monitoring requirement to those quarters in which the ship is
discharging in permit waters.
Response: With respect to frequency of monitoring and monitoring location, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0451-A1, excerpt 2.
Regarding costs, EPA notes that the analytical monitoring requirements between the proposed
VGP and this final VGP were revised to reduce burden and provide vessel owner/operators with
additional flexibility for when they sample. However, EPA believes its initial cost estimates are
reasonable in terms of cost per sampling event as outlined in EPA's Economic Analysis for
which the Agency contacted a number of laboratories to obtain cost estimates. EPA believes
that, for the reasons explained in the economic analysis, the Agency conservatively estimated
the number of vessels likely to adopt EGCS during this permit term, resulting in a higher total
cost than will likely occur.
Regarding the commenters suggestion that monitoring only be required in to those quarters in
which the ship is discharging in waters subject to the permit, EPA notes that the requirement
was revised to require that monitoring must happen 2 times during the first year, with each
sampling event being no less than 14 days apart, and one sample per year thereafter. As
described in EPA's response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0451-A1, excerpt 2, EPA
acknowledges that the purpose of this monitoring is both to evaluate the discharge
characteristics from these systems and to assess compliance with permit limitations (i.e., to
demonstrate adequate performance of the system). From that standpoint, EPA believes two
sampling events in the first year and one sampling event per year thereafter, is necessary to
adequately characterize the discharge from these vessels. EPA is providing flexibility to vessel
owner/operators as to whether they perform such monitoring in waters covered by the permit or
in other waters. Thus, if a vessel will discharge this effluent in U.S. waters at least once per
year, the full suite of sampling is required.
992
-------
Commenter Name: Douglas B. Schneider, World Shipping Council (WSC)
Commenter Affiliation: World Shipping Council (WSC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Late Comment? No
Comment: The second matter concerns the quarterly sampling analysis that is proposed in the
draft VGP for metals, PAH, nitrates, pH, turbidity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen. Given the
specificity of the sampling requirements and the precision with which they must be performed,
we question whether the agency will receive useful data if all vessels equipped with exhaust gas
scrubbers are subject to this requirement. Sampling would need to be carried out by vessel crews,
who are already fully occupied in carrying out their shipboard duties, and for whom it would be
difficult to provide uniform training and procedures. Rather than require all ships covered by the
VGP to perform such sampling and analyses, we suggest that EPA instead consider collecting
periodic samples from a specific subset of exhaust gas scrubber equipped vessels where the
sampling could be done by trained personnel using uniform sampling methodologies. This would
improve the quality and usefulness of the data.
Response: EPA believes regular monitoring is essential to provide assurance that constituents
within the discharge are not likely to cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality
standards. Additionally, EPA believes this sampling will produce useful data for the Agency.
The discharge limitations included in the permit apply to all vessels using an exhaust gas
scrubber subject to this requirement. Because periodic sampling of a subset of vessels would
not provide assurances that all vessels are in compliance with the permit's effluent limits, EPA
did not adopt the commenter's suggestion to only collect samples from a subset of vessels for
this permit term.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Donald Gregory, Director, Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems
Association (EGCSA)
Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association (EGCSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0571-A2
2
No
Comment: Item 2
EGCSA understands that the EPA wishes to build a database of discharge water content. The
EPA proposals go beyond that which is provided for in the IMO Guidelines for Exhaust Gas
Cleaning Systems.
EGCSA is not aware of any body of evidence that would indicate that the discharge water could
indeed contain the additional materials that are required to be measured. EGCSA is also
concerned that some of the parameters required to be measured require analytical techniques,
operator skills and instruments that are not widely available within the testing laboratory
993
-------
community. Moreover the sampling procedures are critical to the preservation of the some
species such as PAHs and indeed the whole process of sampling, sample containment and speed
of subsequent testing has a great impact on the likely integrity of the test results. Therefore to
require as a condition of the maintenance of the VGP to submit sample results for quarterly
sampling, especially for vessels that may rarely visit the USA coast (but still hold a VGP) is
onerous, impractical and arguably difficult to enforce. EGCSA accepts that the periodic sampling
of selected vessels to build confidence or identify weaknesses in the current wash water
monitoring requirements is worthwhile and in fact invaluable in supporting the aim of
sustainable processes.
Given the specialist nature of the whole sampling and testing process EGCSA wishes to propose
to the EPA that the wash water sampling and testing activity is undertaken within a framework
agreement in which the EGCSA would be willing to undertake the management and oversight.
EGCSA believes that the screening of all ships fitted with Exhaust Gas cleaning systems
discharging wash water would be too costly and disproportionate to the aims of the testing
proposals. Therefore EGCSA proposes that a joint selection and screening with the EPA of a
group of ships which would be used to undertake the monitoring. EGCSA would provide the
assurance processes to ensure that the purposes of the sampling regime are met and the required
information on typical discharges is secured.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0451-A1, excerpt 2,
regarding the purpose, frequency of, and burdens associated with monitoring exhaust gas
scrubber effluent, and the reasonableness of the specific sampling and analysis procedures
included in the permit.
EPA disagrees with commenter that the parameters required to be measured require analytical
techniques, operator skills, and instruments that are not widely available within the testing
laboratory community. In fact, this permit includes requirements for parameters all specifically
identified in 40 CFR Part 136 as having approved test methods and for which EPA has no
information to suggest that available resources for monitoring any of these parameters is limited
in any way.
EPA disagrees with commenter's suggestion that instead of requiring each vessel with an
exhaust gas scrubber to monitor, EPA should work with the commenter to instead develop a
joint selection and screening process to gather representative discharge information for the
sector as a whole. While EPA appreciates the commenter's offer, EPA notes that the purpose of
the sampling is two-fold; one is to gather data on the performance of these systems and the
other is to assess compliance with permit limitations. In that use of a screening process would
not provide the necessary data for EPA to assess compliance, EPA opted not to implement the
screening approach suggested by the commenter.
9.5 Fish Hold Effluent
Response Essay:
994
-------
EPA received many comments on the Fish Hold Effluent sections of the VGP (Sections 2.2.27).
The following essay is EPA's response to those comments.
Discharge to Shore-Based Facility
Section 2.2.27 of the VGP requires fishing vessels to discharge fish hold effluent to a shore-
based discharge facility only under certain circumstances. First, vessels would only be required
to transfer fish hold effluent to a shore-based facility in ports where such facilities exist and were
specifically designed to handle fish hold effluent. Vessels would not be required to discharge fish
hold effluent to shore-based facilities that are not set up to handle fish hold effluent and that are
thus unable to process the effluent. Second, even if such a facility did exist at the port in which
the fishing vessel is unloading its catch, the vessel would not be required to transfer its fish hold
effluent to that shore-based facility if doing so would not be economically achievable. Several
commenters requested a definition of the term "economically achievable." Some criteria that
EPA considers relevant in determining whether transfer of fish hold effluent to a shore-based
facility is economically achievable include: whether the shore-based facility has been designed to
receive fish hold effluent; whether the vessel and the shore-based facility currently have the
infrastructure to transfer the effluent from the vessel to shore-based receiving facility; whether
the receiving facility has the hydraulic capacity to handle the fish hold effluent volume; whether
such transfer would impair the quality of the catch; and whether the transfer would not unduly
delay the departure of the fishing vessel.
Minimization of Fish Hold Effluent Discharge
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, Water Quality
Section (ADEC) requested clarification on what would be considered "reasonable steps" that
must be taken to prevent the discharge of excess fish hold effluent. EPA responds that fishing
vessels should use a common sense approach to determining reasonableness. For example, any
actions which would pose a threat to safety, incur excessive costs, or unduly delay the vessel
would be considered unreasonable. ADEC, the Fishing Vessel Owners Association, and Alaska
State Legislature Representative Kerttula commented that not allowing the discharge of fish hold
effluent while at the pier could interfere with vessel stability and pose a threat to safety. The
permit states that vessels must take "[a] 11 reasonable steps" in preventing such discharge; actions
that create a threat to safety would not be considered "reasonable" and should be avoided.
The costs associated with filtration of fish hold effluent was an issue of interest for many
commenters. The VGP states that a physical separation method must be used before discharging
any fish hold effluent containing solid fish waste. Commenters requested clarification for this
requirement, and some, such as the United Fishermen of Alaska, suggested a specific size coarse
screen (e.g., Vi inch). EPA agrees. In the permit, EPA has clarified that acceptable physical
separation methods include using Vi inch coarse screens or smaller, a screened hose having Vi
inch screen openings or smaller, filters, or other methods to remove large solids. Solid fish
waste that is separated from effluent using a coarse filter having a screen size V2" or less would
be prevented from being discharged. Based on this and other comments, EPA clarified that, for
purposes of the VGP, solid fish waste means large solid pieces of fish waste, such as fish heads
or fish organs, that would not pass through a V2" screen opening. Vessel operators may use
coarse filters, or they may remove solid fish waste using another method, such as by manually
removing it from the effluent prior to discharge. As stated in the Economic Analysis, the use of
995
-------
coarse filters is already recommended by the Codex Alimentarius.
One commenter suggested that EPA include a minimum tolerance level for fish hold effluent that
can be discharged at the pier (e.g. 1,000 gallons or less) beyond which a physical separation
method must be required. Physical separation must only be used if large solid pieces of fish
waste are contained in the fish hold effluent. If there are no large solid pieces (e.g., fish are
caught whole and put on ice), physical separation may not be needed. EPA disagrees with the
commenter that there should be a de minimus exemption based on volume of water in the hold.
EPA's goal is to reduce fish solids being discharged, and the volume of solids may not directly
correlate to the size of the fish hold. For example, some vessels could have fish holds containing
1,000 gallons of water and only a few, if any, solids larger than Vi inch, while other vessels that
remove fish heads and organs on board may have minimal amounts of water in the fish hold but
large amounts of solids greater than Vi inch. When large solid pieces are present, allowing a
minimum tolerance level that can be discharged without physical separation based on volume
would undermine EPA's intent of minimizing the amount of large fish solids discharged while at
the pier.
As discussed above, several commenters requested that EPA specifically define what size filter
would constitute a coarse filter. EPA agrees with the commenters, and based on suggestions from
comments, has added language to the VGP that specifically states that course screens and
screened hose should have sizes Vi inch or smaller to remove solids such as fish heads and
organs. The VGP does not require vessel operators who already have installed and who are using
a filter to replace that filter. EPA believes, however, that use of a coarse filter is an example of
best marine practice, and that vessel owner/operators already should have installed, used, and
should continue using such a filter. The comments do not provide specific recommendations for
a minimum filter size, the use of which represents a best practice. Based on commenters
recommendations, EPA established that the vessel operator may select filter sizes that are
appropriate for use in their operations that are Vi inch or less. More sophisticated filtration
methods may be used, but are not required in this permit.
In response to concerns regarding the feasibility of filtration for vessels that use re-circulating
seawater tanks to keep their catch alive, the VGP was revised to clarify these vessels are not
required to meet the conditions identified by commenters as threatening their ability to keep that
catch alive.
Commenters noted that strong tidal flushing of some bays may significantly decrease the adverse
environmental impacts of fish hold effluent while in nearshore waters. Although tidal flushing
and many other environmental circumstantial factors affect the degree to which fish hold effluent
causes an adverse environmental impact, those effects cannot be easily quantified. The VGP
requires that all reasonable steps be taken to prevent the discharge of excess fish hold effluent in
all near-shore waters as this is a reasonable management practice to reduce the discharge of
pollutants. Additionally, EPA notes that the fish hold requirements of the permit are technology-
based effluent limits (TBELs) that are designed to reduce pollutant discharges. EPA did not
consider factors such as tidal flushing when developing limits based on the capacity of
technology.
996
-------
Fish Hold Cleaning
The Fishing Vessel Owners Association and the United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters expressed
concern regarding the safety hazards posed by cleaning fish holds away from shore. This permit
does not require vessels to undertake any activity that may create a safety hazard. The cleaning
of fish holds while pierside is allowed, as long as detergents and cleaners are non-toxic,
phosphate free, and biodegradable(see Part 5.1.1.1.3 of the VGP), and residual solids are not
washed into the surrounding waters.
Discharge of Unused Bait
Several commenters requested clarification of whether the prohibition on the discard of unused
bait applied only to live bait. The movement of live bait between watersheds has been identified
as a mechanism to introduce potentially invasive bait fish species to new habitats. For example,
two major invasions to the San Francisco Bay - the European green crab (Carcinus maenas) and
the rough periwinkle snale (Littorina saxatilis) are thought to have been introduced by live bait
releases. EPA has inserted the word "live" before the word "bait" to clarify that the permit
prohibits only the discharge of unused live bait that is not caught from the same watershed. The
discharge of bait into the water during use (i.e. fishing), whether that bait is alive or dead, is not
prohibited by the permit. EPA understands that bait loss will occur during fishing, but seeks to
prevent unnecessary discharge of bait outside of the fishing process.
Although commenters pointed out that the discharge of unused bait has the same environmental
impact as the loss of bait during use, which is not prohibited, EPA notes that the loss of live bait
in use (which would remain living) is expected to be generally rare. Furthermore, the loss of live
bait in use is likely not readily preventable whereas the discharge of unused live bait would be.
The Agency maintains the position that the discharge of unused, live bait should be prohibited
unless it is caught from the same watershed.
Commenters requested that the total prohibition on discharging unused bait purchased at bait
shops be modified to take into account bait that was caught in the same waterbody into which it
would be discharged. EPA has revised the permit to indicate that both live and dead bait may be
discharged into the same waterbody or watershed in which it was caught, regardless of whether it
was caught by the fishing vessel or by a bait dealer. The permit requires that unused live bait
purchased from a bait shop or dealer may not be discharged overboard unless the vessel operator
has documentation from the dealer that the bait was caught in that waterbody. A number of
States, both inland and coastal, including Kansas1, Maine2, New Hampshire3, New York4, and
1 Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, Aquatic Nuisance Species Laws and Regulations,
http://www.kdwpt.state.ks.us/news/Fishing/Aquatic-Nuisance-Species/Aquatic-Nuisance-Species-Laws-and-
Regulations.
2 Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Laws Pertaining to Bait Dealers and Use of Live Bait.
http://www.maine.gov/ifw/fishing/baitdealers.htm.
3 New Hampshire Fish and Game, Approved Bait Fish Species: Possession, Importation and Release.
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Fishing/baitfish_species.htm.
4 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Bait Fish of New York State, How to Identify and
Legally Use Them In Our Fresh Waters and the Hudson River.
http://www.dec.nv.gov/docs/fish marine pdf/baitfishofnv.pdf.
997
-------
Vermonf already require the use of certified bait fish and require that bait shop customers carry
receipts verifying the live bait was purchased from a State licensed bait supplier. In the VGP fact
sheet, EPA also discourages the release dead bait if purchased from a bait shop if it is not readily
apparent that the bait came from that watershed. Hence, though not prohibited by the permit,
EPA generally discourages vessel owner/operators from discharging unused dead bait that has
been purchased from bait shops unless the vessel owner/operator can document the bait came
from the same watershed. The term "waterbody," refers to a lake, river segment, or proximate
area of ocean. For purposes of these permits, the entire Pacific Ocean should not be considered
one waterbody, but regions of an ocean where the ecosystem and species found are similar could
be regarded as part of the same waterbody.
Finally, some commenters indicated the permit prohibits discharging unused bait from fish holds,
but not bait holds. For purposes of the VGP, however, the discharge of unused live bait from a
bait hold and a fish hold are indistinguishable. Though EPA believes the practice should be
generally avoided, EPA agrees with the commenter that "used" bait from fish (or bait) holds
could be discarded into waters subject to the permit, as long as the used bait taken from the fish
(or bait) hold is dead. Any unused live bait remaining in the fish (or bait) hold can only be
discharged if it was obtained from the same water body; any discharge of live bait from a fish (or
bait) hold from a different water body would be a permit violation.
Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold Cleaning Wastewater Discharge Report
EPA received a number of comments on the Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold Cleaning
Wastewater Discharge Report, a supporting document. Additionally, some commenters noted
they made comments on EPA's 2010 Report to Congress on the Study of Discharges Incidental
to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non-Recreational Vessels Less
than 79 Feet. EPA appreciates the time taken to read and analyze the Reports, and has taken all
of the comments into account in the context of the VGP. EPA considered public comments
before finalization of the 2010 Report to Congress in that separate action and EPA's responses
can be found in Appendix H of that document.
Other Fish Hold Related Definitions
The definitions for "minimize" and "in port" can be found in Appendix A of the VGP. Please see
section 6.4 of this comment response document for discussion of "in port". Please also see
section 9.1 of this comment response document and the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-
2011-0141-0819-A1, excerpt 11 for discussion regarding the definition of ballast water and fish
holds. Some commenters noted that EPA should define "fish waste," "residuals," and "physical
separation," in the permit itself. However, EPA notes that the commenters did not provide
specific language for these definitions absent conventional or uniformly used defintions. In order
to further characterize these terms, EPA has revised the VGP to state "if large solid pieces of fish
waste are contained in the fish hold effluent (e.g., fish heads and internal organs) the fish hold
effluent may not be discharged while the vessel is pier-side unless a physical separation method
is used (e.g., Vi inch or less coarse screens, a screened hose having Vi inch screen openings or
less, filters, or other methods to remove large solids)." Based on these comments, EPA modified
the VGP to provide clarity to the applicability and objectives of these requirements. The goals of
5 Vermont Fish and Wildlife, 2013 Baitfish Regulation Changes.
http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/librarv/Factsheets/Fishing/2013 baitfish rule.pdf.
998
-------
these requirements are to remove large solids such as fish heads and internal organs that would
not pass through a Vi inch coarse screen prior to discharge. This permit requirement is not
intended to remove liquids such as blood, fish slime and fish oils since these items would pass
through a Vi inch coarse screen.
Comment: 2.2.27 Fish Hold Effluent
We take issue with this section due to what appears to be contradictory language along with the
overall difficulty of complying with this requirement in Alaska specifically. The first paragraph
states that fish hold effluent should not be discharged while stationary at a pier or in port but then
implies that it can be discharged if a physical separation method such as a filter is used.
The permit language should further describe 'economically achievable' with regard to the
requirement that the effluent be discharged to a processor that is permitted for either process
waste or sewage. If infrastructure is absent for pumping fish hold effluent as is common in many
locations, how much capital expense would be required to meet the standard for what is
economically achievable? The implication here is that permitted processing facilities would be
forced to receive fish hold effluent.
During peak season for salmon in Alaska, as many as 200 vessels may be lined up each day to
unload the catch at a seafood processing facility over a two-week or so season. Timing is critical
to avoid fish spoilage and for the fishermen to return to fishing due to quotas and season dates.
The time required to remove all fish hold effluent, ice or ice melt water from multiple fish holds
would be prohibitive.
While waiting to unload, the vessel's RSW tanks are circulating continuously or the catch is
buried in layers of ice. If the processor has the equipment to pump the fish using seawater, the
water is either recirculated to serve as pumping water or it is routed with the fish through the
process line and discharged with the fish process waste per the facility's APDES permit. Many
shore-based seafood processors do not have the equipment to pump fish from a vessel's RSW
tanks into the plant and route the hold water to the permitted outfall discharge line. And many
vessels in the fishing fleet lack RSW tanks.
If the vessel does not have RSW tanks each fish hold is emptied manually by hand (pitching) and
the ice is removed via shovel to access the catch. There are limited options and best management
practices on how to handle the crushed ice. Any remaining water or ice left in the hold is then
flushed and rinsed after the vessel departs the unloading area to make room for the next vessel
and return to fishing. From our experience, flushing does not generally occur until the vessel is
away from the port or pier and returning to open water to fish. In the winter and cooler months,
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Anonymous Public Comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1
10
No
999
-------
the ice does not melt and can pose a safety hazard if stockpiled on the wharf which is generally
the only area available.
Infrastructure is absent in nearly every Alaska seafood unloading hub for discharge of fish hold
effluent to a municipal wastewater treatment system. It is also highly unlikely that the current
seafood processor's permitted sewage treatment systems (Category 1) could handle the increased
volumes during fishing season. The design capacity of these systems would very rarely include
treating fish handling water from vessels.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Ken Franke, Sportfishing Association of California
Commenter Affiliation: Sportfishing Association of California
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0503
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: This section states "The discharge of unused bait overboard is prohibited, unless you
caught that bait in the same water body or watershed. Unused bait purchased from a bait shop or
dealer may not be discharged overboard."
Our fleet is the largest live bait coastal fishing fleet in the world. These vessels discharge unused
live bait and some of the dead bait in the bottom of the bait tanks, prior to entering the harbor at
the end of a day. At times this is a large amount of live bait. It is caught from the local watershed
and is in compliance with the first sentence of the regulation, but because it is purchased from a
live bait "dealer" it would be a violation of the second sentence. Removing the bait to be in
compliance of this section would require letting the bait die in the tanks, then scooping it out by
hand, and then taking it to a dumpster thus creating a smelly and unsanitary situation in the
tourism center of our harbors. We recommend this section be removed. From an ecological
standpoint the lobsters and crabs and coastal fish naturally feed of these bait fish.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.5 of this comment response document.
Based on this and other comments, EPA has clarified that the prohibition of unused bait applies
only to unused live bait not caught in the same watershed. The permit also allows unused live
bait sold at a dealer to be discharged overboard, provided the permittee can document the origin
of the bait and that it came from the same waterbody. Due to the risk posed by the live bait in
introducing invasive species when that bait comes from other waterbodies, EPA has prohibited
the release of unused live bait in this permit. EPA advises that permittees should either seek live
bait from the same waterbody, use all of the bait they bring on a given day, save the bait for the
next fishing trip, or make arrangements to kill the residual live bait if it does not come from the
same waterbody.
Commenter Name: Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
1000
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
19
No
Comment: 12. Fish Hold Effluent (Draft VGP Part 2.2.27).
The Draft VGP states that vessel owner/operators "must minimize the discharge of fish hold
water and/or ice while in port. All reasonable steps must be taken to prevent the discharge of
excess fish hold water and ice while the vessel is stationary at the pier. If fish waste is contained
in the fish hold effluent, the fish hold effluent may not be discharged while in port, unless a
physical separation method is used (e.g., filters or removal of residuals)." In addition, the
"discharge of fish hold effluent (including dirty ice) is prohibited if you are unloading your catch
at a land-based seafood processing facility or pier," unless an acceptable shore-based discharge
facility is otherwise available. Draft VGP at pp. 53-54.
The Commenters note that there are elements of this Part that are problematic for both our
vessels and the fishing industry in general. For example, the Draft VGP does not define
"minimize the discharge" or "reasonable steps." As such, it is unclear what measures vessels
must undertake regarding the discharge of fish hold water and ice. In addition, the Draft VGP
does not define "fish waste" and "residuals." The terms "fish waste" and "residuals" can be
construed to include solids, such as scales, skin, shell, and other larger particulates. However, the
terms could also be interpreted to include liquids, such as blood, fish slime, and fish oils.
Without clarity regarding these definitions, it is impossible to comply with the requirements of
this Part.
Likewise, the Draft VGP does not define what "physical separation method" should be used. To
some extent, this process will be dictated by the definition of "fish waste" and residuals."
However, the Commenters note that it is not economically and technologically feasible to
separate small particles and liquid wastes from fish hold effluent prior to discharge. If, as
suggested in the Fact Sheet at p. 149, coarse strainers are sufficient, EPA should include
that clarification in the permit and specify what size strainers are appropriate. This clarification is
also important because some vessels offload their catch to tenders (such activities may fall within
the definition of "in port") and would have limited access to supplemental shore-based
processing or treatment facilities. In addition, vessels transporting live catch use a recirculating
seawater system to maintain their catch. It will be impossible for these vessels to comply with an
overly restrictive separation method or discharge prohibition while in port (which is broadly
defined to include being anchored or secured within the territorial sea) and maintain the viability
and quality of their catch.
The Commenters request that EPA provide definitions of "minimize," "reasonable steps," "fish
waste," "physical separation method" (and whether coarse straining is sufficient), and "residuals"
for purposes of this permit that are workable and not unduly burdensome for the fishing industry.
EPA should also clarify the distinction between being "in port" and "at the pier" for compliance
purposes. Finally, EPA should address how fish hold water for live catch and effluent discharges
at piers should be handled.
1001
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: Fish Hold Effluent (sVGP page 7 section 2.8 & VGP section 2.2.27): This section is
particularly burdensome and worrisome to the commercial fishing industry. For illustrative
purposes we will use section 2.8 of the sVGP to work our way through this issue but it is also
germane to the VGP fish hold effluent section.
(a) If you are unloading your catch at a shore based seafood processor or other pier and a shore-
based discharge facility is available and economically achievable, you must discharge your
effluent (including dirty ice) to that shore-based facility instead of discharging to surrounding
waters. What is the standard of "economically achievable"? UFA believes that EPA doesn't
understand that trying to unload dirty ice to a shore-based facility is extremely burdensome to the
processor, slows down unloading of fish and the only thing you have gained is filter out fish
parts larger than Vi" grind.
(b) Do not discard any unused bait overboard, unless you caught that bait in that waterbody or
watershed. Unused bait purchased from a bait shop or dealer may not be discharged overboard.
This section does not make any sense. What is the definition of waterbody or watershed? How
far away can fresh bait harvested be used? Bait that is purchased is usually the same bait as could
be harvested by the individual or harvested in an earlier season and frozen but the fishery
resource is from the local waterbody/watershed. In the proposed Small Vessel General Permit
Fact Sheet page 30 & 31 it states that "prohibiting the discard of unused bait, . . . will prevent the
spread or dispersal of potentially invasive species if the bait are invasive species or are
contaminated with invasive pathogens." What logic prevents unused bait from being discarded in
the waters you were fishing in, as any different than the bait you used on the hooks or in the pots
etc. that end up in the same waters?
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
1002
-------
Comment: Recommendations: Provide an exemption for ambient seawater circulating through
crustacean tanks to keep the species alive. Define "fish waste", "residuals" and "physical
separation" or clarify that solid fish parts larger than V2" must be separated from the fish hold
effluent. This is a simple solution that allows the use of screens when pumping overboard the
effluent. Please reference the comments submitted by Alaska State Legislators, joint comments
by At-Sea Processors Association & Freezer Longline Coalition, West Coast Seafood Processors
Association and Alaska Groundfish Data Bank on the issue of Fish hold effluent for additional
details, and descriptions and recommendations on this point source.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trailers
Association (ATA)
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trailers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0509-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: The troll fleet is 87% Alaska resident and a large percentage of permit holders live
in small, rural communities. The third largest town in Alaska - and biggest in our region - is
Juneau with a population of less than 30,000. Many Alaska troll ports do not have sewers or the
infrastructure and services to cope with such things as receiving used ice from fishing vessels.
Even the larger towns would be hard pressed to provide such support.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.5 of this comment response document..
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michelle Bonnett, Director, Division of Water, Water
Quality Section, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0534- A2
7
No
Comment: 2.2.27- Fish Hold Effluent
The draft VGP Fact Sheet section 4.4.27 states "this permit prohibits discarding unused bait
overboard, unless the bait was caught in that water body or watershed. This will prevent the
spread or dispersal of potentially invasive species if the bait are invasive species or are
contaminated with invasive pathogens."
Please specify if this is live bait only. If this also applies to frozen bait, the Department questions
the environmental benefit gained from this provision. First, bait used in the fishing process is
dead and cannot propagate. Discarding unused dead bait overboard has little potential to spread
or disperse invasive species, particularly if that bait has been frozen. Second, since the bait is
1003
-------
placed in the waterbodies during fishing operations, it is not clear why that action would not
spread invasive species but discarding used bait would. Additionally, unused bait is often stored
in bait holds and not fish holds. The permit prohibits discarding unused bait from fish holds, but
not bait holds. Bait held in fish holds is often landed with fish from the ocean and is "used" bait,
and therefore should be able to be discarded in compliance with the permit.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Beth Moore, General Permit Coordinator, Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0537-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.27 Fish Hold Effluent
You must minimize the discharge of fish hold water and/or ice while in port. All reasonable steps
must be taken to prevent the discharge of excess fish hold water and ice while the vessel is
stationary at the pier. If fish waste is contained in the fish hold effluent, the fish hold effluent
may not be discharged while in port, unless a physical separation method is used (e.g., filters or
removal of residuals).
• The discharge of fish hold effluent (including dirty ice) is prohibited if you are unloading
your catch at a land-based seafood processing facility or pier. If a shore-based discharge
facility is otherwise available to receive your effluent, then discharge of fish hold effluent
(including dirty ice) is prohibited if the facility meets the following:
- Its use is economically achievable, and
- The facility has a valid NPDES permit, or
- That facility discharges to an NPDES-permitted sewage treatment facility.
• The discharge of unused bait overboard is prohibited, unless you caught that bait in the
same water body or watershed. Unused bait purchased from a bait shop or dealer may not
be discharged overboard.
DEQ's Comment: Part 2.2.27 should explain what is allowed, as well as, what is prohibited.
Change the second sentence in the first bullet to read: Discharge to a shore-based discharge
facility is required if the facility meets the following:
• Its use is economically achievable, and
• The facility has a valid NPDES permit, or
• That facility discharges to an NPDES-permitted sewage treatment facility.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
1004
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574- A2
11
No
Comment: 2.2.27 Fish Hold Effluent
The EPA would prevent the discharge overboard of any unused bait unless caught "in that water
body." For ocean waters, how is "waterbody" defined? The impacts of this are potentially
enormous; consider that New Jersey fisheries harvesting squid, Atlantic herring, Atlantic
mackerel and Atlantic menhaden, to varying degrees, are often frozen and shipped all over the
United States for use as bait and chum (macerated fish). Is it the intent of the EPA to prohibit and
chum from New Jersey entering a "waterbody" in the Gulf of Mexico? The reliance upon our
bait products is essential to commercial and recreational fisheries all over the United States. We
suggest that subsection (b) is an inappropriate standard for commercial fishing in the ocean and
that it be deleted.
The Agency also stipulates that fish hold effluent containing solid fish waste not be discharged
while in port. First, we note that the definition of "in port" includes being anchored in internal
waters, a matter that we will comment on below. Second, we note that "solid fish waste" is a
vague term which could include such things as scales, bits of skin, and other small - but solid -
particles that are often dislodged from fish being kept in a fish hold.
Finally, we suggest that this provision is impossible for any vessel using a refrigerated seawater
system to meet. Refrigerated seawater systems are found on vessels both over and under the
arbitrary 79 foot cutoff proposed in these permits, including vessels in many of our pelagic
fisheries including loligo squid, illex squid, Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel. Furthermore
offshore lobster fisheries keep their product alive by the use of refrigerated seawater. In addition,
our gillnet fisheries routinely hold many different species in a large container of ice slurry on
deck, to maintain product quality. Vessels in these fisheries often need to wait at a dock before
their catch can be unloaded. There is no feasible method to filter the water in their fish holds, nor
is it feasible to turn off the recirculation system as that will mean loss of the fish hold contents
due to either lack of oxygenated water or temperature increases which destroy the quality of the
fish. For the ice slurry mixture, what would a vessel do with that after the fish has been
removed? We suggest this subsection be eliminated.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.5 of this comment response document.
Additionally, the VGP has been revised to prohibit the discharge of unused live bait not caught
in the same waterbody. Frozen bait is not live so the provision would not prevent or otherwise
affect the use of frozen chum. If the bait were "live", however, the Gulf of Mexico and the
Atlantic Ocean off the coast of New Jersey would not represent separate water bodies.
Therefore, unused live bait transported between these waterbodies could not be discharged.
Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director, California
Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
1005
-------
Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.27 Fish Hold Effluent (p. 53)
CWPA members offload fish products at pier-side operations whereby both fishery products and
seawater are pumped into the shore-side facility. However, there is ultimately some minor
discharge of fish hold effluent into the surrounding waters. We recommend the EPA provide a
minimum tolerance level for fish hold effluent that can be discharged at the pier (e.g. 1,000
gallons or less) beyond which a physical separation method must be required.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Brent Paine, Executive Director, United Catcher Boats
(UCB) and Glenn Reed, President, Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
United Catcher Boats (UCB) and Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0630-A2
10
No
Comment: 2.2.27 Fish Hold, Effluent
• We do not agree that the discharge of fish hold effluent should be prohibited if a shore-based
discharge facility is otherwise available.
While it is true that many commercial fishing vessels deliver to shore-side processing
facilities that may have the requisite discharge facility, the infrastructure to collect fish hold
effluent for discharge into such a facility is not available. In addition, there are operational
limitations; after unloading their catch, commercial fishing vessels move away from the
unloading dock as soon as possible to make room for the next delivering vessel, clean their
fish holds and prepare for their next trip. The installation of the infrastructure to collect fish
hold effluent for discharge in the shore-side facility is economically infeasible under these
circumstances.
In addition, a distinction needs to be made, and an exemption provided, for re-circulating
seawater tanks often used to keep live catch. Such systems are constantly circulating fresh
salt water into the fish hold and discharging old water to keep the catch healthy and robust.
Shutting these systems down upon entering the waters covered by the VGP would result in
lost catch and may raise food safety concerns.
• We suggest that the capacity of a shoreside facility to handle fish hold effluent discharge
should be one of the factors in determining when such facilities should be used.
1006
-------
While many processing facilities in Alaska have wastewater treatment facilities, they may
not have the capacity to effectively take on the load of fish hold effluent. Expansion of these
facilities in the remote locations of most Alaskan processing plants would be economically
and possibly technically infeasible.
• We believe the VGP should recognize that the impact of fish hold effluent discharge is
subject to the degree of tidal flushing that occurs in the waterbody to which the discharge is
introduced.
Many of the fishing ports in Alaska are subject to high degrees of tidal flushing which render
the impact of fish hold effluent discharge practically nonexistent.
• We do not agree that the discharge of unused bait should be prohibited.
There is no difference between unused bait and used bait. Bait that has been used in a fishery
has been by the very practice introduced to the waters being fished. The discharge of unused
bait is not therefore some new and distinct vector for the introduction of pollutants into the
waters covered by the VGP. This prohibition should be dropped from the VGP.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section
Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology (ECY)
Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECY)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0794- A2
9
Yes
Comment: 2.2.27 - Section 2.8 in the sVGP is better written. Consider borrowing from the
sVGP language.
2.2.27, second bullet - This does not belong in the Fish Hold Effluent section. Move 2.2.27,
second bullet into its own section or change the section title.
2.2.27, second bullet, first sentence - Add "live" just before "bait."
2.2.27, second bullet - Add a third sentence: "Dead unused bait may not be discharged in
confined or nearshore waters."
2.2.27 - Add: "Any pierside discharge resulting in visible solids, foam, or sheen is a violation of
water quality standards and this permit. If onshore disposal is unavailable, permittees must plan
for discharge in open water while underway."
1007
-------
2.2.27 - Should exempt water from crabbers that is pumped through holding tanks for the sole
purpose of keeping the catch alive and then is immediately discharged.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.5 of this comment response document.
In response to this comment regarding the language from the sVGP being used in the VGP,
EPA compared the language in the Fish Hold Effluent sections to determine if one permit was
better than the other. After considering comments on this permit and reviewing the proposed
sVGP, EPA has modified Part 2.2.27 of the VGP.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: 1. Fish Hold Effluent (sVGP page 7 section 2.8 and VGP section 2.2.27). We refer
you to the UFA concerns for dirty ice and unused bait.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: 5. Our vessels must have the ability to wash and sanitize our fish holds between trips
otherwise we are going to have bacteria problems in the fish holds. Washing fish holds with
approved detergents in harbors or protected areas should be permitted. Forcing a vessel to clean
their fish holds outside 3 miles can be a safety hazard for the vessel and crew.
6. When a vessel uses refrigerated seawater in the fish hold, this water must be discharged at the
dock in order to get the product safely ashore. Not allowing this discharge unless you are outside
three miles will create "free surface" stability problems for the vessel and reduce the quality of
the product delivered. Fish holds that are tanked for water should not be restricted in pumping
the fish hold down in order to offload fish or crabs.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.5 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
1008
-------
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
11
Yes
Comment: Fish Hold Effluent fsVGP page 7 section 2.8 & VGP section 2.2.27): This section is
particularly burdensome and worrisome to the commercial fishing industry. For illustrative
purposes we will use section 2.8 of the sVGP to work our way through this issue but it is also
germane to the VGP fish hold effluent section.
(a) If you are unloading your catch at a shore based seafood processor or other pier and a shore-
based discharge facility is available and economically achievable, you must discharge your
effluent (including dirty ice) to that shore-based facility instead of discharging to surrounding
waters. What is the standard of "economically achievable"? UFA believes that EPA doesn't
understand that trying to unload dirty ice to a shore-based facility is extremely burdensome to the
processor, slows down unloading of fish and the only thing you have gained is filter out fish
parts larger than V^'grind.
(b) Do not discard any unused bait overboard, unless vou caught that bait in that waterbody or
watershed. Unused bait purchased from a bait shop or dealer may not be discharged overboard.
This section does not make any sense. What is the definition of waterbody or watershed? How
far away can fresh bait harvested be used? Bait that is purchased is usually the same bait as could
be harvested by the individual or harvested in an earlier season and frozen but the fishery
resource is from the local waterbody/watershed. In the proposed Small Vessel General Permit
Fact Sheet page 30 &31 it states that "prohibiting the discard of unused bait, ... will prevent the
spread or dispersal of potentially invasive species if the bait are invasive species or are
contaminated with invasive pathogens." What logic prevents unused bait from being discarded in
the waters you were fishing in, as any different than the bait you used on the hooks or in the pots
etc. that end up in the same waters?
(c) Minimize the discharge of fish hold water or ice while in port. The definition of "in port" is
problematic in this section since any vessel anchored is considered in port. This would affect the
fishing vessels selling/transferring product to tenders on the grounds. Many fisheries offload
using a pump where the seawater is separated from the fish and pumped over the side. What
about shellfish harvesters that are continuously circulating ambient saltwater to keep the species
alive.
Recommendations: Provide an exemption for ambient seawater circulating through crustacean
tanks to keep the species alive. Define "fish waste", "residuals" and "physical separation" or
clarify that solid fish parts larger than Vi" must be separated from the fish hold effluent. This is a
simple solution that allows the use of screens when pumping overboard the effluent. Please
reference the comments submitted by Alaska State Legislators, joint comments by At-Sea
Processors Association & Freezer Longline Coalition, West Coast Seafood Processors
Association and Alaska Groundfish Data Bank on the issue of Fish hold effluent for additional
details, and descriptions and recommendations on this point source.
Definitions: The USCG defines ballast water in 33, CFR 151.1504 in relation to vessel stability.
The definition refers to "water and suspended matter taken on board a vessel to control or
1009
-------
maintain, trim, draught,stability, or stresses of the vessel" Additional clarity can be found in
USCG NVIC Circular 07-04 Change 1 (Oct 29, 2004) which states that ballast tanks filled with
fresh water from municipal or commercial water supplies do not count as ballast water. Nor do
tanks that are permanently ballasted (with the exception of being emptied for dry docking or
hauling out). NVIC07-04 reiterates that ballast water is related to water taken on board for trim
or stability.
We recommend that EPA make it explicitly clear that water taken onboard a commercial fishing
vessel in a fish hold for purposes of fishing and tendering (fish and shellfish) is not defined as
ballast water. It should be made clear that a fish hold is not a ballast tank - regardless of whether
the fish hold is greater than 8 cubic meters or not.
We also recommend that EPA make it clear that vessels with ballast water capacity (greater than
8 cubic meters) that have designated ballast tanks that are either filled with potable water or
permanently filled (with the exception of dry docking), are not defined as ballast water. This is
consistent with the USCG regulations and guidance.
Additionally, the threshold of 8 cubic meters is not the handiest unit of measure for commercial
fishing vessels. That translates to 2113 gallons = 283 cu ft = or a ballast tank that measures
slightly over 6.5' X 6.5' feet X 6.5' feet. EPA should provide units of measure more commonly
used on vessels than cubic meters.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 9.5 of this comment response document.
Additionally, in regards to the definition of ballast water and fish hold tanks, ballast water and
ballast water tanks are defined in Part 7 of the VGP. Please see Part 7 of the permit for this
definition. EPA notes that ballast water means "any water or suspended matter taken onboard to
control or maintain trim, draughts, stability, or stresses of the vessel." Ballast tanks means "any
tank or hold used for carrying ballast water, rather or not designed for that purpose." These
definitions are consistent with U.S. Coast Guard regulations as to what constitutes a ballast tank.
A fish hold that is used only "for purposes of fishing and tendering" and is not used to "control or
maintain trim, draughts, stability, or stresses of the vessel" would not be a ballast tank, and
therefore, not subject to the ballast water requirements of the VGP. However, any fish hold used
to carry "ballast water" (e.g., water taken onboard to maintain trim and stability on a voyage
from San Diego to Anchorage) would be considered a ballast tank for purposes of the VGP, and
must meet the requirements of 2.2.3 of the Permit. Please also see the response to comment
0141-0819-A1 excerpt 32 for further discussion of the definition of fish hold.
9.6 Oil-to-Sea Interfaces
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Chamber of Shipping of America
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
41
No
1010
-------
Comment: Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and Other Oil-to-Sea
Interfaces (stern tubes, thruster bearings, stabilizers, rudder bearing, azimuth thrusters,
propulsion pod lubrication, and wire rope) (Section 2.2.9, pgs. 43 - 44): There are two primary
comments we offer for EPA's consideration here. First, the term "environmentally acceptable"
needs more clarity than simply defining it as lubricants that are "biodegradable" and "non-toxic"
and are not "bioaccumulative". While we appreciate the inclusion of the various labeling
programs included in the definition found at Appendix A, these "approved" products are not
available in all locations. Second, the determination concerning environmental acceptability
taking into account technical feasibility are based on representations made by equipment
manufacturers and lubricant suppliers. In this respect, manufacturers of equipment typically
create a list of lubricants suitable for use in their equipment and these may not include
environmentally acceptable lubricants (EALs). While our members attempt to use EALs where
possible, we do know of cases where an equipment manufacturer will not honor its warranty if
the vessel owner chooses to use a lubricant (EAL or not) that is not on their list of approved
lubricants. This places the vessel owner in the untenable position of either meeting the
requirements contained in the proposed VGP, or voiding its warranty on very expensive pieces
of equipment. In this respect we would recommend retention of text from the first VGP that
urges use of EALs where technically and economically feasible on both new and existing
vessels.
Response: In response to this comment and other similar comments, EPA modified the
definitions and added more specific criteria for "biodegradable," "minimally toxic," and "not
bio accumulative" (see Appendix A in the permit). Please see the response to comment EPA-
HQ-OW-2011-0141-0499-A1, excerpt 1 for more information.
EPA acknowledges that the mandatory requirement to use such products may not be attainable
in all cases for vessels, particularly for existing vessels. Specifically, EPA believes use of these
products might be problematic when there is existing equipment for which no compatible
products are currently available. Therefore, EPA amended the final permit to specify that all
vessels must use an EAL in all oil to sea interfaces, unless technically infeasible. Based on
public comment received, EPA added the "unless technically infeasible" provision for new
vessel owner/operators to account for those instances in which technical limitations may
prevent use of an EAL in an oil-to-sea interface. However, EPA expects that it will be
technically feasible for a significant portion of vessel operators to use EALs, particularly for
new build vessels during this permit term. Numerous comments submitted by the public,
including manufacturers of these products, note that the products are currently available that
would meet VGP requirements for oil-to-sea interfaces. Additionally, EPA has determined that
it is economically practicable and achievable for new build vessels and most existing vessels to
use these products, and the technical infeasibility provisions are tied to availability and
compatibility of the products for use in all vessel oil-to-sea interfaces. Additionally, EPA does
not think it economically practicable and achievable for existing vessels to be made to retrofit
their equipment exclusively so they can use an EAL product in lieu of a traditional oil.
For all vessels, the final permit requires the use of EALs unless technically infeasible. Based on
this and other comments requesting a definition of what constitutes "technically
1011
-------
infeasible," EPA has defined that term, in the context of EALs, to mean: "no EAL products are
approved for use in a given application that meet manufacturer specifications for that
equipment; products which come pre- lubricated (e.g., wire ropes) have no available
alternatives manufactured with EALs; or products meeting a manufacturers specifications are
not available within any port in which the vessel calls or change over, and use of an EAL must
wait until the vessel's next drydocking." Hence, if the use of an EAL is not approved for a
given piece of existing equipment, its use would not be technically feasible. However, for new
build vessel operators, equipment can be selected for which EALs are available for many
applications. Therefore, the permit does not require use of any EALs in cases which would void
equipment warranties.
EPA believes that the definition of technical infeasibility in the context of EALs addresses the
commenters concerns. In developing these EAL requirements for existing vessels, EPA
considered that if the performance of EALs does not meet the needs of existing equipment
onboard existing vessels, the cost of substituting new equipment might be substantial. However,
because many existing vessels can use EALs which are compatible with their existing
equipment, it is technically feasible for many existing vessels to use EALs, but it might not be
technically feasible for some existing vessels to use EALs with existing equipment. For these
vessels, EPA does not believe it is economically achievable to require those vessels to install
new equipment so that they can use these more environmentally friendly lubricants. As
discussed above, using similar reasoning, EPA believes the use of EALs for most oil to sea
interfaces for all new build vessels it is less likely to be technically infeasible and would be
economically practicable and achievable. New build vessels can select equipment during design
and construction which is compatible with EALs for most oil-to-sea applications. Furthermore,
vessel owner/operators can design additional onboard storage area for EALs if they choose to
use traditional mineral based oil for engine lubrication (thereby needing two types of oils on-
hand). Extra storage area needed would be minor. Nonetheless, in the event specific vessel oil-
to-sea applications do not allow for use of EALs (e.g., propulsion pods, thrusters classed for
dynamic positioning; azimuthing thrusters; please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-
2011-0141-0514-A1, excerpt 1), EPA has included a "unless technically infeasible" provision.
Hence, there may be specific oil-to-sea applications for which use EALs is not technically
feasible, but EPA expects to see most new build vessels using EALs in the bulk of their oil-to-
sea applications. Failure to use an EAL when it is technically feasible to do so would be a
permit violation.
Note that if a vessel is unable to use an EAL, the owner/operator must document in their records
consistent with Part 4.2 of the permit, including an explanation of the owner/operator's inability
to do so, and must report the use of a non-environmentally acceptable lubricant to EPA in the
annual report. For further discussion on documentation, see Part 4.4.9 of the factsheet.
Finally, EPA has determined that the use of EALs is economically achievable. While the
operating costs for ship-owners using EALs could potentially increase modestly relative to
conventional products, there can be efficiency gains from longer life, reduced corrosive
properties, and enhanced performance in terms of reduced water contamination. See the EPA's
Economics and Benefits Analysis of the 2013 VGP for additional information
In response to this and other comments, EPA has revised Part 2.2.9 for both existing and new
vessels, consistent with the discussion above.
1012
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
10
No
Comment: Section 2.2.9 - Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and Other
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces Including Lubrication Discharges from Paddle Wheel Propulsion, stem
Tubes. Thruster Bearings. Stabilizers. Rudder Bearings. Azimuth Thrusters. Propulsion Pod
Lubrication, and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment Subject to Immersion - the requirement
of having wire rope with lubrication be wiped down to remove excess lubricant is a safety
concern and should be revised. Although this requirement is in the current permit version, it
should be eliminated from future versions as it creates a safety concern. Operationally, figuring
out how much wiping of wire ropes and machinery is required is difficult, and additionally, it
presents a degree of danger to the operators of the vessels.
Response: In response to this and other comments, EPA has revised the final permit to
explicitly include a safety provision for the wiping down of wire ropes. The final permit retains
the requirement that before being placed in service, and after periodic lubrication, wire ropes or
cables and other equipment must be thoroughly wiped down to remove excess lubricant.
However, the final permit clarifies that this is not required if doing so is deemed unsafe by the
Master of the vessel.
Commenter Name: Christian LaPense, Dann Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation: Dann Marine Towing
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Late Comment? No
Comment: c. Oil-to-Sea Interface Requirements
Dann Marine Towing encourages EPA to revise a requirement of Part 2.2.9 of the proposed
permit, which, although it has not been altered from the current VGP, has proven problematic.
The relevant part provides, "After applying lubrication to wire rope and mechanical equipment
subject to immersion, wire ropes, and other equipment must be thoroughly wiped down to
remove excess lubricant." Dann Marine Towing has serious concerns about the safety of this
requirement. Tow wires are very large, heavy cables greater than two inches in diameter that are
controlled by a winch fitted with one or more drums measuring several feet in diameter. This
vague prescription to "wipe down" this dynamic and powerful machinery is difficult to interpret
and satisfy operationally without an unacceptable degree of risk, and Dann Marine Towing
recommends that EPA eliminate it.
1013
-------
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 10.
Commenter Name: Mark Miller, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Terresolve
Technologies
Commenter Affiliation: Terresolve Technologies
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0499-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet
The fact sheet should have no reference to ecolabeling protocols which include component
testing or biobased/renewable content requirements i.e. German Blue Angel, Swedish Standard,
Nordic Swan, or European Ecolabel.
Paragraph 7 that starts "The new requirements in this proposed permit... " refers to "three most
common categories of biodegradable base oils." ISO Standard 6743-4:1999 [2J specifies four
groups of environmentally acceptable fluid types. These four categories of are the following:
• Synthetic esters -ISO Classification HEES.
• Polyglycols (particularly Polyalkylene Glycols (PAG)) - ISO Classification HEPG.
• Triglycerides (vegetable oils) - ISO Classification HETG.
• polyalphaolefins (PAO) and related products -ISO Classification HEPR.
• As such HEPR Polyalphaolefin and related products MUST be included in the fact sheet.
It should also note that today's Best Available Technology (BAT) allows virtually ALL oil-to-sea
interfaces to utilize environmentally acceptable fluids, subject to specific performance
requirements established by the equipment manufacturers.
Response: EPA has retained reference to ecolabeling protocols and products in the fact sheet
as a resource for vessel owners. Regarding the most common biodegradable base oils described
in the permit fact sheet, EPA notes that the fact sheet is not exclusive in allowing only those
products discussed to be used. EPA discusses what the Agency understands to be the "most
common" products, but the "most common" products do not mean that they are the only
products. EPA notes that any lubricant meeting the operational needs of vessel owner/ operators
and the definition of EALs given in the permit can be used as an EAL. The definition of EAL
hinges on biodegradability, toxicity, and bioaccumulation.
EPA acknowledges that the commenter states that "virtually all oil-to-sea interfaces" have
EALs available for their use.
Commenter Name: Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Commenter Affiliation: Ingram Barge Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
1014
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: Section 2.2.9 - Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and Other
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces Including Lubrication Discharges from Paddle Wheel Propulsion, stem
Tubes, Thruster Bearings, Stabilizers, Rudder Bearings, Azimuth Thrusters, Propulsion Pod
Lubrication, and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment Subject to Immersion - the requirement
of having wire rope with lubrication be wiped down to remove excess lubricant is a safety
concern and should be revised. Although this requirement is in the current permit version, it
should be eliminated from future versions as it creates a safety concern. Operationally, figuring
out how much wiping of wire ropes and machinery is required is difficult, and additionally, it
presents a degree of danger to the operators of the vessels.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 10.
Commenter Name: William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commenter Affiliation: Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Late Comment? No
Comment: Oil-to-Sea Interfaces: EPA proposes requiring newly built vessels to use
environmentally acceptable lubricants (EAL), and existing vessels to use them if feasible. Our
towboats use lubricated wire rope in their everyday operation. Currently, the industry standard is
to obtain pre-lubricated wire rope from a supplier, who obtains it from an overseas factory where
the lubrication is applied. It is virtually impossible to obtain wire that is pre- lubricated with
EAL, or to obtain "dry" wire that we could lubricate ourselves with EAL (which is available for
purchase separately). CBC urges EPA to only require companies to use EAL after they have
purchased their wire in order to ensure that we are not held to a standard that is not achievable in
today's market.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0485-A1, excerpt 41
regarding EPA's application and definition of the term "technically infeasible" and the response
to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 10 regarding permit requirements for
wiping down lubricated wire rope. EPA has specifically addressed the issue of pre-lubricated
wire ropes in the definition of technical infeasibility to address the concerns raised by this, and
similar, comments.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
16
No
1015
-------
Comment: 9. Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and Other Oil-to-Sea
Interfaces (Draft VGP Part 2.2.9)
The Draft VGP states that for all existing vessels, "unless technically infeasible,
owners/operators must use an environmentally acceptable lubricant [(EAL)] in all oil to sea
interfaces." Vessels must document and report their inability to use EALs along with an
explanation. For all new vessels, the use of EALs is mandatory. Draft VGP at pp. 43-44.
While EPA is mandating the use of EALs, the Commenters are concerned that these lubricants
may not be readily available. EPA notes that "[t]he market for EALs continues to expand,
particularly in Europe, where the use of such lubricants is being encouraged through a
combination of tax breaks, purchasing subsidies, and national and international labeling
programs." Fact Sheet at p. 134. While such EALs may be common in Europe, it does not appear
that EPA has considered whether such lubricants are readily available in the United States,
particularly in Alaska and the remote ports used to service fishing vessels. Until EALs are
commonly and economically available, it is premature to mandate the use of these lubricants.
In addition, the Commenters question whether EALs have similar performance characteristics as
lubricants currently used on fishing vessels. In developing the Draft VGP, it does not appear that
EPA has conducted a scientific assessment of the lubricating qualities of EALs compared to
existing oils. The Commenters have significant reservations about using unproven technology in
such critical vessel areas. Given the waters our vessels frequently fish, any breakdown
constitutes a significant safety issue and may be catastrophic. Before mandating the use of EALs,
at a minimum, EPA should demonstrate that these substances offer comparable or superior
performance to lubricants already in use.
The Commenters request that EPA delay imposition of this requirement until it is demonstrated
that EALs are commonly available and offer comparable performance to lubricants currently in
use. In addition, the Commenters request that EPA define "technically infeasible" as applied to
existing vessels, and what documentation is sufficient to satisfy that standard.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 41
regarding EPA's application and definition of the term "technically infeasible" for existing and
new vessels, and EPA's determination that use of EALs is economically achievable. Regarding
availability of EALs in the U.S. market, based on this and other comments, EPA has clarified
the definition of technically infeasible for purposes of oil-to-sea interfaces. Among other things,
that definition clarifies that technically infeasibility includes the absence of EALs availability
within any port in which the vessel calls.
It is EPA's understanding that these products are widely available in the U.S. marketplace. See
EPA's economic analysis for EPA's efforts to cost these products. EPA further notes that major
oil producers have indicated to EPA that these products are available.
Regarding performance capabilities, it is EPA's understanding that EALs meet the performance
demands of most applications on existing vessels. EPA further understands that these lubricants
1016
-------
are currently in use on a wide variety of vessel applications. Additionally, certain ecolabeling
protocols (such as Blue Angel and Nordic Swan certification) include a series of technical
performance requirements further supporting the existence of EALs that meet the performance
demands of applications on vessels.
EPA has also incorporated information into Section 4.4.9 of the permit factsheet regarding
EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) Program's new initiative to label environmentally
friendly lubricants to assist vessel operators in selecting more environmentally friendly
products.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
17
No
Comment: Oil-to-Sea Interface Requirements (Part 2.2.9)
AWO encourages EPA to revise its proposals to require vessels constructed on or after the
effective date of the 2013 VGP to use an environmentally acceptable lubricant in all oil-to-sea
interfaces, and to require existing vessels to use such lubricants "unless technically infeasible."45
AWO members have raised serious concerns about the safety of these requirements. Tow wires,
which are used by tugboats to tow barges and other vessels, are very large, heavy cables greater
than two inches in diameter that are controlled by a winch fitted with one or more drums
measuring several feet in diameter. Especially in the extremely dynamic and corrosive saltwater
environment, towing vessel operators must lubricate their tow wires with products that provide
the highest adherent properties and protections against deterioration possible, as their failure can
be catastrophic. Members that have explored the use of biodegradable or nontoxic lubricants
report they do not stand up to the hydraulic action of seawater and have poor adherent qualities,
allowing saltwater to stream between the strands of the tow wire into the steel core of the rope,
where it is carried onto the drum layers to form corrosion cells. Our coastal members believe that
using currently available environmentally acceptable lubricants would significantly diminish the
strength retention, and consequently the safety and service life, of their tow wires. In its Fact
Sheet, AWO recommends that EPA eliminate this requirement altogether, or revise Part 2.2.9 of
the proposed permit to allow both newly constructed and existing vessels to decline to use
environmentally acceptable lubricants due to technical infeasibility. EPA's Fact Sheet currently
notes "the use of [environmentally acceptable lubricants would not be feasible if those lubricants
significantly degrade the performance of the propulsion or navigation systems;"46 therefore, if
EPA pursues the latter course, its definition of technical infeasibility should be expanded to cases
where the use of such lubricants would compromise the safe operation of the equipment.
45 U.S. EPA 201 la, Part 2.2.9.
46 U.S. EPA 201 lb, Part 4.4.9.
Response: In response to this and other comments, EPA has revised Part 2.2.9 to define
1017
-------
technical infeasibility for all vessels. Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0485-A1, excerpt 41 for additional information.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Berge, Vice President, Pacific Merchant Shipping
Association (PMSA)
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0508-A1
7
No
Comment: 2) Discharges other than Ballast Water
The proposed VGP establishes a requirement for newbuilds constructed on or after December 19,
2013 to use only "environmentally acceptable lubricants in all oil-to-sea interfaces. Existing
vessels are also directed to use such lubricants unless it is technically infeasible. The status of
availability of environmentally acceptable lubricants is unclear, since they are currently used in
limited applications.
Before establishing such a requirement, EPA should make an educated determination of the
world wide availability of such lubricants and also whether they are applicable in all oil-to-sea
interfaces.
Such a study should also determine the compatibility and acceptability of such lubricants with
existing equipment on board ships to ensure that ships can maintain their warranted coverage
from all such equipment manufacturers.
The draft VGP should approach this requirement in a stepped fashion, allowing vessels to use
other lubricants when it is technically or logistically infeasible to use the environmentally
acceptable lubricants. Of course such exemptions should require that documentation be provided
to the EPA with the vessel's annual reports, to substantiate the need for such an exemption.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 41.
EPA notes that this comment informed EPA's definition of what is technically infeasible for
purposes of oil to sea interfaces. Regarding commenters concern that an evaluation be
conducted "to determine compatibility and acceptability of such lubricants with existing
equipment on board ships to ensure that ships can maintain their warranted coverage from all
such equipment manufacturers," EPA notes that permit modifications to the definition of
technically infeasible specifically addresses when EAL products are not approved for use in a
given application that meet manufacturer specifications for that equipment. Using a product that
voids a manufacture's warranty would not be using a product consistent with manufacturer
specifications, and therefore, its use would not be technically feasible. In this case, their use is
not technically feasible and would not be required. EPA understands lubricants are available for
many existing applications. It is the vessel owner/operators' responsibility to determine whether
products are available for the specific equipment onboard their vessel.
1018
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Donald Sweeney, Vice President of Finance, Terresolve
Technologies
Terresolve Technologies
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0512-A1
1
No
Comment: VGP 2.2.9
Regarding section 2.2.9, we have no comments and find it acceptable. We believe that
environmentally acceptable lubrication where equipment interfaces with the environment is not
only technically feasible but environmentally essential.
Response: This comment confirms EPA's basis for requiring use of Environmentally
Acceptable Lubricants to improve environmental quality and that use of these products is
technically feasible.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Donald Sweeney, Vice President of Finance, Terresolve
Technologies
Terresolve Technologies
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0512-A1
5
No
Comment: Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet
The fact sheet should have no reference to ecolabeling protocols which include component
testing or biobased/renewable content requirements i.e. German Blue Angel. Swedish Standard.
Nordic Swan, or European Ecolabel.
Paragraph 7 that starts "The new requirements in this proposed permit..." refers to " three most
common categories of biodegradable base oils". ISO Standard 6743-4:1999 [2] specifies four
groups of environmentally acceptable fluid types. These four categories of are the following:
• Synthetic esters - ISO Classification HEES.
• Polyglycols (particularly Polyalkylene Glycols (PAG)) -ISO Classification HEPG.
• Triglycerides (vegetable oils) - ISO Classification HETG.
• Polyalphaolefins (PAO) and related products - ISO Classification HEPR.
As such HEPR Polyalphaolefin and related products MUST be included in the fact sheet. It
should also note that today's Best Available Technology (BAT) allows virtually ALL oil-to-sea
interfaces to utilize environmentally acceptable fluids.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0499-A1 excerpt 2.
1019
-------
Commenter Name:
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Director, Environment &
Sustainability, Maerks Line North America Liner
Operations
Maersk Line
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0513-A1
4
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: 4. International vessels that call the US typically spend only from 3% to 10% of total
time in US waters, and are periodically redeployed due to market conditions, changing customer
demands, and scheduling of dry dockage and maintenance. The draft VGP includes several
provisions which present potential hardships or barriers to international vessels and in particular
to vessels making first calls in the US, or those assigned to call only once or twice to meet short-
term needs (e.g., as substitutes for a vessel in dry dock, or as an extra in peak demand periods).
a. "Environmentally acceptable" lubricants (EALs) for oil-to-sea interfaces (2.2.9) need to be
thoroughly defined and may not be available in all global ports of origin, so this may be a
challenge for procurement. Redeployed vessels will require time to determine compatibility with
existing systems and obtain these lubricants, and may not be able to transition from one type to
another while underway. Additionally, as pointed out by WSC, equipment manufacturers often
have a list of approved lubricants, which may or may not include the EALs.
Thus we suggest allowed transition periods, and/or a recognition of these realities with language
such as "to the extent available and feasible." We also suggest the language on technical
feasibility be added for vessels built after December 19, 2013.
Response: With respect to the availability and technical feasibility of use of EALs, please see
the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 41. Based on this and
other comments, EPA has specifically included a transition period tied to drydocking schedule
in the definition of technically infeasible. EPA has incorporated where lubricant types cannot be
commingled in existing applications and the lubricants cannot be changed until the next
drydock into the definition of technically infeasible for purposes of oil-to-sea interfaces. In
these cases, use of an EAL can wait until the vessel's next drydocking.
EPA did not accept the commenter's suggestion to provide exemptions or reduced requirements
for use of EALs on vessels making first calls in the US or those assigned to call only once or
twice to meet short-term needs because EPA has identified use of these products as BAT unless
technically infeasible. EPA notes that there are analogous requirements when operating in U.S.
waters that require preplanning on the part of the vessel operator; for instance, use of low sulfur
fuels (or use of an exhaust gas scrubber) or use of a type approved ballast water treatment
system or one that has received AMS determination (to comply with USCG requirements). The
significance of lubricant discharges (not accidental spills) to the aquatic ecosystem is
substantial. See EPA's document titled Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants (EPA 800-R-
11-002) and Section 4.4.9 of the VGP Fact Sheet for additional information regarding the
frequency and volume of lubricant discharges and their deleterious impact on the environment.
1020
-------
Commenter Name:
Peter Vickers, Chairman & Managing Director, Vickers
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Oils
Vickers Oils
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1
1
No
Comment: Draft 2013 Vessel General Permit - Docket EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141
Benjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd ("Vickers Oils") supplies Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
(EALs) to the marine industry, predominantly for below-the-waterline applications including
stern tubes, thrusters, CP propellers and stabilisers. Customers for such EALs are following the
recommendation in Clause 2.2.9 of the existing (2008) VGP to use "environmentally preferable
lubricants". The proposed introduction, in the Draft 2013 VGP, of a mandated standard for
Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants (EALs) is a further step forwards. We would like to
offer the following comments on Clause 2.2.9 and the accompanying Definitions; and to make
twelve specific, targeted recommendations (with an accompanying rationale) which are set out
on the next pages.
• . Having supplied EALs to more than 1,100 vessels during the last 10 years, we can
comment with some authority that the severity of operating conditions in below-the-
waterline applications should not be underestimated (especially over a typical 5 year
service period and given that repairs often require dry-docking).
Such equipment is critical to the safety of the vessel and so it is important that EALs
should at this stage be mandated only for equipment where field experience has already
proven that suitable products exist.
• . We think that there could be a risk to effective operation of: Tunnel Thrusters classed for
Dynamic Positioning; Azimuthing Thrusters; and Propulsion Pods; if the use of
insufficiently developed and field proven EALs were to be mandated now. Instead we
recommend that the use of EALs for these three specific applications should not be
mandated in the 2013 VGP, but reviewed for possible inclusion in the next VGP
thereafter.
• . In addition to dedicated stern tube oils, hydraulic fluids and gear oils may also be used in
a stern tube or thruster with an equal likelihood of leakage. Therefore we recommend that
the VGP should not attempt to distinguish between these fluid types when defining
environmental criteria.
• . We recommend that in order to reduce the risk of performance issues and help facilitate a
smoother introduction of mandated standards, the VGP definitions of biodegradability,
bioaccumulation and aquatic toxicity should be clarified so as to ensure that EALs with
the performance to meet the demanding requirements of marine operations can comply.
Specific proposals are set out below.
1021
-------
• . The stated definition of biodegradability sets the bar at the commonly accepted level for
EALs and so should avoid the proposed 2013 VGP being undermined by inherently
biodegradable mineral oil and PAOs.
• . Since it is proposed to mandate the use of EALs, the introduction of existing European
best-practice voluntary labeling schemes needs to be done cautiously so as not to bring
about a performance drop. We think that the various European labeling standards are
ecologically very demanding, and that compliance sometimes can only be achieved by
sacrificing product performance. However, we support their inclusion as an optional
route to the highest environmental standards. (Further, we recommend that in addition to
the proposed inclusion of Swedish Standard SS 155470 for environmentally acceptable
greases, Swedish Standard SS 155434 for environmentally acceptable hydraulic fluids
should also be included).
• . It has been suggested by some others that EALs should be defined by saltwater testing
alone. We believe that freshwater data is more repeatable, more widely available and
more widely accepted. We support the retention of freshwater test methods, with the
option to use defined saltwater methods.
• . We also propose that manufacturer's data sheets for each environmentally acceptable
lubricant in use on the vessel, detailing its compliance with the VGP, to be available for
inspection on board.
Response: In response to this and other comments, EPA amended the final permit to specify
that all vessels must use an EAL in all oil to sea interfaces, unless technically infeasible. EPA
also revised Part 2.2.9 to further define technical infeasibility. Please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 41 for additional information.
EPA acknowledges the commenter's statement that hydraulic fluids or gear oils may be used in
stern tube or thruster applications (commenter's bullet 3). As supported by the commenter,
permit requirements for EALs do not distinguish between fluid types.
With respect to the definition of biodegradability (commenter's bullets 4 and 5), please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1, excerpt 9. EPA concurs with the
comments that many mineral oils and PAOs may not biodegrade sufficiently to meet the
previous definition of "biodegradable." EPA also notes that the updated definition increases
consistency with the Ecolabel criteria. EPA notes that vessel owners/operators have broad
discretion in selecting individual EALs for use in oil-to-sea interfaces, provided they meet the
definition of EALs per Appendix A of the permit. With respect to EPA's inclusion of the
Swedish Standards, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1,
excerpt 3.
With respect to freshwater versus saltwater toxicity testing (commenter's bullet 7), please see
the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0798-A1, excerpt 3. With respect to
documentation for the use of EALs, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0561-A2, excerpt 14.
1022
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Peter Vickers, Chairman & Managing Director, Vickers
Oils
Vickers Oils
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1
2
No
Comment: Applications for Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants - Clause 2.2.9
1. We recommend that the Clause 2.2.9 should include a list of specific applications for which
EALS are to be mandated (and should exclude Tunnel Thrusters classed for Dynamic
Positioning; Azimuthing Thrusters; and Propulsion Pods). Therefore we recommend that the
following paragraphs be inserted in place of the currently proposed last two paragraphs of Clause
2.2.9:
"All vessels constructed on or after December 19, 2013 must use an environmentally
acceptable lubricant in the following oil-to-sea interfaces: Controllable Pitch Propellers,
Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Tunnel Thrusters not classed for Dynamic
Positioning, Stabilizers, Rudder Bearings, and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment
Subject to Immersion.
"Environmentally acceptable lubricants " means lubricants that are "biodegradable " and
"non-toxic " and are not "bioaccumulative" as defined in Appendix A of this permit. For all
vessels built before December 19, 2013, unless technically infeasible, owners/operators must
use an environmentally acceptable lubricant in the following oil-to-sea interfaces:
Controllable Pitch Propellers, Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Tunnel Thrusters not
classed for Dynamic Positioning, Stabilizers, Rudder Bearings, and Wire Rope and
Mechanical Equipment Subject to Immersion. If a vessel built before December 19, 2013 is
unable to use an environmentally acceptable lubricant due to technical infeasibility, you
must document in your recordkeeping documentation consistent with Part 4.2 why you are
unable to do so, and must report the use of a non-environmentally acceptable lubricant to
EPA in your Annual Report. Use of an environmentally acceptable lubricant does not
authorize the discharge of any lubricant in a quantity that may be harmful as defined in 40
CFR Part 110."
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1, excerpt 1.
Based on this comment, and other comments from the commenter, EPA amended the final
permit to specify that all vessels must use an EAL in all oil to sea interfaces, unless technically
infeasible. EPA also revised Part 2.2.9 to further define technical infeasibility. Please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 41 for additional information.
Commenter Name: Peter Vickers, Chairman & Managing Director, Vickers
Oils
Commenter Affiliation: Vickers Oils
1023
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1
7
No
Comment: RATIONALE FOR THESE RECOMMENDATIONS
Applications for Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants Clause 2.2.9 lists the oil-to-sea
interfaces which are covered by the draft 2013 VGP. It is proposed to mandate the use of EALs
in all these interfaces.
We believe that there are well established EALs, which can comply with the draft EAL
definition (as modified - see below for recommendation) and which have proven their suitability
in field use, for the following applications:
• . Stern tubes
• . CPPs
• . Stabilisers
• . Tunnel thrusters (not classed for Dynamic Positioning)
However, based on our experience and knowledge of the market and of the equipment
manufacturers, we believe that there are certain other applications, for which EAL technology
that complies with the (modified) draft definition, has either not yet been developed, or else has
not been sufficiently tested in practice to warrant its inclusion at this time. These applications
are:
• . Tunnel thrusters classed for Dynamic Positioning;
• . Azimuthing thrusters; and
• . Propulsion pods.
We think that there could be a risk to effective operation of these three classes of critical
equipment, if the use of insufficiently developed and field proven EALs were to be mandated
now. Instead we recommend that the use of EALs for these three specific applications should not
be mandated in the 2013 VGP, but reviewed for possible inclusion in the next VGP thereafter.
Further information in support of this recommendation can be made available on request. We
have no comment to make on lubricants for Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Rudder Bearings, Wire
Rope and Mechanical Equipment Subject to Immersion, except that the latter term is something
of a catch-all and may be ambiguous e.g. does it include dredging equipment?
The list of applications includes "Controllable Pitch Propellers and Thruster Hydraulic
Fluid ,Thruster Bearings... .etc". Thrusters commonly use gear oil or hydraulic fluid,
depending on design. We recommend that the applications list does not try to define by lubricant
type, but instead only by equipment type. Therefore we recommend that the following
paragraphs be inserted in place of the currently proposed last two paragraphs of Clause 2.2.9:
"All vessels constructed on or after December 19, 2013 must use an environmentally
acceptable lubricant in the following oil-to-sea interfaces: Controllable Pitch Propellers,
Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Tunnel Thrusters not classed for Dynamic
Positioning, Stabilizers, Rudder Bearings, and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment
1024
-------
Subject to Immersion. "Environmentally acceptable lubricants " means lubricants that are
"biodegradable" and "non-toxic" and are not "bio accumulative" as defined in Appendix A
of this permit. For all vessels built before December 19, 2013, unless technically infeasible,
owners/operators must use an environmentally acceptable lubricant in the following oil-to-
sea interfaces: Controllable Pitch Propellers, Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Tunnel
Thrusters not classed for Dynamic Positioning, Stabilizers, Rudder Bearings, and Wire Rope
and Mechanical Equipment Subject to Immersion. If a vessel built before December 19, 2013
is unable to use an environmentally acceptable lubricant due to technical infeasibility, you
must document in your recordkeeping documentation consistent with Part 4.2 why you are
unable to do so, and must report the use of a non-environmentally acceptable lubricant to
EPA in your Annual Report. Use of an environmentally acceptable lubricant does not
authorize the discharge of any lubricant in a quantity that may be harmful as defined in 40
CFR Part 110."
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0514-A1, excerpts 1
and 2. EPA has clarified that the use of EALs is mandated by application type, and based on
this and previous comments by the commenter, EPA amended the final permit to specify that all
vessels must use an EAL in all oil to sea interfaces, unless technically infeasible. EPA also
revised Part 2.2.9 to further define technical infeasibility. Please see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 41 for additional information.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
24
No
Comment: 2.2.9: Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and Other Oil-to-
Sea Interfaces Including Lubrication Discharges from Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes,
Thruster Bearings, Stabilizers, Rudder Bearings, Azimuth Thrusters, Propulsion Pod Lubrication,
and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment Subject to Immersion Although we understand the
rationale for using environmentally acceptable lubricants in all oil-to-sea interfaces, we would
point out that such products are not available everywhere for ships trading internationally. We
therefore recommend that the words "just use" be qualified by the phrase "then available."We
would also like to point out that some manufacturers provide a list of lubricants to be used with
their equipment, and may choose not to honor the warranty should another lubricant be used.
With this in mind, environmentally acceptable lubricants should be recommended when
technically and economically feasible for vessels covered under the VGP.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0485-A1, excerpt 41 and
other responses throughout the section.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
1025
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Lake Carriers Association
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
5
No
Comment: Use of "Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants" must be conditioned upon
approval by the equipment manufacturer, as not all lubricants are compatible.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0485-A1, excerpt 41.
Comment: 4.4.9: Controllable Pitch Propeller (CPP) and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and other
Oil-to-Sea Interfaces including Lubrication Discharges from Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern
Tubes, Thruster Bearings, Stabilizers Rudder Bearings, Azimuth Thrusters, and Propulsion Pod
Lubrication and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment Subject to Immersion.
Major Requirements: Vessel owner/operators of vessels built after December 19, 2013 must
use environmentally acceptable lubricants for oil-to-sea interfaces. In addition, all other
vessel owner/operators must use environmentally acceptable lubricants for oil-to-sea
interfaces when technically feasible, and all vessel owner/operators must apply lubricants
and maintain all seals so that discharges do not result in quantities of oil that may be
harmful. For all applications where lubricants are likely to enter the sea, environmentally
acceptable lubricant formulations using vegetable oils, biodegradable synthetic esters or
biodegradable polyalkylene glycols as oil bases instead of mineral oils can offer
significantly reduced environmental impacts across all applications.
LCA response: Many of our members believe they already do use environmentally acceptable
lubricants when available and feasible. The determination of whether those lubricants are
environmentally acceptable is based on representations by manufacturers and suppliers.
However, we are concerned about what EPA means by "technically feasible." Not all lubricants
are compatible, so before filling any system with a different lubricant, the lines must be
completely emptied of the current lubricant. Otherwise, the interaction between the two types of
lubricants could cause system malfunctions and perhaps even leaks. By shifting ballast, it is
possible to raise bow thrusters and propellers out of the water, but draining lubrication from oil-
to-sea interfaces would best be accomplished in drydock. There are only four large drydocks on
the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard requires our members' vessels be dry-docked every five years
(with the ability to request a one-year extension under certain circumstances). Changeover to
these lubricants should be delayed until the vessel's first drydocking.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Lake Carriers Association
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
16
No
1026
-------
Additionally, EPA should only mandate use of such environmentally acceptable lubricants if
they are compatible for use with the subject equipment and otherwise approved for use by the
equipment manufacturer. Bow thrusters and other equipment on vessels represent significant
capital investments and improper lubrication obviously could damage the equipment, and, in the
process, void manufacturers' warranties. If an "environmentally acceptable lubricant" may
damage equipment or void manufacturers' warranties, its use should not be required because it is
not technically feasible. If EPA disagrees with this approach, we respectfully request that it
explain on the record why it is not an appropriate way to approach this question.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0485-A1, excerpt 41 and
other comments throughout this section. Based on this and other comments, EPA included
concepts from this comment and has defined technically infeasible to include situations when
no EAL products are approved for use in a given application that meet manufacturer
specifications and to allow the transition to EALs to wait until the vessel next drydocking. EPA
appreciates that some LCA members already use EALs, and further notes that for those
members, there should be no additional cost incurred by this requirement.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 51
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 134 Discussion on Mandates for use of Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants -
We have previously commented on EPA's mandate for the use of EAL's in comments on permit
P. 43, Part 2.2.9 above, and would ask that the permit and related Fact Sheet language be
modified accordingly.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2, excerpt 59.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 59
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 43. Part 2.2.9 - Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster... - New to this permit
is the mandate for new ships constructed on or after December 19, 2013 to use environmentally
acceptable lubricants in oil-to-sea interfaces, and for existing ships to use such lubricants if
technically feasible. These requirements are problematic for the following reasons:
1027
-------
1. With respect to new ships, while EPA may desire to force the technology in this regard, it is
impossible to determine at this point whether all new-build lubricated oil-to-sea interfaces
will accommodate this requirement. Selection of lubricants is application-specific and
contingent upon the particulars of the systems in question - the lubricating property
requirements of which simply cannot be predicted with sufficient confidence to support this
requirement in this permit. While it is appropriate for EPA to encourage the use and
development of environmentally sensitive products, as it has done in the 2009 version of this
permit, it is not appropriate for EPA to use an NPDES permit to establish new-build
specifications in this manner.
2. With respect to existing ships, the answer to the question of technical feasibility is contingent
upon with whom EPA consults. One of our operating lines has experience with a vendor who
certifies a particular environmentally friendly lubricant for an oil-to-sea interface application
that has, in practice been found to form a "mousse" rather than a viscous lubricant. Operating
lines should have the latitude to exercise their best professional judgment in selecting the
appropriate lubrication for the task. It is appropriate that EPA encourage the use of
environmentally friendly products as it has in the previous permit.
It is notable that in the discussion on page 134 or the fact sheet, EPA cites incentive based
programs in Europe as the model for the mandatory requirement found in this permit. We believe
a similar incentive based approach would be appropriate rather than the mandate contained in the
proposed permit. We recommend the following language:
In constructing, operating and maintaining lubricated oil-to-sea interface systems, vessel
owner/operators are encouraged to use environmentally acceptable lubricants which are
"biodegradable" and "non-toxic" and are not "bio accumulative" as defined in Appendix A of
this permit. Use of an environmentally acceptable lubricant does not authorize the discharge
of any lubricant in a quantity that may be harmful as defined in 40 CFR Part 110.
Claims of lubricating oil vendors aside, it is the seal manufacturer who makes the determination
as to whether a proposed lubricant is acceptable for warranty purposes, and of course the vessel
owner/operator to ultimately determine whether that lubricant is operationally acceptable.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 41.
Additionally, EPA notes that the Agency determined that EALs are available and their use is
economically achievable in most oil-to-sea applications. The numerous products labeled in
incentive programs further supports their general availability. However, for existing vessels,
EPA recognizes that there may be some specific equipment for which these products are not
available, and hence, their use would be technically infeasible. Based on this and other
comments, the definition of technical infeasibility specifically takes into account whether EAL
products are approved for use in a given application that meet manufacturer specifications for
that equipment.
EPA notes that vessel owners/operators have broad discretion in selecting individual EALs for
use in oil-to-sea interfaces, provided they meet the definition of EALs as given in the permit.
1028
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Douglas B. Schneider, World Shipping Council (WSC)
World Shipping Council (WSC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1
7
No
Comment: A. Comments on the Requirement to Use Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants.
The draft VGP would require all vessels constructed on or after December 19, 2013 to use an
"environmentally acceptable lubricant" in all oil-to-sea interfaces. Existing vessels (built before
December 19, 2013) must use environmentally acceptable lubricants in all oil-to-sea interfaces
unless it is technically infeasible, in which case, the vessel must document the use of the
lubricant and report this information to EPA annually.
While we support EPA's objective to reduce the discharge of non-environmentally acceptable
lubricants as soon as practicable, we offer two observations. First, while environmentally
acceptable lubricants are available today for some marine applications, it will take time for these
lubricants to be developed and become widely available for use in all or most oil-to-sea
interfaces. It is not known whether and when environmentally acceptable lubricants will be
developed for all oil-to-sea interfaces. Second, the manufacturers of some underwater shipboard
equipment such as thrusters and stern-tubes do not recommend the use of environmentally
acceptable lubricants. The use of lubricants that are not recommended by the manufacturer will,
in some cases, invalidate the manufacturer's warranty on the equipment.
To address these issues, we recommend that EPA modify the draft VGP to require vessels
constructed on or after December 19, 2013 to use environmentally acceptable lubricants in all
oil-to-sea interfaces unless it is technically infeasible. In such cases, the vessel should document
the use of the lubricant and report this information to EPA in its annual reports.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 41.
Based on this and other comments, EPA has added "unless it is technically infeasible" after oil-
to-sea interfaces for all applications. As discussed in EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1,
excerpt 41, EPA recognizes that there may be specific applications where use of EALs is not
technically feasible; however, the Agency expects that the bulk of operators, particularly for
new build vessels, will switch to using EALs for the majority of their oil-to-sea applications.
Failure to use an EAL when it is technically feasible to do so is a permit violation.
Commenter Name: James R. Kovanda, Vice President, American Chemical
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Technologies, Inc.
American Chemical Technologies, Incorporated
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0538-A1
1
No
1029
-------
Comment: The intention of this response is to suggest modifications we feel are necessary to
the original drafts of the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP)
document. In dialog that American Chemical Technologies, Inc. (ACT) has had with the marine
industry and various branches of the military that operate vessels on navigable waters, three
specific applications have been discussed that in the event of oil leakage, cause issue and put the
environment in harm's way. These applications include propulsion systems (for example
Controllable Pitch Propellers, Thrusters, etc.), hydraulically operated cranes, and hydraulically
operated anchor winches. After review of the two similar sections within the VGP and sVGP that
specifically reference applications on vessels, the following are our comments:
Proposed Standard (currently in the VGP) - Page 43
2.2 Effluent Limits and Related Requirements for Specific Discharge Categories 2.2.9
Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and Other Oil-to- Sea Interfaces
Including Lubrication Discharges from Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Thruster
Bearings, Stabilizers, Rudder Bearings, Azimuth Thrusters, Propulsion Pod Lubrication, and
Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment Subject to Immersion
Proposed Standard (currently in the sVGP) - Page 4
2.3 Engine Oil Control
(h) Unless technically infeasible, you must use environmentally acceptable lubricants (as defined
in Part 6 of this permit) in all machinery and equipment, including but not limited to stern tubes,
wires, and two-stroke engines, where discharges of oil to surrounding waters are likely to occur.
ACT suggests that the language for the VGP more closely resemble that of the sVGP that is
more conclusive in its identification of applications that can potentially leak. The VGP focuses
on propulsion systems only, and specifically limits the references to "all oil to sea interfaces".
With this limiting focus, the language omits deck machinery that has also been identified as
applications that can potentially leak directly into sensitive waterways.
The change in this language is prudent and provides a solution to another issue that would
otherwise exist. With the many references in both documents to "visible sheen", if only
propulsion systems were converted, and a visible sheen was observed on the water, how would a
vessel operator quickly determine the origin of the sheen, and for example, distinguish between
sheen from a leak from a converted CPP system using an EAL (vegetable oil/synthetic
ester/polyalkylene glycol), and the onboard crane currently using petroleum oil?
Visible Sheen
After review of 40CFR110.3 (below) referenced as a standard within both the VGP and sVGP:
TITLE 40—PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED)
PART 110 DISCHARGE OF OIL-Table of Contents
1030
-------
Sec. 110.3 Discharge of oil in such quantities as "may be harmful" pursuant to section 311(b)(4)
of the Act.
For purposes of section 311(b)(4) of the Act, discharges of oil in such quantities that the
Administrator has determined may be harmful to the public health or welfare or the environment
of the United States include discharges of oil that:
(a) Violate applicable water quality standards; or
(b) Cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or adjoining
shorelines or cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or
upon adjoining shorelines.
[61 FR 7421, Feb. 28, 1996]
Clarification and guidance is required on the topic of "visible sheen". The VGP and sVGP
reference visible sheen many times in the language. End-users in all industries that operate
equipment near sensitive waterways (for example vessels / hydroelectric / locks & dams, etc.)
indicate that the driver that initiates scrutiny/remediation/fines is the presence of "visual sheen"
on a body of water. Is sheen going to continue to be a criterion that end-users must react to in the
field? How will a sheen caused by a lighter than water and water insoluble EAL (vegetable oil or
synthetic ester) be differentiated in this regard?
The US Clean Water Act provides language that is addressed in Appendix 1 to Subpart A of 40
CFR Part 435 - Static Sheen Test. This test allows for the assessment and identification of a
fluids propensity to cause sheen. In review of the proposed VGP and sVGP, there is no specific
reference to this criterion. We realize that the test was drafted initially for oil-based drilling
fluids, but felt that it was an applicable test method already in place that could be utilized for this
purpose.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's recommendation to revise the VGP
requirements for oil-to-sea interfaces to more closely resemble that of the sVGP. EPA
developed VGP oil-to-sea interfaces requirements based on an evaluation and analysis of the
interfaces present on VGP vessels.
EPA notes that management requirements for deck equipment such as cranes and winches are
provided at Part 2.2.1 of the permit (Deck Washdown and Runoff). Vessel owners/operators are
required to minimize oily discharges from machinery and spills on deck by using coamings or
drip pans and disposing of the waste in proper containers. Additionally, based on this comment,
to reduce the risk of any leakage or spills of harmful oils into the aquatic environment, EPA
included a statement that strongly encourages the use of environmentally acceptable lubricants
in all above deck equipment.
EPA believes that routine visual inspections performed by competent and trained crew will
quickly identify visible sheens and other indicators of pollutants or constituents of concern
originating from the vessel, as well as their source to initiate corrective action. EPA notes that
1031
-------
Part 2.2.9 of the permit prohibits the discharge of oil in quantities that may be harmful as
defined in 40 CFR Part 110 from any oil-to-sea interface, regardless of whether or not the sheen
is caused by the discharge of an EAL.
EPA has not included the static sheen test, but instead requires a visual sheen test when water is
pumped from areas below deck on certain vessels, while fueling, and during routine visual
inspections. The definition of "Visible Sheen" remains unchanged in the permit, a "silvery" or
"metallic" sheen, gloss, or increased reflectivity; visual color; iridescence, or oil slick on the
surface. [Source: 58 FR 12507].
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadians)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadians)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2
17
No
Comment: Article 2.2.9 - Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants (EALs)
While the CSA agrees with the intent and benefits of using EALs in systems with an oil to sea
interface, and our members are in many cases using biodegradable and non-toxic product in stem
tubes, deck winches and other equipment, we foresee issues with the current wording of this
requirement. The mandatory requirement to use such products may not be attainable in all cases.
Use of any lubricant must first and foremost be safe for use, particularly in any navigation
related systems, and must be approved by the OEM for use in their equipment. In addition, while
examples of eco-labeling schemes are provided by the EPA, operationally suitable products that
also meet the EPA's definitions of biodegradable, non-toxic and not bio accumulative may not be
available in North America. Lastly, in the case of non-use of EALs on existing vessels, the
requirement to report this on an annual basis is seen as unreasonable; the non-use could be
reported once and then superseded by a report indicating successful usage once accomplished.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 41.
EPA disagrees with the commenter regarding reporting and has maintained the requirement to
report the use of non-environmentally acceptable lubricants to EPA in annual reports. Such
reporting enables EPA to monitor progress in the use of EALs, how the permit is reducing
environmental impacts from shipping, and to evaluate whether the Agency's availability
findings regarding EALs hold throughout the permit term.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A2
18
No
1032
-------
Comment: 2.2.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and Other Oil-to-
Sea Interfaces Including Lubrication Discharges from Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes,
Thruster Bearings, Stabilizers, Rudder Bearings, Azimuth Thrusters, Propulsion Pod Lubrication,
and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment Subject to Immersion
Whenever possible CSL International ships use biodegradable and/or environmentally acceptable
lubricants in all oil-to-sea interfaces. However, in many cases, existing lubricants are
incompatible with biodegradable or environmentally acceptable lubricants requiring a complete
change and flushing of the existing lubricant. Additionally, some existing equipment is not
designed to use biodegradable and/or environmentally acceptable lubricants; their use could
damage such equipment and void the manufacturers' warranties. We recommend EPA
specifically identify - either in the VGP or the Fact Sheet what is meant by technically infeasible.
Additionally we request the following insertion:
For all vessels built before December 19, 2013, unless technically infeasible as defined in the
Fact Sheet, owners/operators must use to the extent possible and practicable, an environmentally
acceptable or biodegradable lubricant in all oil to sea interfaces.
In Appendix A - Definitions and the Fact Sheet, EPA provides examples of programs which it
finds meet the definition of environmentally acceptable. It is unclear if the EPA is limiting
environmentally acceptable certification to only those certifying groups or if other EAL's are also
acceptable. It is beyond the scope of our company - and any shipping company - to conduct
testing for compliance with the definitions of environmental acceptability and biodegradability.
Therefore, EPA should provide an exhaustive and definitive list of certifying agencies or groups
which it finds acceptable as meeting the requirements of the VGP 2013. In this way, we will be
able to make a more informed decision regarding the purchase and use of EAL's.
Response: Please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt
41 and EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 16.
EPA notes that vessel owners/operators have broad discretion in selecting individual EALs for
use in oil-to-sea interfaces, provided they meet the definition of EALs in the permit. For
example, EPA notes that EALs labeled by many labeling programs are expected to meet the
permit's requirements for EAL criteria, thus satisfying the commenter's request for a list of
certifying agencies or groups acceptable as meeting the requirements of the VGP 2013.
Alternatively, products can undergo independent testing and qualify as an EAL, so long as EPA
standards outlined in the definition are met.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and
Governmental Affairs, Foss Maritime Company
Foss Maritime Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0560-A2
7
No
1033
-------
Comment: Foss believes EPA should eliminate the requirement in Part 2.2.9 pertaining to the
wiping down of tow wires, specifically "After applying lubrication to wire rope and mechanical
equipment subject to immersion, wire ropes, and other equipment must be thoroughly wiped
down to remove excess lubricant". The wording "All vessels constructed on or after December
19, 2013, must use an environmentally acceptable lubricant in all oil-to-sea interfaces.
"Environmentally acceptable lubricants" means lubricants that are "biodegradable" and "non-
toxic" and are not "bioaccumulative" as defined in Appendix A of this permit." should be
clarified to specifically exempt tow wires. If this is not accomplished, these regulations present a
significant danger to safe towing operationally. Our tow wires are lubed with the product
providing the highest adherent properties and protection against corrosion our mill can supply. It
does NOT run off at temperatures below 140 degrees Fahrenheit and does not flake off in
extreme cold weather. We have not seen it leave a sheen but would not biodegradable. All of our
experiments with biodegradable lubes or similarly environmentally sanctioned offerings have
come to naught. These products do not stand up to the hydraulic action of sea water and have
generally poor adherent properties. They do not set up with compactness in the interstices of the
valleys between the major strands of the tow wire without which salt water streams into the steel
core of the hawser and is carried on the drum layers to form corrosion cells. At present, and in no
small part due to the lubrication standard we presently enjoy, our tow wires show very high
levels of strength retention at retirement. The tow wires are still ductile and free of embrittlement
at full break or catastrophic failure; properties only consistently excellent lubrication can
provide. Safety of Foss' number one priority and a requirement for biodegradable lubricants for
tow wires would put our operations at risk and put our employees in a potentially unsafe
situation.
Response: With respect to EAL requirements for wire rope applications, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-485A1, excerpt 41. With respect to
requirements to wipe down wire rope after periodic lubrication, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 10.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent, V. Ships
Leisure
V. Ships Leisure
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2
8
No
Comment: Item No: 9
VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: Part 2.2.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster...
VGP 2013 or Factsheet text: Environmentally acceptable lubricants.
Comments: Use of environmentally acceptable lubricants in oil-to-sea interfaces - mandatorily
for new ships and if technically feasible for existing ships - this may be controversial as certain
lubricants manufacturers may claim their products as such and suitable for certain systems but
experience and/or the system manufacturers could claim otherwise.
1034
-------
Suggestion or Proposed Text: You are encouraged to use environmentally acceptable lubricants
which are "biodegradable" and "non-toxic" and are not "bio accumulative" as defined in
Appendix A of this permit.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 41.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574- A2
6
No
Comment: The EPA would require the use of environmentally-acceptable lubricants (EAL) in
all machinery and equipment where discharges of oil to surrounding waters are likely unless
technically infeasible. GSSA is concerned about the cost and performance of these products and
we recommend an exemption be provided for prohibitive costs as well as technical infeasibility
for use in some vessel engines. We are also concerned that engine manufacturers may specify
other lubricants in their operating manuals and changes to those specifications could void engine
warranties.
While the use of EALs in some engines would void the warranty, research has indicated that
biodegradable hydraulic oils could be substituted for mineral-based oils but the cost of these
substitutes can be three or more times the cost of standard hydraulic oils. We recommend that, if
EPA requires the use of biodegradable options, which are prohibitively expensive under normal
operating conditions, the government provide the industry with tax credits that would help offset
these costs. In addition, these EALs can also produce a sheen on the water, making it critically
important for the Agency to clarify its definition of a non-compliance event.
Response: Regarding concerns over technical infeasibility and economic achievability of use
of EALs, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 41.
Based on comments received, EPA has modified the economic analysis to account for more
variation in costs associated with EALs. EPA has evaluated the cost associated with requiring
EALs and determined their use is economically achievable. Please see the economic analysis
for today's permit for additional analysis. Issuance of tax credits is beyond the scope of this
permit and would require an Act of Congress.
EPA has determined that discharge of lubricants may not occur in quantities that may be
harmful as defined in 40 CFR Part 110. Vessel operators should employ all necessary control
measures, such as regular maintenance and inspections, to minimize any leaking. EPA notes
that Part 2.2.9 of the permit prohibits the discharge oil in quantities that may be harmful as
defined in 40 CFR Part 110 from any oil-to-sea interface, regardless of whether or not the sheen
is caused by the discharge of an EAL.
1035
-------
Commenter Name:
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574- A2
8
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: 2.2.9 CONTROLLABLE PITCH PROPELLER AND THRUSTER HYDRAULIC
FLUID AND OTHER OIL-TO-SEA INTERFACES
For newly built vessels (after December 19, 2013) the EPA requires only environmentally
acceptable lubricants be used in all oil-to-sea interfaces, without exception. For vessels built
before this time, the EPA requires acceptable lubricants be used unless technologically
infeasible, the use of which must be documented and reported as part of the recordkeeping
process. GSSA is concerned that most "environmentally acceptable" lubricants do not perform as
well as products currently in use and that the use of these other products, even if correctly
reported, would present operational risks and costs. Operators should be free to select which
lubricants will work within a specific application and be required to ensure their proper use on
board.
Response: Please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt
41 and EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 16.
Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director, California
Comment: The EPA requires use of environmentally acceptable lubricants (EAL) in all
machinery and equipment where discharges of oil to surrounding waters are likely unless
technically infeasible. CWPA members are concerned about cost and performance of these
products and we recommend an exemption be provided for prohibitive cost as well as technical
infeasibility for use in vessel engines. In addition, CWPA members also are concerned that
engine manufacturers specify prescribed oils in their operating procedure manuals, and any
change would void the engine warranty.
While the use of EALs in engines now would void the warranty, preliminary research has found
biodegradable hydraulic oils that could be substituted for mineral -based oils without causing
equipment failure; however, the cost of biodegradable oil is three or more times the cost of
typical hydraulic oil. CWPA recommends that if EPA requires the use of biodegradable oils in
hydraulic machinery, the government also provide a tax credit for fishermen to help offset the
significant increase in cost. One additional point, biodegradable oils also leave a sheen on the
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2
2
No
1036
-------
water. Thus it is critically important for EPA to clarify what specifically constitutes a non—
-compliance event.
Response: Please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt
41 and EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0574-A2, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director, California
Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and other Oil-to-Sea
Interfaces (p.43)
For newly built vessels (after December 19, 2013) the EPA requires only environmentally
acceptable lubricants can be used in all oil—to—sea interfaces, no exceptions. For vessels built
before this time, the EPA requires acceptable lubricants be used unless technically infeasible, the
use of which must be documented and reported as part of the recordkeeping process.
CWPA is concerned that environmentally acceptable lubricants (EAL) do not perform as well as
other products currently in use, and that any choice to use these other products, even if correctly
reported, could put the vessel operator at risk for increased scrutiny. Operators should be free to
select which lubricants to use but also to ensure proper use of them.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 41.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Brent Paine, Executive Director, United Catcher Boats
(UCB) and Glenn Reed, President, Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
United Catcher Boats (UCB) and Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0630-A2
7
No
Comment: 2.2.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster... and Wire Rope and Mechanical
Equipment Subject to Immersion
We believe the requirements for wire rope were drafted with a primary focus on such equipment
being subject to only intermittent immersion such as in towing operations. In commercial
fishing, wire rope is used to set out and retrieve fishing gear under intense pressures and in deep
water. As much of the lubrication of wire rope is applied during its manufacture, the use of
1037
-------
environmentally appropriate lubricants will be dependent upon the availability of and economic
feasibility of its use during construction of the material. In addition, the implications for the
strength and longevity of wire rope manufactured with environmentally appropriate lubricant
must be taken into consideration. A wire rope failure on a vessel engaged in the commercial
fishing industry can present tremendous safety concerns for the on-deck crew. In addition,
increased failure of wire rope could result in the loss of fishing gear with consequent
environmental harm as a result of ghost-fishing by such derelict gear.
This VGP should clarify that use of environmentally appropriate lubricants on wire rope is
required unless such use is technically or economically infeasible or poses an increased risk of
equipment failure.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0485-A1, excerpt 41
regarding EPA's application and definition of the term "technically infeasible" and EPA's
determination that the use of EALs are economically achievable, and to the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1, excerpt 10 regarding permit requirements for
lubricated wire rope.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army
Corps of Engineers
US Army Corps of Engineers
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0632-A2
6
No
Comment: Issue 9. Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants
Reference: Vessel General Permit (VGP), 2.2.9 - Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster
Hydraulic Fluid and Other Oil-to-Sea Interfaces Including Lubrication Discharges from Paddle
Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Thruster Bearings, Stabilizers, Rudder Bearings, Azimuth
Thrusters, Propulsion Pod Lubrication, and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment Subject to
Immersion and Appendix A - Definitions.
Discussion: The VGP now requires the use of Environmentally Acceptable (EA) lubricants in
certain applications. The definition in Appendix A of EA is based on European standards for
biodegradable, nontoxic and bio accumulative. No consideration has been given to US based
(ASTM) testing methods. Additionally, the US ACE feels that the science in the US behind
bioaccumulation is not mature to include in this permit. Finally, many of the European "Green"
labels are directed for "bio-based" products. Biobased products are not necessarily EA, and vice
verse, non bio-based products can be EA.
Recommendation: US ACE recommends that the EPA should also include US based (ASTM)
testing methods and limitations/guidelines. Additionally, US ACE recommends removing the
requirement for bioaccumulation. For the purpose of this permit, the definition of an EA
lubricant should be based around biodegradability (readily and inherently) and toxicity. With
respect to toxicity, the US ACE recommends an EC50 or LC50 rating of "Practically Nontoxic
(100-1000 mg/L or ppm)" or better (better being Relatively Harmless at >1000 mg/L or ppm).
1038
-------
US ACE recommends the EPA develop a US "green" label to provide to qualifying
manufacturers and products. This label should be centered on environmental performance
criteria, not necessarily the chemical make-up/bio-based of the fluid.
Response: To further clarify the definition of EALs, EPA added more specific definitions for
"biodegradable," "minimally-toxic," and "not bio accumulative" (see Appendix A in the
permit). EPA acknowledges that biobased products are not necessarily EALs and vice versa.
The definition of EAL does not include any renewability content criteria (such as is the case for
the European Ecolabel, the Swedish Standard, and Nordic Swan). In addition, EPA notes that
EALs labeled by the following labeling programs are expected to meet the EAL specifications
given in the permit: Blue Angel, European Ecolabel, Nordic Swan, the Swedish Standard SS
155470, Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic
(OSPAR) requirements, and EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE). While EPA understands
the commenter's concerns regarding these labeling programs, EPA has determined that those
listed have the highest environmental standards in testing available at this time. EPA intends to
be impartial to foreign or domestic products. Products that are not labeled in these international
programs can undergo independent testing and qualify as an EAL so long as EPA standards
outlined in the definition are met.
Since common testing methods for biodegradability are variable and use different measurement
parameters, different test types exist including measurements of ready biodegradability,
hydrocarbon degradability, and overall biodegradability. EPA disagrees that no consideration
has been given to US based (ASTM) testing methods. EPA has evaluated ASTM testing
methods and how they have been used in other evaluations of EALs, including them where
appropriate. For example, EPA has identified ASTM methods 5864 and D-7373 as acceptable
test methods for assessing biodegradability. For future permit iterations, EPA is open to
inclusion of additional ASTM methods, provided they demonstrate that a given product meets
EPA's environmental criteria.
Regarding the commenter's recommendations to remove the requirement for bioaccumulation
and to reduce the threshold for evaluating toxicity, EPA notes that the commenter does not
provide any rationale or environmental assessment to support their recommendations.
Accordingly, EPA has retained these requirements to reduce the potential environmental impact
of lubricants.
Additionally, EPA appreciates the Corps' desire for EPA to establish a US "green" labeling
program. Regarding such a US green label, EPA has amended Section 4.4.9 of the permit
factsheet to describe EPA's Design for the Environment Program (DfE) initiative to label
environmentally friendly lubricants. EPA has also referenced EPA's DfE program in the
definition of "environmentally acceptable lubricants" in the permit. Though beyond the scope
of this permit issuance, EPA notes that the DfE program has been actively discussing labeling
options with numerous product manufacturers, and the Agency is optimistic that some products
will obtain this label in the near term.
Commenter Name: J. Sherman
1039
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0673-A1
1
No
Comment: My comments are in reference to Section 3.5.1.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller and
Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and other Oil to Sea Interfaces including Lubrication discharges from
Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Thruster Bearings, Stabilizers, Rudder Bearings,
Azimuth Thrusters, Propulsion Pod Lubrication, and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment
Subject to Immersion of the proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP).
First I would like to state information from; 1. the proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit, 2. the
proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet and 3. the Proposed Small Vessel General
Permit (sVGP).
1. In Section 3.5.1.9 of the proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP), it states that all
vessels constructed on or after December 19, 2013 must use an environmentally acceptable
lubricant in all oil-to-sea interfaces. "Environmentally acceptable lubricants" means
lubricants that are "biodegradable" and "non-toxic" and are not "bioaccumulative" as defined
in Appendix A of this permit. For all vessels built before December 19, 2013, unless
technically infeasible, owners/operators must use an environmentally acceptable lubricant in
all oil to sea interfaces. If a vessel is unable to use an environmentally acceptable lubricant,
you must document in your recordkeeping documentation consistent with Part 4.2 why you
are unable to do so, and must report the use of a non-environmentally acceptable lubricant to
EPA in your Annual Report.
2. In the Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet under the section 3.5.1.9 it
states "The impact of lubricant discharges (not accidental spills) to the marine ecosystem is
substantial. The majority of ocean-going ships operate with oil-lubricated stern tubes and use
lubricating oils in a large number of applications in on-deck and underwater (submerged)
machinery. The sources of operational discharges include deck machinery and in-water
(submerged) machinery."
3. In the Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Section 2.3 Engine and Oil Control
subheading (h) it states " Unless technically infeasible, you must use environmentally
acceptable lubricants (as defined in Part 6 of this permit) in all machinery and equipment,
including but not limited to stern tubes, wires, and two-stroke engines, where discharges of
oil to surrounding waters are likely to occur."
Comment: As stated in the Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet sources of
operational; discharges include deck machinery as well as in-water ( oil to sea interface)
machinery. I urge the EPA to include in the proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP), the
statement that all vessels constructed on or after December 19, 2013, must use an
environmentally acceptable lubricant as defined in Appendix A of this permit in all deck
machinery. For all vessels built before December 19, 2013, unless technically infeasible,
owners/operators must use an environmentally acceptable lubricant in all deck machinery
1040
-------
applications. If a vessel is unable to use an environmentally acceptable lubricant, you must
document in your recordkeeping documentation consistent with Part 4.2 why you are unable to
do so, and must report the use of a non-environmentally acceptable lubricant to EPA in your
Annual Report.
Deck machinery would include but not be limited to deck cranes, winches, cargo hatches,
laulers, and anchor windlasses.
Response: Management requirements for deck equipment such as cranes and winches are
provided at Part 2.2.1 of the permit (Deck Washdown and Runoff). At this time, EPA has not
mandated that vessels "must" use EALs for their deck applications; however, the Agency has
provided strong encouragement to do so. Unlike with oil-to-sea interfaces, EPA has not made a
positive determination that these products are widely available for use in all deck applications.
The Agency notes, however, that it believes these products are available for many on deck
applications and that vessel owner/operators should use them when possible. Please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0538-A1, excerpt 1 for additional discussion of
mandating EAL use for deck machinery.
Commenter Name: David Hawkins, General Manager, Kernel USA Inc
Commenter Affiliation: Kernel USA Inc
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0792-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: Our comments on the proposed VGP are:
1) Air Seal type shaft seal system should be required.
Firstly, oil leakage should be prevented. Air Seal type system must be applied to stern tubes
and thrusters. If air seal is not applicable, then technically, environmentally acceptable
lubricant must be used.
This technology is widely in use now and been available for over 15 years. If more
information is needed please let us know.
2) Environmentally acceptable lubricant.
For environmentally acceptable lubricant, readily biodegradability, non-toxicity and non-
bioaccumulation are required. The requirements are too much. Readily biodegradability and
practical non-toxicity to fish are enough. Because lubricant with these two properties is much
more environmentally friendly than conventional mineral lubricant.
Response: EPA notes the commenter's suggestion for requiring air seal type systems for stern
tubes and thrusters; however, EPA has not included in the final permit such a requirement at
this time as mandatory requirement to use such products may not be attainable in all cases. Note
that Part 2.2.9 of the permit requires seals to be maintained in good working order to minimize
the leaking of hydraulic oil or other oils, and that major maintenance of seals should occur in
dry dock where oils cannot be released to the environment, excepting emergencies. Part 4.1.3 of
the permit requires that seals be inspected at least once every 12 months. EPA has determined
1041
-------
that discharge of lubricants should generally not occur if vessels are properly maintained.
Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0632-A2, excerpt 6 regarding
EPA's retention of "not bio accumulative" within the definition of EALs.
9.7 Underwater Ship Husbandry
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
17
No
Comment: P. 49, Part 2.2.23 - Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges -The second
paragraph refers to methods of rigorous hull cleaning activities used in dry-dock. While it is
certainly appropriate for ships to minimize impacts to the water from activities such as those
described, in fact those discharges would be from the dry-dock or land based facility and not the
vessel. We recommend the following language:
When performing underwater ship husbandry activities in dry-dock or at a land based facility:
• Whenever possible, rigorous hull-cleaning activities should take place in dry-dock or at a
land based facility.
• The vessel must take all efforts to prevent the release of ship husbandry discharges
directly to the waters of this permit.
• If using water-pressure based systems to clean the hull or remove old paint, wash water
and removed materials must be captured and managed in compliance with local, state, or
federal requirements applicable to that facility.
Response: EPA agrees that when the vessel is in drydock, the cleaning of the vessel hull is an
industrial activity and that activity would need to be covered by a separate NPDES permit. That
activity is not eligible for coverage under the VGP. The dry-dock or land-based facility is
responsible for industrial operations and practices at their facility (and would need separate
permit coverage for those industrial activities) for discharges from the dry dock (associated with
the vessel) if a vessel is in dry dock. EPA would expect that limits at least as stringent as those
contained within the VGP would be found in that permit.
EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggested revisions because the permit requirements,
while suggesting the vessel conduct cleaning in drydock, are applicable when vessels conduct
maintenance in the water, including underwater ship husbandry. They also provide appropriate
guidance for when cleaning activities are occurring in dry docks. As discussed above, industrial
activities in drydocks are not eligible for coverage under the VGP and must, instead, obtain
separate NPDES coverage from the appropriate permitting authority.
In terms of specific edits proposed by the commenter, the suggested revisions would not
1042
-------
incorporate all of the VGP requirements (i.e., permit limits applicable to treatment of washwater
generated by water-pressure-based systems, collection and disposal of hull materials removed
by mechanical means, etc.). Accordingly, EPA has retained the proposed permit language and
not made the suggested edits proposed by the commenter.
Commenter Name: Abigail Blodgett, Legal Fellow, San Francisco Baykeeper
Commenter Affiliation: San Francisco Baykeeper
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0549-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: The permit should clarify when underwater cleaning is permitted, and how it is
enforced. Currently, the draft permit states that, "[w]henever possible, rigorous hull-cleaning
activities should take place in drydock, or at a land-based facility where the removal of fouling
organisms or spent antifouling coatings paint can be contained." VGP 48, §2.2.23. The permit
must provide some standard to judge "whenever possible," or else compliance with this permit
will be impossible for the vessel, regulator, or public to determine. Moreover, it is unclear how
the permit requires the operator to determine whether or not out-of-water cleaning is possible. At
a minimum, the permit should prohibit all in-water cleaning in water bodies impaired for exotic
species, for vessels arriving from extended periods in separate water bodies.
Response: Per Part 1.2.2.23 of the permit, Underwater Ship Husbandry discharges are eligible
for coverage under the permit. Therefore, Underwater Ship Husbandry discharges are permitted,
provided they meet the effluent limits and related requirements provided at Part 2.2.23 of the
Permit. EPA also notes that some states may include requirements applicable to Underwater
Ship Husbandry as part of their CWA State 401 certifications. Any violation of permit
requirements may be subject to EPA enforcement.
The term "whenever possible" is used in the VGP to provide as a point of reference for
compliance practices that a reasonable person in the marine industry would expect to see for a
well maintained vessel.EPA did not incorporate the in-water prohibitions recommended by the
commenter because prohibiting all discharges related with underwater ship husbandry would
effectively prohibit underwater ship husbandry itself. Doing so might exacerbate the spread of
invasive species from hull fouling in the long-term, in addition to causing other negative
environmental impacts such as increased use of fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions, and
other air pollutants that would be associated with the need to travel out of impaired waters for
underwater ship husbandry.
The permit requirements for hull-cleaning activities provided at Part 2.2.23 of the permit will
minimize the discharge of fouling organisms regardless of whether or not the water body is
currently impaired for exotic species. Second, Part 2.2.23 of the permit requires that permittees
minimize the transport of attached living organisms when traveling into U.S. waters from
outside the U.S. economic zone or between Captains of the Port zones. The provision specifies
the management measures required to minimize such transport.
1043
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. Guy Kaulukukui, Acting Administrator, State of
Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources
(DLNR)
State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources
(DLNR)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0572-A2
3
No
Comment: In regards to managing AIS risks from biofouling, DLNR is encouraged by the
insertion of new text in Section 2.2.3 of the VGP that attempts to minimize the risks associated
with vessel cleaning. As the EPA would be aware, this issue is closely linked with managing
vessel biofouling, given that shore-based and in-water maintenance of vessels can facilitate the
release of invasive aquatic pests into the surrounding environment. The requirement that
materials removed from the hull during cleaning in dry dock be collected and disposed of
onshore is supported by DLNR. Equally, DLNR supports the minimization of fouling organisms
being released to the surrounding environment during in-water cleaning.
Response: The State of Hawaii's comment confirms support for and the reasonableness of
these permit requirements.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. Guy Kaulukukui, Acting Administrator, State of
Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources
(DLNR)
State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources
(DLNR)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0572-A2
5
No
Comment: DLNR is commencing work on managing the risks of AIS through vessel
biofouling, and feels that the draft VGPs makes good headway towards tackling this issue. We
are concerned about underwater ship husbandry discharges. This is an emerging issue in marine
bio security, and is receiving attention in Australia and New Zealand with a review currently
underway for in-water hull cleaning and vessel maintenance (http://dalf.gov.au/anirnal-plant-
health/pests-diseasesweeds/marine-pests/draft-antifouling-and-inwater-cleaning-guidelines).
DLNR would welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with the EPA on this issue.
Response: EPA remains open to partnering with other organizations to improve understanding
of hull fouling and ways to minimize it.
1044
-------
Commenter Name:
Pamela Parker, Vessel Discharges, Division of Water
Quality Management, Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (MEDEP)
Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0628-A2
8
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: 2.2.23 Underwater Ship Husbandry.
Although the VGP is clear that its issuance does not pre-empt other NPDES permitting
requirements, the second paragraph, second sentence of this section appears to authorize the
discharge of wash water generated from pressure washing a dry docked hull back to the water
body without a separate approval process. The effluent from this process is not incidental to the
operation of the vessel and has been identified as process waste water requiring separate
regulation under NPDES. In many locations, discharge of this waste water back to the surface
water is prohibited, as is discharge to the storm water system. Further, the waste water often
must meet specific standards before being discharged to the municipal sewer.
Suggested Language: "If water-pressure-based systems are used to clean the hull and remove old
paint, you must use facilities which treat the washwater prior to discharging, with approval, to a
municipal sewer system, or via another approved disposal method, waters subject to this permit
in order to remove the antifouling compound(s) and fouling growth from the washwater. The
discharge of effluent generated during drydock or landbased hull hull cleaning is ineligible for
coverage under this permit and must be approved though local ordinance, state law, and federal
law (NPDES) prior to the activity commencing."
The MEDEP is skeptical that underwater cleaning of antifouling paint coated surface can be
conducted without generating a plume that includes significant amounts of paint residue in
addition to the fouling debris. Further, not the permit, fact sheet, nor the "Underwater Ship
Husbandry Discharges" technical report (EPA 800-R-11-004) address the potential impacts of
solids and organic materials and the potential resultant biochemical oxygen demand. Therefore,
we recommend that the locations where this activity routinely takes place be closely monitored
for toxics accumulation and dissolved oxygen and suggest that there be additional best
management practices that minimize the potential impacts. We do recognize that underwater
cleaning has significant benefits from fuel efficiency, emission reduction and aquatic nuisance
species standpoints and technologies that are capable of capturing the removed material are not
currently commercially available.
Response: EPA agrees that cleaning of dry docked hulls is not a discharge incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel. Vessels operating in a capacity other than as a means of
transportation are beyond the scope of the former 40 CFR 122.3(a) NPDES exclusion, and
hence are not eligible for coverage under to the VGP. Besides the examples set out in §
122.3(a), EPA also notes that vessels undergoing repair or maintenance within a drydock are
not afloat and are likely to be out of service for more protracted periods of time and as such are
not operating in a capacity as means of transportation. Floating drydocks themselves, once
immobile and operating in an industrial capacity as a ship maintenance or repair facility, cease
to operate in a capacity as a means of transportation and thus their discharges are not covered
1045
-------
by the VGP.
Industrial activity in a drydock is not eligible for coverage under the VGP. The dry-dock or
land-based facility is responsible for industrial operations and practices at their facility (and
would need separate permit coverage for those industrial activities) for industrial discharges
from the dry dock (associated with the vessel) if a vessel is in dry dock. Hence, EPA does not
believe the changes suggested by the commenter are necessary. Additionally, Part 1.11 of the
Permit states that nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any
legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established
to any applicable state law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 510 of the CWA.
In addition, Part 1.12 of the Permit clearly states that nothing in this permit shall be construed to
affect, supersede, or relieve the vessel owner of operator of any otherwise applicable
requirements or prohibitions under other provisions of federal law or regulations.
EPA believes that the commenter's skepticism "that underwater cleaning of antifouling paint
coated surface can be conducted without generating a plume" is unfounded. With appropriate
attention, production of plumes of paint can be avoided when cleaning hulls underwater. Hence,
it is a requirement of this permit that cleaning of hull surfaces coated with copper-based
antifoulant paint must not result in any visible cloud or plume of paint in the water. The permit
requires that if a visible cloud or plume of paint develops, the vessel operator must shift to a
softer brush or less abrasive cleaning technique. Production of a plume of paint in the water
from underwater husbandry is a permit violation. This requirement is intended to minimize the
potential impacts of residual paint that can be removed from a vessel's hull. The commenter
provides no basis for its suggestion "that there be additional best management practices that
minimize the potential impacts" of "solids and organic materials and the potential resultant
biochemical oxygen demand" or for its monitoring recommendations, and merely notes that
EPA has not adequately discussed those potential impacts in the permit and its supporting
documentation. Today's VGP includes underwater ship husbandry BMPs that are reflective of
BAT.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Brent Paine, Executive Director, United Catcher Boats
(UCB) and Glenn Reed, President, Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
United Catcher Boats (UCB) and Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0630-A2
9
No
Comment: 2.2.23 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges
• The VGP should note that fouling organisms sometimes discharge themselves into waters
subject to the permit.
When vessels enter waters of dramatically different salinity, for example, when transiting
a lock system from salt to fresh water, many fouling organisms will self-discharge from
1046
-------
the bottom of a vessel and die. There is nothing a vessel owner/operator can do to control
such a discharge.
Response: The change suggested by the commenter is not necessary. While EPA agrees that
fouling organisms releasing themselves from the hull cannot be eliminated when a hull is
fouled, EPA disagrees there is nothing a vessel owner/operators can do to minimize such
discharges. The permit does not impose any limitation directly on the release of organisms
attached to hulls, it does impose limitations in the form of BMPs to minimize the adverse
effects of pollutant discharges associated with underwater ship husbandry, including live and
dead organisms. Part 2.2.23 of the permit requires that permittees minimize the transport of
attached living organisms when traveling into U.S. waters from outside the U.S. economic zone
or between Captain of the Port zones, and specifies the management measures required to
minimize such transport. Minimizing the transport of attached living organisms (and overall
fouling) prior to entry into the United States will also minimize the self-discharge of fouling
organisms of concern.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
15
No
Comment: Section 2.2.23: This section should contain a provision explicitly allowing (and
encouraging ) in-water hull cleaning to occur, if necessary, immediately following an extended
residency period (i.e., remaining in a single location for an extended period, such as 90 days or
greater), as this type of inactivity is associated with heavy biofouling accumulation. Because the
organisms colonizing a stationary vessel are already present in that environment, there is
minimal concern for biological contamination. This will reduce the likelihood of a vessel
presenting greater risk to its subsequent ports of call and is aligned with the international strategy
of "clean before you go."
Response: Part 2.2.23 of the permit already does require that vessel owners/operators
minimize the transport of attached living organisms when traveling into U.S. waters from
outside the U.S. economic zone or between Captains of the Port zones (i.e., fouling organisms
of concern). Based on this and other comment, the final VGP specifies management measures
that may be used to minimize such transport. As applicable to the example described by the
commenter (a vessel with an extended residency period in U.S. waters), Part 2.2.23 requires the
management measures described by the commenter (i.e., in water inspection, cleaning and
maintenance of the hull) prior to traveling between Captain of the Port zones. EPA notes that
the same management measures are also required for vessels with an extended residency period
outside the U.S. economic zone when traveling into U.S. waters. For additional discussion of
hull fouling, please see section 9.8 of this comment response document.
1047
-------
9.8 All Other Discharge Categories
Commenter Name:
Public Hearing Oral Comments by ACA's John Hopewell.
January 10, 2012
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0445
1
No
Comment: Our member's biocidal products are registered through an exhaustive process by the
US EPA and when used as directed have been determined to be safe to the environment and to
human health. We agree invasive species are a serious threat to our environment, to the economy
and ultimately to American competiveness. One of the most effective ways to decrease the
chances of spreading non-native aquatic organisms is through the use and application of
antifouling paint containing biocide.
Antifouling paint also has the added benefit of reducing hull drag, which reduces fuel
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The vessel permits should not discourage the use of
these safe and effective biofouling and greenhouse gas emission controls. There is no evidence,
no scientific study that shows a threat to an organism population due to the proper use of US
EPA registered coatings. However, invasive species are a proven cause of the loss of native
aquatic organism populations. Biofouling has been identified as the number one vector for the
introduction of invasive species in coastal waters - more so than that of ballast water. A Cornell
University study concluded that 42% of the organisms on the endangered and threatened species
list are there primarily due to invasive species. Our membership has a multitude of coatings
available to the vessel owners but the customer should decide through actual practice which
coating best satisfies their needs for biofouling control. They have no reason to choose
otherwise. The selection of the best product will ultimately best protect the environment.
Response: EPA agrees with commenter that the use and application of antifouling paints is an
effective way to decrease the chances of spreading non-native aquatic organisms. The final
permit does not disallow the use of anti-fouling hull coatings and provides flexibility for vessel
owner/operators in the selection of these coatings; however, the permit does require
consideration of the types of coatings used and how those coatings are to be applied,
maintained, and removed, when necessary. For example, at the time of initial application or
scheduled reapplication of anti-fouling coatings, the vessel owner/operator must consider, as
appropriate for vessel class and vessel operations, the use of hull coatings with the lowest
effective biocide release rates, rapidly biodegradable components (once separated from the hull
surface), or non-biocidal alternatives, such as silicone coatings to aid in the selection of the
most appropriate anti-fouling hull coating. EPA does not believe the requirement to consider
different types of antifouling coatings will discourage vessel owner/operators from continuing
to use these. Please also see section 9.1 of this comment response document.
1048
-------
Commenter Name:
William H. Shropshire, President, American Chemet
Corporation
American Chemet Corporation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0473-A1
1
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Thank you for meeting with us following the Vessel Permit public hearing held in
Chicago. In the discussion, you requested additional information regarding the mode of action
for copper in anti-fouling coatings and the science covering the bioavailability of the copper in
water. Below is the information you requested.
Copper is effective as an antifouling biocide because it provides an elevated concentration
of bioavailable copper ion at the hull surface which has a deterrent effect, thus inhibiting the
attachment of organisms. After accomplishing this task, it becomes nonbioavailable and
therefore nontoxic in a short period of time in natural water which contains organic and
inorganic material. Rarely does toxicity exist a significant distance from the hull of the vessel.
When metallic copper or cuprous oxide leaches into marine water with oxygen present, the
predominant form of the copper is the cupric ion Cu2+ (Figure 1). At the hull of the vessel where
the copper is released, the cupric ion is both concentrated and bioavailable and thus overwhelms
the natural biological processes of the fouling organisms that under normal conditions can utilize
the copper as a micro nutrient or expel excess copper (Figure 2). However, this concentrated
cupric ion, after repelling organisms, quickly complexes and becomes dilute as is moves away
from the hull. Because of this mode of action, organisms can safely exist in close proximity to
vessels with copper-containing coatings, such as on pilings of piers and docks (see picture
below).
SEE ORIGINAL COMMENT FOR FIGURE 1
Figure 1. Explanation - The micro layer has a toxic concentration of the bioavailable cupric ion.
Further away from the hull the ion becomes more dilute and bound to organic and inorganic
substances.
SEE ORIGINAL COMMENT FOR FIGURE 2
Figure 2. Explanation - At the hull the cupric ion concentration is in the toxic range of the dose
response curve. Further away from the hull the ion becomes more dilute and bound primarily to
organic matter and the concentration drop back into the non-toxic range of the curve.
SEE ORIGINAL COMMENT FOR PHOTO
Blue Mussels at the Mouth of Shelter Island Yacht Basin, San Diego.
Blue Mussel Larva are the Most Senstive Species and Life Stage to Copper.
The US EPA understands the science of bioavailability. It's Framework for Metals Risk
Assessment (http://www.epa.gov/raf/metalsframework/index.htm) offers "general guidance to
1049
-------
EPA programs for considering the various properties of metals, such as environmental chemistry,
bioavailability, and bio accumulation." In 2007 the US EPA adopted the fresh water copper
Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) to calculate site specific water quality criteria based on
bioavailability. The Office of Water is currently reviewing the data to adopt the marine copper
BLM and the Office of Pesticide Program uses bioavailability in considering copper
antimicrobial registrations. As I testified, a recent study using the marine BLM and water
sampling in Shelter Island Yacht Basin concluded that Shelter Island Yacht Basin is not impaired
due to copper even though there are exceedances of the Clean Water Act chronic water criteria of
3.1 ug/kg.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and the additional information regarding the mode
of action and bioavailability of copper released from anti-fouling coatings. EPA notes that the
Agency spoke with the commenter immediately following the public hearing in Chicago. EPA
also notes that we requested any additional information be sent to the docket for this permit.
EPA appreciates the additional information submitted and considered this information, along
with other new and existing sources of information, to address anti-fouling coatings leachate
discharges in Section 3.5.1.4 of the VGP Fact Sheet. In addition, EPA considered this
information in finalizing Parts 2.2.4 and 2.2.23 of the Permit, which specify required
management practices for anti-fouling coatings and hull cleaning activities to minimize the
impact of copper from vessels.
EPA notes that the Agency believes copper anti-foulant hull coatings may be appropriate for
use in some cases, but that there are potential negative environmental impacts from unmitigated
copper discharges. EPA has discussed the pros and cons of copper anti-foulant paints and their
potential environmental impacts in several documents, including EPA's 2010 "Study of
Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non-
Recreational Vessels Less than 79 Feet" and the "Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges"
technical development document developed for this permit issuance.
Regarding copper toxicity, a study of anti-fouling biocides in California marinas found
dissolved copper concentrations ranging from 0.1-18.4 |ig/L in the water (Singhasemanon,
20081). Concentrations were significantly higher in salt- and brackish water marinas than in
freshwater marinas. Dissolved copper concentrations in many of the salt- and brackish water
marinas exceeded established water quality standards. Thus, there are ecological risks due to
copper in many salt and brackish water marinas (Singhasemanon, 2008). Significant toxicity
was measured in 8 of 47 water samples; 7 of the toxic samples came from Marina del Rey
(MdR) in Los Angeles (Singhasemanon et al., 20092). The authors concluded that copper was
the most likely cause of the toxicity in these samples. Two models of copper bioavailability and
toxicity to aquatic organisms, the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) and dissolved organic carbon
(DOC) model, were used to confirm these findings. The BLM and DOC model predictions
agreed favorably with the actual toxicity data, although both models tended to slightly over
predict toxicity, especially when close to the toxic effect concentration (i.e., EC50)
(Singhasemanon, 2008).
Rivera-Duarte et al. (2003)3 also investigated the bioavailability and toxicity of copper in San
1050
-------
Diego Bay and found that toxicity was based on chemical speciation and followed the free ion
activity model. The EC50 for mussel larval development was observed near 10"11 molar (i.e.,
0.64 ng/L) free copper ion. The toxic threshold concentration of free copper ion was
independent of spatial and temporal effects, indicating the need to study chemical speciation of
copper released from antifouling paints in order to determine its environmental effects (Rivera-
Duarte et al., 2003).
Weston Solutions, Inc (2012)4 conducted a monitoring survey in 2011, including water quality
sampling at six stations and one reference station in the main channel of San Diego Bay
adjacent to Shelter Island Yacht Basin to determine dissolved copper concentrations, test for
acute and chronic toxicity, and assess water quality trends over time. Although dissolved copper
concentrations at all stations exceeded the chronic water criteria of 3.1 (ag/L, evidence of
toxicity to marine life was found at only one station. The Weston report concluded that while
there is an increasing body of evidence that the 3.1 (ag/L criterion is overly protective of water
quality beneficial uses, further studies are needed to understand how site-specific factors affect
copper bioavailability in Shelter Island Yacht Basin (Weston Solutions, 2012).
Finally, as referenced by the commenter, the Department of Defense's SPAWAR, in
coordination with the University of San Diego, conducted sampling and toxicity testing at 62
sites in Shelter Island Yacht Basin and the main body of San Diego Bay in 2011 (SPAWAR and
University of San Diego, 20125). The study findings showed elevated levels of copper in Shelter
Island compared to the rest of the bay, but the authors reported that the elevated levels were
generally not toxic to mussel embryos (1 out of 62 samples somewhat toxic).
In light of these studies and their variable findings, EPA concludes that a greater level of
research is needed to determine whether or not a change in EPA's consideration of copper
toxicity is warranted at Shelter Island Yacht Basin and other ports and harbors impaired by
copper. In the meanwhile, EPA believes that the permit's requirements for copper anti-foulant
hull coatings strike an appropriate balance of recognizing the beneficial uses of copper-based
anti-fouling coatings (including uses mitigating the transfer of aquatic nuisance species) and
minimizing unnecessary copper discharges into Waters of the United States.
1 Singhasemanon, N. 2008. Assessment of Antifouling Paint Use indicators in California Marinas. CA Department
of Pesticide Regulations. Presented at: CAHMPC Annual Conference, Ventura, CA.
2
Singhasemanon, N., E. Pyatt, and J. Bacey. 2009. Monitoring for Indicators of Anfouling Paint Pollution in
California Marinas. EH08-05. California Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Branch,
California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA.
3
Rivera-Duarte, I., G. Rosen, D.B. Chadwick, L. Kear-Padilla, and A. Zirino. 2003. Speciation and Bioavailability
of Copper in San Diego Bay; Free Copper Ion Concentration as Main Vector to Study the Effect of Copper
Leaching from Antifouling Paints. Presented at: International Symposium on Prevention of Pollution from Ships
and Shipyards, New Orleans, LA, November 5-7, 2003.
4
Weston Solutions, Inc., 2012. Shelter Island Yacht Basin Dissolved Copper Total Maximum Daily Load 2011
Monitoring and Progress Final Report.
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) and University of San Diego, 2012. Copper
Bioavilability and Toxicity to Mytilus galloprovincialis in Shelter Island Yacht Basin, San Diego, CA.
1051
-------
Commenter Name:
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Chamber of Shipping of America
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
14
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Anti-Fouling Hull Coatings/Hull Coating Leachate (Section 2.2.4, pgs. 40 - 41):
CSA appreciates EPA's recognition of the variations in anti-fouling hull coatings. However, we
have several questions relating to this section. Namely, what constitutes an evaluation of
available coating alternatives "appropriate for vessel class and operations"? And further, what
type of documentation will the vessel owner be required to produce that indicates a compliant
evaluation of available coating alternatives? We offer a few suggestions which EPA should
consider prior to responding to these questions. First, effective anti-fouling coatings are critical
to minimizing the risk of invasive species which may be imported on vessel hulls. In fact, many
would suggest that invasions from organisms attached to the hull are at least equal to if not
greater than the invasions attributable to ballast water discharges. Therefore, the major focus on
hull coating selection should be its effectiveness in preventing hull fouling. Following from this
major focus is recognition of the fact that coatings which are less toxic are arguably less effective
in fouling prevention at least in certain operating scenarios. One possible exception may be self-
polishing coatings however their application and effectiveness is generally limited to vessels
which operate at service speeds in excess of 17 knots and thus do not represent a viable
alternative to copper based coatings for the vast majority of vessels which operate at less than 17
knots. The point of this discussion is to establish the premise that we must not require extremely
expensive ballast water treatment systems only to find that limitations on the use of effective hull
coatings have actually increased the risk of invasions from a particular ship. Finally, as EPA is
aware, the IMO developed the Anti-Fouling System (AFS) Convention which entered into force
on September 17, 2008. While the US has not yet ratified the convention, the US delegation
played a critical role in the drafting of the Convention and final agreement reached by IMO
member states. The AFS Convention initially banned hull coatings containing tri-butyl tin (TBT)
but leaves open the issue as to which, if any, other hull coatings can and should be banned under
the convention. While we do not advocate for the addition of copper based coatings as a banned
substance under the convention, if the US believes this is a necessary way forward, it should be
accomplished by a US proposal to IMO supported by science suggesting that copper based
coatings are in fact an environmental problem. We would suggest that the science suggests just
the opposite taking into account that the vast majority of vessels engaged in international trade
spend less than 10% of their operating time in US waters. While we can appreciate concerns
related to vessels which remain in one waterway for the large percentage of their operating time
e.g. vessels in marinas, large commercial ships, including those engaged in domestic trade, are
not in port for a sufficient amount of time to produce negative environmental impacts from the
hull anti-fouling systems. Therefore with regard to this section, we would ask EPA to provide
more details on what it would deem an evaluation "appropriate for vessel class and operations"
keeping in mind that a far greater environmental risk is posed by aquatic nuisance species
invasions than the extremely low concentration of biocides entering a waterbody from a hull
fouling system.
1052
-------
Response: The commenter is correct that the VGP does not prescribe the specifics of BMP
implementation for hull coatings as the VGP addresses a range of vessel types and hull
coatings. EPA used this approach because of the necessary flexibility to address the diversity of
vessels with no one approach being the most appropriate for all types of vessels. Although the
VGP does not provide bright line tests for what is acceptable, it does identify the factors and
considerations that are to be taken into account in evaluating hull coatings for specific vessels at
the time of initial application or scheduled reapplication of anti-fouling coatings. These
considerations include (1) use of hull coatings with the lowest effective biocide release rates,
(2) rapidly biodegradable components (once separated from the hull surface), or (3) non-
biocidal alternatives. Because of the diversity of vessels and vessel operations covered under
this permit, EPA believes a permit condition "requiring" use of coatings with the "least
environmental impact" is infeasible for an operator to identify and as such, EPA instead
requires operators to "give consideration" to such factors. In addition, Section 4.4.4 of the VGP
Fact Sheet provides additional discussion focused on factors specific to each vessel that affect
biofouling (e.g., vessel operational profile, including operating speed, drydocking requirements,
and the waters in which the vessel will be operating). EPA's "Underwater Ship Husbandry
Discharges" technical development document also describes vessel-specific factors likely to
affect the rate of biofouling (immobile periods, vessel speed, voyage duration, vessel movement
patterns, and environmental factors such as salinity, temperature and nutrients). Finally, Section
4.4.4 of the VGP Fact Sheet describes how an evaluation of these vessel-specific factors impact
the determination of the need for particular coating and selection of the type of coating to apply.
As required by Parts 2.2.4, vessel owners/operators of vessels that spend considerable time in
ports and harbors impaired by copper must consider using anti-fouling coatings that rely on a
rapidly biodegradable biocide or another alternative rather than copper-based coatings. If after
consideration of alternative biocides, vessel operators continue to use copper-based anti-foulant
paints, they must document in their recordkeeping how this decision was reached (Parts 2.2.4
and 4.2, Item 10). Documentation means an explanation or analysis which justifies why the use
of copper based paints is needed in those waters (and why other alternatives are inappropriate).
This documentation needs to adequately describe the owner/operator's rationale for why they
feel they must use copper based anti-foulant coatings. In other words, this explanation must
demonstrate that the vessel owner/operator has adequately considered other alternatives and
found those alternatives to be impractical for their vessel. Based on this comment, EPA has
provided short clarification in the VGP Fact Sheet that indicates EPA is not seeking a detailed
engineering/environmental review; however, the Agency does want to see that the vessel
owner/operator is making a well reasoned choice.
EPA believes the permit, fact sheet, and technical development document provide sufficient
guidance for implementing the hull coating provisions and recordkeeping requirements of the
permit and notes that the commenter did not specifically identify why the discussion was
insufficient. EPA also notes that the relative risks posed by aquatic nuisance species invasions
and hull coatings themselves is already taken into account in the permit and fact sheet - if the
vessel operator can document that a specific hull fouling system will not be effective for his or
her vessel, then that system is not one with the "lowest effective biocide release rates."
1053
-------
Commenter Name:
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Chamber of Shipping of America
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
15
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) (Section 2.2.5, pgs. 41 - 42): CSA is
generally in agreement with the requirements of this section; however, we request EPA consider
the following. The vast majority of foam application systems for shipboard firefighting do not
allow the wholesale change out from one type of foam to another e.g. fluorinated vs. non-
fluorinated or another alternative foaming agent, unless changes are made to various system
components including the proportioner. Also, different foam types cannot be co-mingled. While
this section is not problematic for vessels which sail outside of the territorial sea, it creates a
dilemma for vessels which do not, specifically requiring collection and storage for onshore
disposal of any AFFF discharged for maintenance and training purposes. CSA would suggest
deletion of that prohibition (third paragraph of the section) and replace with the following text:
"For vessels that do not leave the territorial sea more than once per month, if vessel maintenance
and training discharges are required, AFFF discharges to the water should be minimized to the
maximum extent possible unless the vessel uses a non-fluorinated or alternative foaming agent.
Training should be conducted as far from shore as is practicable." It is critical that EPA
understand the need for regular conduct of drills aboard vessels including the need to assure crew
are properly trained in the charging and use of the foam application system.
Cathodic Protection (Section 2.2.7, pg. 42 - 43): Our comment on this section is similar to that
detailed in the anti-fouling hull coatings section above. CSA requests that EPA provide more
detail as to what constitutes proper documentation as to why a less toxic anode material was not
used. Presumably this means reasons that less toxic anode material was not technologically
feasible and economically practicable and achievable but we would respectfully request EPA to
provide greater clarity to this section and if possible provide examples.
Response: Whether vessels have foam application systems for shipboard firefighting that do
not allow the wholesale change out from one type of foam to another should have no impact on
whether vessels can meet the permit requirement to prohibit vessel maintenance and training
AFFF discharges. As described in Part 2.2.5 of the Permit, systems that can use alternate types
of foam have the option to use a non-fluorinated or alternative foaming agent, while systems
that cannot use alternate foams have the option to collect and store their AFFF discharges for
onshore disposal. The commenter has not presented evidence indicating that collection and
storage of vessel maintenance and training discharges is not an available or economically
achievable option, or that the permit requirements otherwise infringe on a vessel's ability to
conduct drills or to train crew in the charging and use of foam application systems.
Additionally, EPA notes that this requirement is fundamentally similar to the 2008 VGP and
that the Agency is unaware of any vessels being unable to meet these permit requirements.
Accordingly, EPA has not revised the permit requirements for AFFF discharges.
Regarding the comment on cathodic protection, in response to this and other comments, EPA
1054
-------
has revised Part 2.2.7 of the Permit to clarify documentation requirements for why a less toxic
anode was not used. Specifically, for vessels operating primarily in freshwater, if aluminum or
zinc is selected, the vessel owner/operator must document in their recordkeeping why the use of
magnesium is not appropriate. Likewise, for vessels operating primarily in saltwater, if vessel
zinc is selected, the vessel owner/operator must document why aluminum is not selected. The
commenter is correct that the main focus of the documentation should be on the reasons why
the less toxic anode material was not technologically feasible and economically practicable and
achievable. For example, a vessel owner/operator uses an aluminum anode for a steel hulled
vessel that operates in brackish water and documents that use of a magnesium anode is not
technically feasible because it creates more electrochemical voltage than necessary to prevent
corrosion, which would result in unacceptably high and potentially dangerous consumption of
the anode. Additionally, based on this comment, EPA has provided short guidance as to the
level of detail EPA is seeking for this documentation requirement in the VGP Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Late Comment? No
Comment: Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention (Section 2.2.20, pg. 48): While we
understand and agree with the concept included in this section, we find the last sentence which
reads "Vessel owner/operators should remove any organisms while at sea to reduce the risk of
invasive species introduction in ports" very troublesome. This text sets up a virtual impossibility
for vessel owners, since seawater piping is in continuous use while the vessel is operating. CSA
would agree that the text quoted above could remain, but the phrase "where technically feasible"
should be added to the sentence.
Response: For the reasons given in this comment EPA has added the phrase "where technically
feasible" to Part 2.2.20 of the Permit to clarify EPA's requirements for seawater piping
biofouling discharge prevention.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marie Hobson, Counsel, Government Affairs and John
Hopewell, Assistant Director, Environmental Affairs,
American Coatings Association (ACA)
The American Coatings Association (ACA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0490-A2
1
No
Comment: Background of Threat of Invasive Species Compared to the Risk of Use of US EPA
Registered Biofouling Products
1055
-------
Of all of the environmental threats from vessel use the greatest threat is the transport and
relocation of invasive species. Biofouling control coatings help to prevent the transportation of
non-indigenous species. Biocidal coatings applied in the US must be registered as safe through
an exhaustive analysis by the US EPA. The VGP should not discourage the use of safe and
effective biofouling controls to the extent that hull fouling could be increased. Hull fouling is
believed to be a more significant vector for the establishment of invasive species than ballast
water as shown in Figure 1(1).
Possible Source for Coastal Invasive Species Introduced to North America by Shipping
SEE ORIGINAL COMMENT FOR FIGURE
Recent compilations of marine alien species in Hawaii included some 343 species, 287 of which
were marine invertebrate species. Hull fouling is believed to be the transport mechanism for 70%
of them (2). These invasive species can have devastating effects on entire ecosystems.
Approximately 400 of the 958 species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act in the US are considered to be at risk primarily because of competition
with and predation by non-indigenous species (3). In other areas of the world, nearly 80% of
endangered species are threatened because of the pressures of non-native species (4).
One example of a water body impacted by small vessel transport of invasive species is the
quagga mussel in Lake Mead. One of the vectors suspected to have brought the mussel to Lake
Mead is hull biofouling. The problem is now serious enough that Biologist David Wong, a
researcher at UNLV's School of Community Health indicated, "In terms of potential ecological
impact and economic loss, the quaggas are the worst threat facing Las Vegas. "(5)
We are concerned that the sVGP misstate the threat from registered biocidal antifouling coatings.
Section 2.2.4 of the VGP states, "Some ports and harbors are impaired by copper, a biocide
used commonly in anti-foulant paints. These waters include Shelter Island Yacht Basin in San
Diego, California, and waters in and around the ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach." However, a
recent study by The University of San Diego, SPAWAR System Center Pacific and San Diego
State University Research Foundation found, "Lack of ambient toxicity and verified protection
by BLM suggest that SIYB is not impaired due to copper." We have attached this study in
Appendix B, for your review.
We know of no measured ecosystem organism population decline due to US registered
antifouling products. The environmental emphasis in the permits regarding hull maintenance
should be focused on preventing invasive species first, and proper management of the hull
coatings second. Further, the permits should not discourage the use of the most effective
antifouling coatings available for the use and maintenance pattern of the vessel in question.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the transport and relocation of invasive species
is an environmental concern associated with vessel discharges and that the sources the
commenter references support these conclusions. Accordingly, EPA has addressed what vessels
operators can do to address the threat of invasive species in many parts of the VGP including
ballast water, anti-fouling coating, chain locker effluent, seawater piping biofouling protection,
1056
-------
underwater ship husbandry and hull fouling discharges, and unused live bait (see Parts 2.2.3,
2.2.4, 2.2.8, 2.2.20, 2.2.23, and 2.2.27 of the Permit). However, EPA disagrees with the
commenter's suggested approach to formulating requirements for this discharge, which would
appear to downplay the importance of ensuring that the coating discharges themselves do not
present an environmental threat. First, regarding the University of San Diego and other studies
of the toxicity of copper in the Shelter Island Yacht Basin and the waters in and around the
ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0473-A1, excerpt 1. Second, contrary to what commenter appears to suggest, while the
permit does require consideration of the "lowest" biocide release rates, the permit clearly states
that the permittee must give consideration to the "lowest effective biocide release rate"
(emphasis added). In addition, Part 2.2.23 of the Permit requires measures to minimize the
transport of attached organisms, including "selecting an appropriate anti-foulant management
system;" an ineffective system would not be an "appropriate" anti-foulant system. Thus, the
permit ensures that the valid concerns regarding threats posed by the biocides themselves are
addressed at no cost to effectiveness of the coatings.
EPA believes that the requirements at Parts 2.2.4 and 2.2.23 of the permit do, in fact, focus on
preventing invasive species first, as suggested by the commenter, while also reducing the
deleterious effects of anti-fouling coatings. For example Part 2.2.4 states that anti-fouling hull
coatings should be registered under FIFRA and that coatings not subject to FIFRA must not
contain any biocides or toxic materials banned from the United States. It further states that
coatings should be applied, maintained, and removed in a manner consistent with applicable
requirements on the coatings' FIFRA label. Coatings applied in an improper manner may
contribute to environmental loading without providing the intended protection. Adherence to
label requirements also helps to assure that excess amounts of toxins are not applied, that they
are not applied too frequently, and that ships are not reintroduced to the aquatic environment
before the manufacturer has recommended, providing adequate environmental protection. These
requirements are to ensure that the anti-fouling coatings used are in fact both safe and effective.
As another example, Part 2.2.23 of the permit requires that permittees minimize the transport of
attached living organisms when traveling into U.S. waters from outside the U.S. economic zone
or between Captain of the Port zones, and specifies the management measures required to
minimize such transport. These measures include selecting an appropriate anti-foulant
management system and maintaining that system [emphasis added], in water inspection,
cleaning, and maintenance of hulls, and thorough hull and other niche area cleaning when a
vessel is in dry dock. EPA included these permit requirements based on other public comments
submitted on the proposed VGP and a review of other information in the record (e.g., IMO
guidelines on hull fouling).
Specific to the Part 2.2.4 requirement to evaluate hull coatings for specific vessels at the time of
initial application or scheduled reapplication, as discussed in Section 4.4.4 of the VGP Fact
Sheet, EPA's objective is that permittees seek to match the anti-fouling properties of the
selected coating to the fouling-pressure environs in which the vessel is expected to operate.
EPA believes this requirement does not discourage the use of the most effective anti-fouling
coating available, but rather ensures that permittees do not opt for more environmentally
damaging coatings than warranted for vessel-specific operating conditions.
1057
-------
Commenter Name:
Marie Hobson, Counsel, Government Affairs and John
Hopewell, Assistant Director, Environmental Affairs,
American Coatings Association (ACA)
The American Coatings Association (ACA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0490-A2
5
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Conclusion
We believe these proposed changes to the VGP place an emphasis on the greater environmental
threat of invasive species. Further, these changes allow for the proper use and management of
FIFRA registered in a context to minimize any environmental harm while maximizing
environmental benefits.
1 Gregory Ruiz et. al., Smithsonian Env. Research Center, "Marine Invasive Species and Shipping", NPCA
International Marine and Offshore Coatings Conference, presentation, (2007).
2
L. Scott Godwin, Natural Sciences Dept., Hawaii Biological Survey, "Potential Management Approaches for
Invasive Species Transported by Vessel Hull Fouling," 13th International Congress on Marine Corrosion and
Fouling, Abstract (2006).
3
Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Bubow J, Phillips A, Losos E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the
United States. Bioscience 48(8): 607-615.
4
Armstrong S. "Rare plants protect Cape's water supplies", New Scientist, p. 8 (February 11, 1995).
Tavares S. "Quagga mussels a toxic threat to Lake Mead" and "The man dedicated to saving the lake from little
invaders", Las Vegas Sun, Monday Nov. 29, 2009.
Appendix A
ACA Marine Coatings Manufacturers and Suppliers
American Chemet
Arch Chemicals
Chugoku Marine Paint
Dow
Hempel
International Paint (Akzo-Nobel)
Janssen
Jotun
Kop-Coat
PPG
Sherwin Williams
Appendix B
See attached study "Copper Bioavailability and Toxicity to Mytilus galloprovincialis in Shelter
Island Yacht Basin, San Diego, CA"
Response: The commenter's specific suggestions for changes to the VGP are addressed
elsewhere in this document.
1058
-------
Commenter Name:
Marie Hobson, Counsel, Government Affairs and John
Hopewell, Assistant Director, Environmental Affairs,
American Coatings Association (ACA)
The American Coatings Association (ACA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0490-A3
1
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Background of Threat of Invasive Species Compared to the Risk of Use of US EPA
Registered Biofouling Products
Of all of the environmental threats from vessel use the greatest threat is the transport and
relocation of invasive species. Biofouling control coatings help to prevent the transportation of
non-indigenous species. Biocidal coatings applied in the US must be registered as safe through
an exhaustive analysis by the US EPA. The VGP should not discourage the use of safe and
effective biofouling controls to the extent that hull fouling could be increased. Hull fouling is
believed to be a more significant vector for the establishment of invasive species than ballast
water as shown in Figure 1(1).
Possible Source for Coastal Invasive Species Introduced to North America by Shipping
SEE ORIGINAL COMMENT FOR FIGURE
Recent compilations of marine alien species in Hawaii included some 343 species, 287 of which
were marine invertebrate species. Hull fouling is believed to be the transport mechanism for 70%
of them (2). These invasive species can have devastating effects on entire ecosystems.
Approximately 400 of the 958 species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act in the US are considered to be at risk primarily because of competition
with and predation by non-indigenous species (3). In other areas of the world, nearly 80% of
endangered species are threatened because of the pressures of non-native species (4).
One example of a water body impacted by small vessel transport of invasive species is the
quagga mussel in Lake Mead. One of the vectors suspected to have brought the mussel to Lake
Mead is hull biofouling. The problem is now serious enough that Biologist David Wong, a
researcher at UNLV's School of Community Health indicated, "In terms of potential ecological
impact and economic loss, the quaggas are the worst threat facing Las Vegas. "(5)
We are concerned that the VGP misstates the threat from registered biocidal antifouling coatings.
Section 2.2.4 of the VGP states, "Some ports and harbors are impaired by copper, a biocide
used commonly in anti-foulant paints. These waters include Shelter Island Yacht Basin in San
Diego, California, and waters in and around the ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach." However, a
recent study by The University of San Diego, SPAWAR System Center Pacific and San Diego
State University Research Foundation found, "Lack of ambient toxicity and verified protection by
BLMsuggest that SIYB is not impaired due to copper." We have attached this study in Appendix
B, for your review.
1059
-------
We know of no measured ecosystem organism population decline due to US registered
antifouling products. The environmental emphasis in the permits regarding hull maintenance
should be focused on preventing invasive species first and proper management of the hull
coatings second. Further, the permits should not discourage the use of the most effective
antifouling coatings available for the use and maintenance pattern of the vessel in question.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0490-A2, excerpt 1
and EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0633-A2, excerpt 12.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marie Hobson, Counsel, Government Affairs and John
Hopewell, Assistant Director, Environmental Affairs,
American Coatings Association (ACA)
The American Coatings Association (ACA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0490-A3
2
No
Comment: Recommended Changes
VGP Section 2.2.4 Anti-Fouling Coatings/ Hull Coating Leach rate:
"At the time of initial application or scheduled reapplication of anti-fouling coatings, you
must give consideration, as appropriate for vessel class and vessel operations, to the use of
hull coatings with the lowest effective biocide release rates, rapidly biodegradable
components (once separated from the hull surface), or non-biocidal alternatives, such as
silicone coatings."
This wording focuses on the less significant environmental threat of the coating rather than the
considerably more significant environmental threat of invasive species. Further, this language
fails to acknowledge the importance and purpose of anti-fouling coatings - to prevent hull
fouling.
We suggest the following wording: Section 2.2.4 Anti-Fouling Coatings/ Hull Coating Leach
rate.
"At the time of initial application or scheduled reapplication of anti-fouling coatings, you
must give consideration, as appropriate for vessel class and vessel operations, to the use of
hull coatings that will be most effective in preventing biofouling and the subsequent threat of
transport of non-indigenous species. You should also give consideration to minimizing input
ofbiocides into the waters in which the vessel operates by practicing appropriate hull
maintenance for the coating applied. You should give consideration to the use ofnon-
bioicidal alternatives if appropriate for the use pattern and maintenance plan of your
vessel."
The third paragraph in section 2.2.4 (below) is inaccurate (as shown in Appendix B).
1060
-------
"Some ports and harbors are impaired by copper, a biocide used commonly in anti-foulant
paints. These waters include Shelter Island Yacht Basin in San Diego, California, and waters
in and around the ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach. A complete list of such waters may be
found at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels. When vessels spend considerable time in these waters
(defined as spending more than 30 days per year), or use these waters as their home port
(i.e., house boats, ferries or rescue vessels), vessel owners/operators shall consider using
anti-fouling coatings that rely on a rapidly biodegradable biocide or another alternative
rather than copper-based coatings. If after consideration of alternative biocides, vessel
operators continue to use copper-based anti-foulant paints, they must document in their
recordkeeping documentation how this decision was reached."
We recommend the following wording:
"Some ports and harbors have elevated levels of copper, a biocide used commonly in anti-
foulant paints. These waters include Shelter Island Yacht Basin in San Diego, California, and
waters in and around the ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach. A complete list of such waters
may be found at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels. When vessels spend considerable time in these
waters (defined as spending more than 30 days per year), or use these waters as their home
port (i.e., house boats, ferries or rescue vessels), vessel owners/operators shall consider
using anti-fouling coatings that rely on a rapidly biodegradable biocide or another
alternative rather than copper-based coatings if they are deemed to be as effective in
preventing biofouling. If after consideration of alternative biocides, vessel operators
continue to use copper-based anti-foulant paints, they must document in their recordkeeping
documentation how this decision was reached."
Conclusion
We believe these proposed changes to the VGP place an emphasis on the greater environmental
threat of invasive species. Further, these changes allow for the proper use and management of
FIFRA registered in a context to minimize any environmental harm while maximizing
environmental benefits.
1 Gregory Ruiz et. al., Smithsonian Env. Research Center, "Marine Invasive Species and Shipping", NPCA
International Marine and Offshore Coatings Conference, presentation, (2007).
2
L. Scott Godwin, Natural Sciences Dept., Hawaii Biological Survey, "Potential Management Approaches for
Invasive Species Transported by Vessel Hull Fouling," 13th International Congress on Marine Corrosion and
Fouling, Abstract (2006).
3
Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Bubow J, Phillips A, Losos E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the
United States. Bioscience48(8): 607-615.
4
Armstrong S. "Rare plants protect Cape's water supplies", New Scientist, p. 8 (February 11, 1995).
Tavares S. "Quagga mussels a toxic threat to Lake Mead" and "The man dedicated to saving the lake from little
invaders", Las Vegas Sun, Monday Nov. 29, 2009.
Appendix A
ACAMarine Coatings Manufacturers and Suppliers
American Chemet
Arch Chemicals
1061
-------
ChugokuMarine Paint
Dow
Hempel
International Paint (Akzo-Nobel)
Janssen
Jotun
Kop-Coat
PPG
Sherwin Williams
Appendix B
See attached study "Copper Bioavailability and Toxicity to Mytilusgalloprovincialis in Shelter
Island Yacht Basin, San Diego, CA".
Response: EPA did not adopt commenter's suggested revisions to Part 2.2.4 of the permit.
EPA recognizes that threat of invasive species and seeks to minimize those impacts through the
management of multiple discharges throughout the Permit. EPA also agrees with the
commenter that anti-fouling hull coatings must be effective in preventing biofouling. EPA
believes the Part 2.2.4 requirements do not discourage the use of the most effective anti-fouling
coating available, but rather ensure that permittees do not opt for more environmentally
damaging coatings than warranted for vessel-specific operating conditions. Please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0490-A2, excerpt 1 for more details. However,
EPA is also concerned about the potential environmental impact of biocides leached from anti-
fouling coatings and asks that vessel operators make considerations to minimize the impacts of
these coatings in conjunction with their antifouling properties. There is ample discussion in the
scientific literature and other sources discussing the potential environmental impact of anti-
foulant hull coatings (please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0473-A1,
excerpt 1, Section 3.2.8 of EPA's 2010 "Study of Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of
Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non-Recreational Vessels Less than 79 Feet" and the
"Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges" technical development document developed for this
permit issuance). Addressing and minimizing the environmental impacts contributed by anti-
fouling hull coatings by making considerations described in this part do not diminish the
impacts attributed by invasive species. Accordingly, EPA has not revised the permit
requirements for Anti-Fouling Hull Coatings/Hull Coating Leachate.
In addition, EPA has not revised the phrase "some ports and harbors are impaired by copper" to
"some ports and harbors have elevated levels of copper," as suggested by the commenter. EPA
intends that the relevant permit requirements apply only to waters specifically identified by
states and authorized tribes as impaired for copper under Section 303(d) (i.e., waters for which
the adopted water quality standard for copper has not been met). The 303(d) list submission
provided by EPA by States/Tribes includes a description of the methodology used in developing
the list, a description of the data and information considered, and a rationale for any data or
information left out of its assessment. Impaired waters are specifically listed on EPA's
webpage. In contrast, the commenter has not defined the criteria to identify waters with
"elevated levels of copper," provided any listing of such waters, or provided a rationale why
such waters warrant specific protections afforded by the VGP.
1062
-------
Finally, EPA has not adopted the phase "if they are deemed to be as effective in preventing
biofouling" when describing the required consideration of alternative hull coatings. Instead,
EPA intends that selection of an effective hull coating, particularly for vessels operating in
copper-impaired waters, should not be based solely on the anti-fouling properties of the hull
coating, but rather based on a documented evaluation of how vessel-specific factors (e.g., vessel
operational profile) impact the determination of the need for particular coating and selection of
the type of coating to apply.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Algis Vanagas, Senior Vice-President Technical, Algoma
Central Corporation
Algoma Central Corporation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1
3
No
Comment: 3. Part 2.2.1. Deck Washdown and Runoff and Above Water Line Hull Cleaning
The draft permit proposes adding a requirement to "broom clean exposed decks or use
comparable management measures and remove all existing debris" prior to deck washdowns.
With vessels of up to 740 feet in length, a requirement to 'broom clean' exposed decks will
subject crews to an unachievable work burden. Vessel operators already take care to maintain
good housekeeping and to minimize any residues on deck, particularly cargo residues, therefore
Algoma suggests removing the specific requirement to 'broom clean'.
Response: EPA agrees that "broom cleaning" may not be appropriate in all circumstances so
has added the language "(or equivalent)" after "broom clean" to the permit as a means to
provide operators the most flexibility to minimize any debris, garbage, residue, and spill from
deck surfaces from entering deck runoff discharges. This allows the vessel operator to seek out
the most resource efficient ways of preventing garbage and other residue from being discharged
into waters subject to this permit. EPA did not remove the requirement altogether, as EPA
believes it is important to expressly emphasize that deck maintenance is critical to ensuring that
introduction of matter into washdown and runoff discharges is minimized.
Commenter Name: Anonymous Public Comment
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.7 Cathodic Protection
We do not support the proposal to prioritize the use of less effective sacrificial electrodes. The
best management practice for cathodic protection should be based upon the construction material
of the hull and any immersed equipment. Many commercial fishing vessels are constructed of
steel and have immersed aluminum equipment that makes both the aluminum sacrificial
1063
-------
electrode and a magnesium electrode inappropriate for this hull type. Such vessels use zinc
sacrificial electrodes.
Response: EPA has revised Part 2.2.7 of the 2008 Permit to clarify that the use of less toxic
sacrificial electrodes is required but only to the extent that it is technologically feasible and
economically practicable and achievable. Incompatibility of the cathodic protection system with
the hull materials would render that system's use "technologically infeasible" and thus use of
systems would not be required in such cases. EPA therefore disagrees with the commenter that
the use of less effective sacrificial anodes is being prioritized; rather, the permit requires use of
the least toxic system that provides the required cathodic protection. Because of concerns
regarding the more toxic systems, the Agency does require vessel operators to document in
their recordkeeping why they use a more toxic anode (e.g., why zinc and aluminum would
selected over magnesium (for vessels operating principally in freshwater) or why zinc would be
selected over aluminum (e.g., for vessels operating principally in saltwater). Requiring such
documentation helps provide assurance that, for example, the permittee is making a rational
decision to use a more toxic product and is not using that more toxic product merely because
that is the product they have always used. EPA allows these more toxic anodes to be used
because they may be the only effective approach in some cases.
Commenter Name: Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Comment: 4. Deck Washdown and Runoff and Above Water Line Hull Cleaning (Draft VGP
Part 2.2.1)
The Draft VGP requires vessel owner/operators to "minimize the introduction of on-deck debris,
garbage, residue, and spill into deck washdowns and runoff discharges. . . . When required by
their class societies (e.g., oil tankers), their flag Administrators, or the U.S. Coast Guard, vessels
must be fitted with and use perimeter spill rails and scuppers to collect the runoff for treatment."
Draft VGP at pp. 21-22.
The proposed requirement is problematic from the standpoint of personnel safety and vessel
stability. 1 The Commenters note that fishing vessels frequent areas of the Pacific Ocean and
Bering Sea that regularly experience severe weather, rough seas, and freezing temperatures,
including within the territorial sea. These vessels often confront large volumes of water on deck,
either through precipitation or waves ("deck runoff" as defined by the Draft VGP). Scuppers
are sized and located by the ship designer to facilitate rapid drainage of large volumes of sea
water. Water on deck represents a real threat to the safety of the vessel, as the weight of the
water trapped between bulwarks can quickly cause the vessel to capsize. Even if the vessel does
not capsize, water on deck is highly dangerous to crew members, who are vulnerable to injury or
death as surging water slams bodies and equipment into each other. Trapped water can only
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
8
No
1064
-------
escape over the top of the bulwarks or through the scuppers, which is why scuppers must be
large and unobstructed.
The requirement to collect and route all deck washdowns and runoff discharges for treatment
presents a significant danger to vessel safety. As stated above, scuppers are designed to drain
excess water from the deck of the vessel. In situations where the vessel is taking on too much
water in the deck area, the scuppers are essential for discharging this water back to the sea.
Routing deck runoff through a treatment system could significantly reduce the discharge of deck
water and/or aggravate excess water loading problems by preventing the discharge of the water
directly and promptly. This would be especially dangerous in situations where the vessel lost
power and the treatment system ceased operation. Indeed, literal compliance with this
requirement may conflict with Coast Guard requirements pertaining to scuppers.
Further, the Draft VGP does not define or explain what constitutes "treatment" in this Part. A
water conveyance system that would capture all the water on deck and pump it overboard after
"treatment" is patently impossible as the volume of a boarding wave on deck could easily fill the
cargo holds. No fishing vessel has the capacity-or the stability reserves-to store that much sea
water. Even if storage capacity was available, fishing vessels do not have the electrical power to
operate the pumps required to discharge that water. Likewise, the use of scupper screens is also
impractical as they can become clogged or frozen over, thereby preventing the discharge of
water in quantities necessary to preserve vessel safety. The necessity to rapidly discharge the
water from boarding seas cannot be overstated. We are not aware of any safe way to capture,
process and discharge the immense quantities of water fast enough to prevent foundering. It is
essential that boarding seas be allowed to flow overboard unimpeded.
The Commenters request that the requirement to "use perimeter spill rails and scuppers to collect
the runoff for treatment" be eliminated. The other requirements of Part 2.2.1, such as minimizing
the introduction of on-deck debris, garbage, residue, and spill, are sufficient to limit the
discharge of pollutants without compromising the safety of vessels and their crews.
1 For further support, see the Letter from D. Wolff to K. Down (Nov. 7, 2008) included as an attachment to these
comments.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggested change to eliminate the requirement
for vessels to use perimeter spill rails and scuppers to collect the runoff for treatment when
required by their class societies, their flag Administrators, or the U.S. Coast Guard. These
measures are already required by these various entities, and EPA is merely requiring the use of
appropriate technology- based limits when already required by these other entities. The
installation and use of scuppers and perimeter spill rails to collect the runoff for treatment are
limited to larger vessels where their use has been shown to be feasible such as on oil tankers.
For example, ShipsBusiness.com1 includes a procedure for oil tankers that requires the deck
scuppers to be plugged on oil tankers and only the aft most scruppers can be opened to release
accumulated rainwater. Rainwater is only discharged through the scuppers if there is no oil or
oil sheen present. If oil is present, then absorbent pads should be used to remove the oil prior to
discharge. Although this type of "treatment" is applicable to oil tankers and possibly many
other large vessels having the potential to contaminate deck areas, vessels must make a
determination about the best method to treatment their deck runoff based on the types of
1065
-------
pollutants present. EPA is not in a position to provide specific guidance for all types of
pollutants that could be present and the broad variety of situations that could be encountered on
the deck of a VGP covered vessel.
Furthermore, EPA notes in Part 1.15 of the Permit that vessel masters have the responsibility to
ensure the safety and stability of the vessel and the safety of the crew and passengers, and
nothing in this permit is intended to interfere with their fulfillment of that responsibility.
Section 1.15 of this permit discusses provisions that provide for flexibility in order to address
emergency circumstances.
Also, as correctly pointed out by the commenter, large volumes of water that quickly enter the
decks of fishing vessels as a result of wave action, precipitation or spray, must be rapidly
discharged overboard to avoid vessel instability. However, currently a Congressional
moratorium (initiated by Public Law 110 - 299 and subsequently extended by Public Law 111-
215 and Public Law 112-213), exempts all incidental discharges from non-recreational vessels
less than 79 feet in length and all commercial fishing vessels from having to obtain permit
coverage under the VGP until December 18, 2014.2 After December 18, 2014, the small VGP
(sVGP), expected to be issued before that time, would provide coverage for these vessels and as
proposed, that permit did not require perimeter spill rails and scrubbers or the use of screens
over the scuppers during deck washing. Therefore the commenter's concern regarding
commercial fishing vessels is not applicable.
1 http://shipsbusiness.com/oil-pollution-control.htmI.
2
Commercial fishing vessels are vessels that commercially engage in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish or
an activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the catching, taking or harvesting of fish. Commercial
fishing vessels include any vessel harvesting fish, crab, lobster, shrimp, or other aquatic organism for commercial
sale.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
15
No
Comment: 7. Cathodic Protection (Draft VGP Part 2.2.7)
The Draft VGP states that "[i]f vessel operators use sacrificial electrodes, they must select
electrode devices with metals that are less toxic to the extent technologically feasible and
economically practicable and achievable." Draft VGP at p. 42.2
The Commenters note that the fishing industry standard for sacrificial anodes is zinc, and that
our fishing vessels exclusively use zinc anodes for cathodic protection. Accordingly, we have no
experience with aluminum and magnesium anodes, and very limited experience with impressed
current systems. At this time, it is unclear what effect these other anodes will have on fishing
vessels, and whether such anodes are readily and technologically available. For example,
differences in size and weight, protective levels, maintenance requirements, and other factors
1066
-------
could significantly affect vessel operations and costs. It is not clear whether these types of issues
would constitute sufficient justification to support a vessel's continued use of zinc anodes.
The Commenters request that EPA provide scientific studies demonstrating that aluminum and
magnesium anodes function as well as zinc anodes before requiring the substitution of proven
technology. The Commenters request that EPA clarify what documentation is sufficient to
support the use of zinc anodes instead of those made of aluminum or magnesium. In addition, the
Commenters request that if the EPA plans to recommend impressed current systems, EPA should
clarify where and what systems are available for fishing vessels.
8. Chain Locker Effluent (Draft VGP Part 2.2.8)
The Draft VGP requires that "[t]he anchor chain must be carefully and thoroughly washed down
(i.e., more than a cursory rinse) as it is being hauled out of the water to remove sediment and
marine organisms... For vessels that regularly sail outside waters subject to this permit (at least
once per month), if technically feasible, periodically clean, rinse, and/or pump out the space
beneath the chain locker prior to entering waters subject to this permit (preferably mid-ocean) if
the anchor has been lowered into any nearshore waters." Draft VGP at p. 43.
The Commenters note that the anchor chain and anchor will be "carefully and thoroughly
washed" just by being hauled onboard. Accordingly, any risk of sedimentation and marine
organism contamination will be minimal. Further, the anchor, as it is openly exposed to spray,
wave action and precipitation, will be continually "washed down" as the vessel is underway. As
a result, this requirement imposes an unnecessary burden on crew members and may
compromise crew safety depending upon the circumstances.
In addition, the Commenters note that the Draft VGP does not define "technically feasible"
regarding the cleaning of the space below the chain locker. Accordingly, it is difficult to assess
when, and in what conditions, vessels are required to clean, rinse, and/or pump out the space
beneath the chain locker. Further, given the location of the chain locker, introducing volumes of
water may create vessel safety and stability issues.
The Commenters request that EPA remove the requirements of this Part from the permit or, at a
minimum, clarify when, and in what conditions, the chain locker and space below it must be
cleaned or rinsed.
2
The Draft VGP refers to both "electrodes" and "anodes" in this Part. We note that the correct term is "anode."
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 15
regarding documentation of the use of more toxic anode materials and the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1, excerpt 9 regarding cathodic protection in fishing vessels.
Zinc, magnesium, and aluminum anodes generate different electrochemical voltage protection
and are not equivalent in function. Proper selection of the type, number, size, and placement of
anodes is determined based on an evaluation of the types of underwater metals on the vessel,
the surface area and location of the metal components requiring protection, and the types of
water in which the vessel operates in (i.e., fresh water, saltwater, or brackish water). EPA
1067
-------
clarified that the revisions to the 2008 Permit indicate the use of less toxic sacrificial electrodes
is required but only to the extent that it is technologically feasible and economically practicable
and achievable. Regarding the commenter's request for clarification on the application of
impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP), ICCP systems are available for large and small
vessels. The application of an ICCP depends on several variables specific to the vessel, such as
voltage requirement, water depth, and vessel structure.1
Regarding chain locker effluent, EPA does not believe that a careful and thorough washing of
the chain and anchor are a significant burden to the crew, especially if sediment and marine
organism contamination are minimal. In general, the anchor typically is not frequently used;
therefore, the number of hours spent annually washing the chain and anchor should be very
minimal. For larger vessels, the anchor is generally used only in emergency situations to keep
the vessel from drifting. While most organisms and sediment is washed away during normal
operation of the anchor chain and anchor, a careful and thorough wash down is still necessary to
remove organisms and other pollutants on the surface of the anchor and anchor chain that spray
from a moving vessel may not adequately remove.
Thus no changes have been made to Part 2.2.8 of the Permit in response to this comment.
Regarding what constitutes "technically feasible" for purposes of cleaning out the chain locker,
EPA would consider a lack of available cleaning and rinsing equipment such as pumps in the
space beneath the chain locker as creating a technically infeasible situation. Additionally, EPA
would consider requiring cleaning of the chain locker in a situation which poses unacceptable
safety risks as technically infeasible. Regarding the safety of the crew onboard, EPA notes in
Part 1.15 of the Permit that that vessel masters have the responsibility to ensure the safety and
stability of the vessel and the safety of the crew and passengers, and nothing in this permit is
intended to interfere with their fulfillment of that responsibility. In addition, for vessels that
leave waters subject to this permit at least once per month, chain lockers shall not be rinsed or
pumped out in waters subject to this permit, unless not emptying them would compromise
safety. Such a safety claim must be documented in the vessel's recordkeeping documentation
consistent with Part 4.2 of the Permit.
1 Regarding the commenter's request for where and what systems are available for fishing vessels please see the
example available on the following website: "ICCP Systems for Workboats, Fishing Vessels, and Small
Catamarans" http://www.cathelco.com/fishing-vessels—work-boats- 97 2 67.html.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
18
No
Comment: 11. Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (Draft VGP Part 2.2.19)
The Draft VGP states that "[w]hen possible, non-contact engine cooling water, hydraulic system
cooling water, refrigeration cooling water and other seawater cooling overboard discharges
1068
-------
should occur when the vessel is underway to minimize any thermal impacts to the receiving
water." EPA recommends that vessels use shore-based power when in port. Draft VGP at p. 48.
The Commenters note that, for many fishing vessels, it is not possible to only discharge
refrigeration cooling water when the vessel is underway. Our refrigeration condensers are in
constant use, while underway, in port, or otherwise stationary, circulating ambient seawater as
necessary to maintain cooling. Our vessels have no way to prevent this discharge and no ability
to capture and store cooling water. Further, it does not appear that EPA has assessed the
number of ports where shore-based power is readily available. On the contrary, locations that
offer both power and fish handling facilities are limited, particularly in remote areas of Alaska.
Response: EPA is aware of the restrictions of technologies aboard vessels and of the limited
capabilities of many ports. As such, these management practices described in Part 2.2.19 if this
Permit are required only "when possible".
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stephanie D. Madsen, Executive Director, At Sea
Processors Association (APA) et al.
At Sea Processors Association (APA) et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1
24
No
Comment: I have reviewed the subject NPDES and concur with the intent to capture process
water, ensuring that maximum discharge particulate size requirements are met. The proposal to
capture water at the scuppers, however, is problematic from the standpoint of personnel safety
and vessel stability.
A conveyance system which would capture all the water on deck and pump it overboard after
chopping or filtration is patently impossible as the volume of a boarding wave on deck could
easily fill the cargo holds. No fishing vessel has the capacity -or the stability reserves - to store
that much sea water. Even if storage capacity was available, fishing vessels do not have the
electrical power to operate the pumps required to discharge that water. The imperative to rapidly
discharge the water from boarding seas cannot be overstated -1 cannot imagine a safe way to
capture, process and discharge the immense quantities of water fast enough to prevent
foundering. It is essential that boarding seas be allowed to flow overboard unimpeded.
I understand that an alternative to the proposed conveyance system would be installation of 1/2"
mesh screens at scuppers (freeing ports). This idea is ill-conceived and would result in creating
an extremely dangerous condition on fishing vessels, particularly so in cold climates. Quoting
from Section 16.3.3 of the American Bureau of Shipping Guide for Building and Classing
Fishing Vessels. "Freeing ports are to be so arranged along the length of the bulwarks as to
ensure that the deck is freed of water most rapidly and effectively. In vessels intended to operate
in areas of icing, covers and protective arrangements for freeing ports are to be capable of being
easily removed to restrict ice accretion."
1069
-------
The obvious problem with screens is that in cold, windy weather, freezing spray will quickly
accrete on the mesh, effectively closing the scupper and preventing water on deck from draining
overboard. Removal of ice from screens would be difficult and awkward, and almost certainly
would result in destruction of the screen in the process. In many cases, the arrangement of
scuppers would make screens accessible only from the outside of the bulwarks, forcing a crew
member attempting to remove the ice to lean over the vessel side (at sea, in stormy conditions).
Fatalities would surely result.
Less obvious, but even more frequent, would be the case wherein a large wave floods the deck -
the precise situation which scuppers are designed to resolve. Scuppers are sized and located by
the ship designer to facilitate rapid drainage of large volumes of sea water. Water on deck
represents a real threat to the safety of the vessel, as the weight of the water trapped between
bulwarks can quickly cause the vessel to capsize. Even if the vessel does not capsize, water on
deck is highly dangerous to crew members, who are vulnerable to injury or death as surging
water slams bodies and equipment into each other. Trapped water can only escape over the top of
the bulwarks or through the scuppers, which is why scuppers must be large and unobstructed.
The addition of screens to the scuppers will restrict the flow of water by reducing the open area
of the scuppers. In preventing items from escaping overboard, the screens will become further
obstructed, reducing even more the open area for drainage. The longer that water remains on
deck surging back and forth, the more likely that injuries or capsizing will result.
I urge the Freezer Longline Coalition to oppose this dangerous regulation. I am very willing to
testify in person if it will help defeat this portion of the proposed NPDES general permit for
Alaska
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-05Q4-A1, excerpt 8.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Late Comment? No
Comment: Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (sVGP page 8 and VGP page 48): The EPA
requirement to discharge seawater cooling overboard when the vessel is underway and run on
shore power when in port is technologically infeasible. First, refrigeration condensers are in use
or the freezer is running at all times, requiring the generator/engine circulating ambient seawater
as necessary to maintain efficient cooling. There is no way to capture this discharge so it should
not be a requirement to do so. In Alaska, adequate shore based power is not readily or
economically available, thus there is no alternative for vessels but to run auxiliary engines for
power generation in port and out.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 18.
1070
-------
Commenter Name:
Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
18
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Cathodic Protection on page 42 section 2.2.7: EPA should remove the vague
requirement "sacrificial anodes must not be used more than necessary . . . ". A commercial vessel
operator doesn't spend additional money when they don't consider it necessary and it would be
very subjective of an enforcement officer to determine what is necessary for a vessel. In addition
in this section EPA proposes to require vessel operators to use the least toxic metals and
document their choices in their recordkeeping. EPA should clearly state if cost savings and
availability are acceptable justifications for choosing the industry standard of zinc anodes.
Chain Locker Effluent on page 43 section 2.2.8: EPA proposes to require that anchor chain be
"washed carefully and thoroughly" as it is being hauled aboard. This is not a feasible or
reasonable requirement. The water that would likely be used to wash the anchor if feasible and
could be done safely would be the ambient water from where the anchor is being hauled. The
draft permit would also require "vessels that regularly sail outside waters subject to this permit if
technically feasible, periodically clean, rinse, and/or pump out the space beneath the chain
locker". Given the location of the chain locker and the conditions of the Pacific Ocean/Gulf of
Alaska, introducing volumes of water may create vessel safety and stability issues. EPA should
clarify when the chain locker and space below should be washed and what would be gained by
washing the anchor chain when hauled aboard.
Response: EPA did not, as commenter suggests, remove the requirement that "sacrificial
anodes must not be used more than necessary," as the commenter provided no information
supporting the apparent contention that overapplication of sacrificial anodes would be
economically prohibitive and thus need not be addressed by the permit.
With respect to whether "cost savings and availability are acceptable justifications" for
choosing the more toxic anodes over less toxic alternatives, the standard which the permittee
must document has been met is that the use of the less toxic alternative "is not technologically
feasible and economically practicable and achievable." How this standard will apply will
depend on vessel and system-specific circumstances, but a system that is unavailable certainly
would meet this standard. On the other hand, cost savings alone would not provide an
appropriate justification, as a system may be "economically practicable and achievable" if the
costs of the controls can be reasonably borne by the industry.
With respect to chain locker effluent discharges, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
OW-2011-0141-05Q4-A1, excerpt 15.
1071
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Lake Carriers Association
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
2
No
Comment: For safety reasons, the VGP must allow for washdown of snow and ice from decks.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 11.
Comment: 2.2.1: Deck Washdown and Runoff and Above Water Line Hull Cleaning
Requirements: Vessel owner/operator must minimize the introduction of on-deck debris,
garbage, residue, and spill into deck washdown and runoff discharges. Before deck washdowns
occur, must broom clean exposed decks or use comparable management measures and remove
all existing debris. When required by the class societies (e.g., oil tankers), the flag
Administrations, or the U.S. Coast Guard, vessels must be fitted with and use perimeter spill rails
and scuppers to collect the runoff for treatment. Where feasible, machinery on deck must have
coamings or drip pans where necessary to collect any oily discharge that may leak from
machinery and prevent spills. The drip pans must be drained to a waste container for proper
disposal and/or periodically wiped and cleaned. The presence of floating solids, visible foam,
halogenated phenol compounds, and dispersants, or surfactants in deck washdowns must be
minimized. Vessel owners/operators must minimize deck washdowns while in port.
Vessel owners/operators must maintain the topside surface and other above water line portions of
the vessel to minimize the discharge of rust (and other corrosion by-products), cleaning
compounds, paint chips, non-skid material fragments, and other materials associated with
exterior topside surface preservation. Furthermore, vessel owners/operators must minimize
residual paint droplets from entering waters subject to this permit whenever they are conducting
maintenance painting. Possible minimization techniques include, but are not limited to, avoiding
paint spraying in windy conditions or avoiding overapplication of paint. This permit does not
authorize the disposal of unused paint into waters subject to this permit.
If deck washdowns or above water line hull cleaning will result in a discharge, they must be
conducted with "non-toxic" and "phosphate free" cleaners and detergents as defined in Appendix
A of this permit. Furthermore, cleaners and detergents should not be caustic and must be
biodegradable.
LCA Response: We support the intent of these requirements. A clean, clutter-free ship is a safe
ship. However, enforcement of these requirements must recognize the realities of the marine
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Lake Carriers Association
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
11
No
1072
-------
environment and conditions inherent with the dry-bulk trades on the Great Lakes. We refer
specifically to the discharge of snow and ice (which may include traces of rock salt and dry
cargo residue). This practice must continue to be allowed. Our members begin operations in
early to mid-March when temperatures are well below freezing. It is unavoidable that thick ice
formations build up on the deck and superstructures. This ice must be periodically washed away
with warm water from the firemain to (1) ensure crew safety; (2) maintain stability of the vessel;
and (3) allow for cargo operations.
Most vessels sail into January, so they experience the same conditions at the close of navigation.
Response: Regarding the safety of the crew onboard, EPA notes, among other things, in Part
1.15 of the Permit that that vessel masters have the responsibility to ensure the safety and
stability of the vessel and the safety of the crew and passengers, and nothing in this permit is
intended to interfere with their fulfillment of that responsibility.
With respect to washdown of deck ice, the provisions of VGP Part 2.2.1 would apply (ice is
effectively what would be runoff, but in solid form) and such discharges thus would be
authorized in accordance with its provisions. The effluent limits in VGP Part 2.2.1 primarily
consist of "minimizing" the introduction of foreign matter into runoff, and as rock salt would be
used as matter of vessel and crew safety, such necessary use would not be precluded by VGP
Part 2.2.1. Furthermore, the final provisions in Part 2.2.12 of the VGP specifically authorize
firemain systems for secondary purposes, which would include washdown of deck ice.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Comment: P. 42, Part 2.2.7 Cathodic Protection - This section seeks to achieve two main
objectives: to establish an order of preference for sacrificial anode material of Magnesium,
aluminum and zinc; and to direct flush fitting of sacrificial anodes to the ship's hull to prevent
the possibility of buildup of fouling between the anode and the hull. We have consulted at length
with a vessel corrosion protection expert and provide our joint feedback in turn below.
With respect to selection of material, magnesium is generally considered appropriate for fresh-
water applications (due to the higher resistivity of fresh water) but is not advisable for saltwater
marine applications. While the permit allows vessel owner operators to document technical
reasons why magnesium is not selected, the permit should acknowledge this generally accepted
fact and relieve marine vessel operators of this burden (the fact sheet should be similarly
amended). We recommend the second paragraph of this part should read,
Vessel operators should note that magnesium is less toxic than aluminum and aluminum is less
toxic than zinc. If vessel operators use sacrificial electrodes they must select electrode devices
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
16
No
1073
-------
with metals that are less toxic to the extent technologically feasible and economically practicable
and achievable. For vessels operating principally in fresh water, if aluminum or zinc is selected
the vessel owner operator must document why the use of magnesium is not appropriate.
Likewise, for vessels operating principally in saltwater, if zinc is selected the vessel owner
operator must document why aluminum is not selected. This requirement is applicable after the
first dry-dock after the effective date of this permit.
With respect to the flush mounting of anodes to the hull or protected surface to prevent build-up
of fouling between the anode and the hull, there are some complications which must be
considered.
While presumably flush mounting (likely with an epoxy adhesive filler) would reduce the
opportunity for bio-fouling between the anode and the protected surface, galvanic corrosion of
the anode will likely re- open such gaps in service, thus mitigating any improvements. This could
be averted if the edges of the anode and the adhesive filler were to be painted. This however
would result in an un-eroded perimeter of the anode with development of a dish-like shape in the
center of the anode as the metal is sacrificed in service. Such shapes are hydro-dynamically
turbulent, and would lead to increased drag on the protected surface. It is unpredicted what effect
this would have on the potential for mature detachment of the anode, bio-fouling attachment, or
for additional vibration to be transferred to the hull, rudder or azipod drive mechanism.
Mounting with tabs (as is currently done) and with filler between the protected surface and the
sacrificial anode would require a painted perimeter as well, with similar considerations for the
evolving shape of the eroding anode in service. It must also be noted that to be effective, the
sacrificial anode must have an electron pathway between the anode and the surface to be
protected (usually the metal tabs welded between the anode and the protected surface) and an ion
pathway between the anode and the metal to be protected (i.e. water or sea water). Interjecting an
additional medium between the anode and the protected surface may have an unpredicted impact
on the Utilization Factor (i.e. what percentage of the anode can be consumed before it should be
replaced). Dry-dock schedules are pre-determined, and an unexpectedly short effective period for
the cathodic protection system could result in unprotected surfaces.
In truth, we are unclear as to why EPA is considering this change as it is not the experience of
CLIA members to observe bio-fouling between the protected surfaces and the sacrificial anodes.
Such bio-fouling typically requires sunlight to survive - a scarce commodity in the bow thruster
well or between an anode and the hull or rudder. Additionally, scouring of the ship surfaces
underway is considerable, and likely to prevent accumulation of bio-fouling in this area -which
may explain why we have not observed this phenomenon.
In consideration of the above concerns, we believe the phrasing that calls for flush mounting of
sacrificial anodes be deleted pending further research and/or demonstration of benefits.
p. 43, Part 2.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent - The clean out of chain lockers during dry-dock in the
manner described in the draft permit can only be accomplished if the anchor is lowered and the
chain is laid out on the dry-dock. This may not always occur, depending on the dry-dock
1074
-------
frequency or evolution. We recommend the following language for the corresponding text in this
section.
In addition, chain lockers must be cleaned thoroughly during dry-docking to eliminate
accumulated sediments and any potential accompanying pollutants. If the anchor chain is not
paid out during dry-dock, the chain locker shall be thoroughly flushed with sufficient volume to
remove sediments or other potential pollutant. The effluent must be collected and the effluent
collected and disposed of in accordance with local requirements.
Corresponding language is recommended with respect to Part 4.1.4 as well, later in these
comments.
P. 47, Part 2.2.17 - Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater - We recommend the following language:
If discharged directly overboard, non-oily machinery wastewater, technical water, or potable
water must be free from oils (in quantities that may be harmful pursuant to 40 CFR Part 110)
and any additives that are toxic or bio-accumulative in nature. Non-oily machinery waste
water may also be drained to the bilge.
The purpose for this added language is to clarify the discharge authorization for uncontaminated
potable or technical water that may be discharged directly overboard without meeting the
definition of deck wash down or hull cleaning. Typical scenarios in which this may occur would
be tank over-filling, or hoses discharging such water directly overboard without coming into
contact with the decks or top-sides of the ship. While this is not a common occurrence, it can
happen and we believe such a discharge is appropriately authorized by this part of the permit.
Response: For the reasons explained in the comment, EPA has revised Part 2.2.7 of the Permit
to incorporate the commenter's suggested changes regarding sacrificial anodes.
With respect to flush-fitting sacrificial anodes to the hull, EPA intends for this practice to
remove the potential for hotspots for fouling organisms, a management practice recommended
by IMO in MEPC.207(62). This is required only when feasible and does not interfere with the
proper function of the sacrificial anode. EPA acknowledges that commenter's concern that flush
fitting or filling the space between the anode and hull may impact anode utility or its
attachment. If the permittees believe that flush fitting the anode to the vessel would either result
in safety concerns, or unduly impact the performance of the vessel, flush fitting that anode may
not be feasible.
EPA acknowledges this comment regarding the cleaning of the chain locker during dry-dock,
but maintains that the chainlockers should be cleaned thoroughly during dry-docking to
eliminate accumulated sediments and any potential accompanying pollutants. EPA does not
specifically require that the anchor must be lowered and the chain must be laid out during dry-
dock to accomplish this, so long as the lockers are cleaned thoroughly. Therefore, EPA has not
revised permit requirements in response to this comment.
EPA has also revised Part 2.2.17 of the Permit in response to the comment regarding non-oily
1075
-------
machinery wastewater to clarify that the non-oily machinery wastewater discharge includes
uncontaminated potable or technical water (types of non-oily machinery wastewater).
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 40
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 27, Part 3.5.1.21 Boat Engine Wet Exhaust - This section should be amended to
describe that some of these small boats on-board may be covered by the Clean Boating Act of
2008, and are not subject to the requirements of this permit.
Response: Part 1.2.1 of the Permit states that recreational vessels as defined in section 502(25)
of the CWA are not subject to this permit and are instead subject to regulation under section
312(o) of the CWA. Therefore, the commenter's suggested change is not necessary.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
18
No
Comment: Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge
Wisconsin supports EPA's proposal to require BMPs and not allow any visible oily sheen
discharge.
Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention
"Seawater piping" is not a term Wisconsin DNR staff are entirely familiar or comfortable with.
For clarity, Wisconsin DNR recommends adding a definition for "seawater piping."
Response: EPA notes that while "seawater piping" is not explicitly defined, the definition for
"Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention" can be found in Appendix A of the Permit. That
definition clarifies that seawater piping is the piping associated with dedicated seawater cooling
systems on selected vessels.
Commenter Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Division of Water, Water
Quality Section, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC)
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section
1076
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0534- A2
6
No
Comment: 2.2.14 - Gas Turbine Washwater
The Department recommends that the EPA consider adding turbo blowers to this section.
Turboblowers are engine turbocharger/superchargers and may have similar characteristics to
washwater.
2.2.20 - Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention
Some vessels use metal anodes designed to release ions into seawater to prevent marine growth.
Replacement of copper or other metal anodes in the prevention systems can be regular,
indicating losses of metals. Although the draft VGP fact sheet includes information that cooling
water metals can be above water quality criteria, there is no mention of metals in seawater piping
in the draft VGP or draft VGP fact sheet. The Department does not recommend additional
requirements, but only a explanation of why metal anodes are not included.
2.2.21 - Boat Engine Well Exhaust
The Department recommends that EPA include definitions of "good working order" and "well
tuned". If defining these terms is impractical, then the Department recommends that EPA
provide examples of items that would be considered not in good working order or not well tuned.
Response: Regarding adding turbo blowers to the Gas Turbine Washwater section, EPA does
not have enough information regarding these systems to assess the need for permit
requirements. Furthermore, vessel owners/operators have not identified these systems as having
discharges that require coverage under this permit. Therefore, EPA is not addressing turbo
blowers in the permit at this time.
Regarding seawater piping biofouling prevention, the anode system described by the
commenter releases biocidal chemicals into the seawater piping to keep fouling under control.
Use of active ingredients to control biofouling is described in Part 2.2.20 of the Permit and
Section 4.4.20 of the VGP Fact Sheet. The effects of metals discharged into the aquatic
environment are discussed in Section 3.4.5 of the VGP Fact Sheet.
EPA has declined to add definitions of "good working order" and "well tuned" as such
determinations are necessary very fact-specific and, in EPA's experience, vessel
owners/operators are well versed in maintaining vessels in accordance with class and regulatory
requirements and have an understanding of what good marine practice and proper maintenance
entails. Some examples of maintenance activities that can be performed to ensure engines are in
good working order include oil changes based on the manufacturers' recommendations,
periodic cleaning/changing of spark plugs, ensuring the proper amount of 2-cycle engine oil is
mixed with gasoline to prevent excessive amounts of exhaust/unburned oil, replacing worn
cooling water pumps to prevent the discharge of metal shavings, and periodic cleaning of
exhaust valves and cylinders to remove excess carbon buildup resulting from low throttle
operation.
1077
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadians)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadians)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2
16
No
Comment: Article 2.2.1 - Deck Washdown and Runoff and Above Water Line Hull Cleaning
The draft pennit proposes adding a requirement to "broom clean exposed decks or use
comparable management measures and remove all existing debris" prior to deck washdowns. It
should be noted that vessel operators currently make all efforts to maintain good housekeeping
on deck and, with respect to cargo residues, do follow the requirements in the USCG Interim
Rule on Dry Cargo Residues (DCR), including minimizing the amount of DCR that is washed
down. A requirement to 'broom clean' exposed decks on such a large vessel imposes an
unnecessary work burden on the crew. Crews use their training and judgment to determine if
particular areas require broom cleaning in order to return cargo to the hold but will more
commonly use shovels to accomplish this. CSA suggests removing the requirement to 'broom
clean'.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name: Abigail Blodgett, Legal Fellow, San Francisco Baykeeper
Commenter Affiliation: San Francisco Baykeeper
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0549-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2. The VGP's Provisions on Anti-Fouling Hull Coatings. Underwater Ship
Husbandry Discharges, and Cooling Water Discharges Are Unduly Vague and Unenforceable.
The permit should be strengthened where it requires vessel owners to merely "give
consideration" to "use of hull coatings with the lowest effective biocide release rates, rapidly
biodegradable components (once separated from the hull surface), or non-biocidal alternatives,
such as silicone coatings." VGP 40, § 2.2.4. This standard is unduly vague and unenforceable. In
all circumstances, the use of coatings with the least environmental impact should be used where
practical, consistent with the permit's goal to minimize water quality impacts.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 14.
EPA agrees with the commenter that the permit's goal is to minimize water quality impacts and
that the use of coatings with the least environmental impact should be used where practical.
EPA believes that the permit limits, as written, convey this goal and require that vessel
operators explore use of the least toxic hull coatings that are practical for their vessel.
1078
-------
Commenter Name: Abigail Blodgett, Legal Fellow, San Francisco Baykeeper
Commenter Affiliation: San Francisco Baykeeper
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0549-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: The permit also inadequately regulates the impact of cooling water, requiring only
that discharges occur when a vessel is "under way," "when possible." VGP 48, §2.2.19. Again, it
is unclear how this can be enforced. What circumstances is a vessel required to document to
determine whether discharges when under way are possible? Moreover, high temperature
discharges could be harmful to marine life whether the vessel is under way or not. The permit
should go further than mere recommendation of shore-based power, and require temperature
sampling and reporting to ensure that local water quality standards are met.
Response: While the commenter is correct in stating that high temperature discharges can be
harmful to marine life whether the vessels is underway or not, there is a dilution or a dispersion
of a concentrated heat source that quickly cools the water to acceptable/ambient levels when a
vessel is underway. In 2009, EPA sampled cooling water discharges from propulsion and
generator engines during its commercial fishing/non-recreational vessel sampling program
(EPA's 2010 "Study of Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing
Vessels and Other Non-Recreational Vessels Less than 79 Feet"). EPA collected samples from
inboard propulsion diesel and gasoline engines on 13 vessels, outboard propulsion gasoline
engines on six vessels, and diesel generator engines on five vessels. The maximum cooling
water discharge temperature measured for all vessels was 102°F. Cooling water discharge rates
are generally less than 20 gallons per minute (gpm), even on large diesel engines (e.g., water
pump capacity for a Cummins inboard 380 horsepower diesel engine). Assuming an ambient
water temperature is 59°F and no ambient water exchange adjacent to the cooling water
discharge point, then the cooling water discharge from the vessel would only increase the
ambient temperature by 4°F within 1 meter of the discharge port. Since the ambient water is
being continually exchanged even in conditions when the vessel is not underway due to currents
and slight vessel movement, the 4°F rise in the ambient water temperature within 1 meter of the
discharge port is highly unlikely. EPA thus believes that the requirements outlined in this part
are adequate to address the impact of seawater cooling discharges and that monitoring and
reporting of the discharge temperatures are therefore unnecessary.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554-A2
7
No
Comment: 2.2.1 Deck Washdown and Runoff and Above Water Line (sic) Hull Cleaning The
VGP 2013 is internally inconsistent in that at 1.2.3.4 it states rubbish, trash, garbage or other
1079
-------
materials discharged overboard are not eligible for coverage. "Garbage" includes discharges of
bulk dry cargo residues as defined at 33 CFR § 151.66(b). However, at 2.2.1 vessel
owners/operators are required to "minimize the introduction of on-deck debris, garbage, residue,
and spill into deck washdown and runoff discharges. Before deck washdowns occur, you must
broom clean exposed decks or use comparable management measures and remove all existing
debris."
Therefore clarification is needed regarding the definitions of garbage, debris and rubbish as they
pertain to deck runoff and a determination made as to whether or not discharge of dry cargo
residues are permissible in accordance with the aforementioned regulations (as is permitted by
the Coast Guard) or prohibited by the VGP 2013.
Response: With respect to discharge of dry cargo residue sweepings (i.e., the discharge of
either dry cargo alone or dry cargo combined with the water used for the purpose of removing
the dry cargo from the decks) EPA notes that proposed VGP Part 1.2.3.4 explicitly stated that
discharges of rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard are not
eligible for coverage under the permit. As was explained in proposed VGP Fact Sheet 3.5.2.4,
the discharge of these materials is not eligible for coverage under the VGP, as the VGP only
applies to those discharges that were excluded from NPDES permitting by virtue of 40 CFR
122.3(a). Dry-cargo residue sweepings fall within the commonly understood meaning of
"rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard," and thus are not subject
to the NPDES exclusion. While the deliberate discharge of dry-cargo residue and dry-cargo
residue washdowns is thus not within the scope of the VGP, the VGP does apply to the other
types of deck washdowns, as well as deck runoff, as those are discharges within the scope of 40
CFR 122.3(a), and as such, best management practices in VGP Part 2.2.1 to help prevent
contamination of deck washdown and runoff by minimizing the incidental introduction of on-
deck debris, garbage, residue and spill into deck washdown and runoff discharges still apply.
While the discharge of dry-cargo residues is a "garbage" discharge beyond the scope of the
VGP, such discharges are subject to Coast Guard requirements under regulations at 33 CFR §§
151.51 - 151.77 that implement the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships ("APPS," the U.S.
statute implementing, among other things, MARPOL Annex V). Under these regulations cargo
residues are considered "operational wastes" which is a subset of regulated items under the term
"garbage." The discharge of garbage from vessels in the navigable waters of the U.S. is
regulated by 33 CFR §151.66, which prohibits the discharge of garbage, except for the limited
discharge of dry bulk cargo residue on the Great Lakes. EPA has included language in Part
1.2.3.4 of the VGP making explicit that discharge of these residues is outside the scope of the
VGP. That language uses the relevant definition of "bulk dry cargo residue" from the Coast
Guard regulations and, in the absence of a Coast Guard definition for "agricultural cargo
residue," draws from the text of the relevant Conference Report accompanying the bill that
established 33 U.S.C 1902a. The VGP fact sheet also includes explanatory language in Part
3.5.2.4 on this matter.
Commenter Name: Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent, V. Ships
Leisure
1080
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
V. Ships Leisure
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2
1
No
Comment: Item No 1.
VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: 2.2.1 Deck washdown and Appendix A with definitions of
"biodegradable", "non-toxic", "phosphate free".
VGP 2013 or Factsheet text: If deck washdowns or above water line hull cleaning will result in a
discharge, they must be conducted with "non-toxic" and "phosphate free" cleaners and
detergents as defined in Appendix A of this permit. Furthermore, cleaners and detergents should
not be caustic and must be biodegradable.
Comments: The previous recommendation for detergents to be "biodegradable" is now a "must"
i.e., mandatory requirement (the previous requirements for them to be also nontoxic, phosphate
free and non caustic remain as well).
From experience with the VGP 2008 it is a challenge for a manufacturer to verify
detergents/soaps if meeting the VGP definitions/criteria (i.e., for "non bio-accumulative", "bio-
degradable", "non-toxic", "phosphate free").
We are well aware that Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are one/another source of
information for that. The recommended Format for (Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) by
OSHA per http://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/msdsformat.html and 29 CFR 1910.1200 (g) do not
specifically list data in a MSDS in the format as required per the VGP 2013 definitions (in
Appendix A) and there are only two sections in a MSDS which may be considered as generally
relevant to these definitions i.e., those on Toxicological information Ecological information. The
above refers to the US recommended format of a MSDS and other countries have their own
which again would not directly facilitate the identification if a chemical/detergent/soap conforms
or not with the VGP definitions for "non bio-accumulative", "bio-degradable", "non-toxic",
"phosphate free". Manufacturers of such chemicals/detergents/soaps do not always respond to
our diligent enquiries for verification of the above either, (i.e., like one of the major detergents
manufacturer used throughout the cruise vessel industry like Ecolab, let alone some smaller or
foreign based ones..) and the MSDS remains in most cases our only source of information.
Suggestion or Proposed text: EPA should align the definitions for "non bio-accumulative", "bio-
degradable", "non-toxic", "phosphate free" etc per the recommended and common information
normally available in a MSDS to enable and facilitate owners/operators to source the information
required for detergents/soaps which may be discharged in waters subject to the permit
Response: Based on this and other comments, EPA has modified or added more specific
definitions for "not bio accumulative", "biodegradable," "minimally-toxic soaps, cleaners, and
detergents," and "phosphate-free" (see Appendix A in the permit). EPA did not align these
definitions with "the recommended and common information normally available in a MSDS"
because, as the commenter points out, the MSDS formats are not required to, and do not
1081
-------
typically, include the type of information necessary to determine whether a product meets the
listed definitions. The definition in the permit has been elaborated to include not only the
technical definition, but also standards and test methods supplied by previous public comments.
EPA did choose language that the Agency believes will make it easier for permittees to find
suitable products. For example, EPA notes that some labeling programs, such as EPA's Design
for the Environment (DfE), Blue Angel, European Ecolabel, Nordic Swan, and the Swedish
Standard SS 155470 provide "green" labels for cleaners, and EPA expects that, based on the
requirements of these labeling programs, products labeled by these programs would meet
permit requirements. Vessel operators can use these programs as a tool to assist in finding
products that are available and meet the permit's requirements. Additionally, vessel operators
could use other tools, such as MSDSs. Add MSDSs that document permit requirements, such as
testing and test results, would be acceptable documentation for cleaners and detergents expected
to meet permit requirements.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574- A2
7
No
Comment: 2.27 Cathodic Protection
GSSA is concerned about the EPA interpretation of the language "sacrificial anodes must not be
used more than necessary." The use of sacrificial anodes is necessary to protect expensive
equipment from electrolysis when it comes into contact with seawater. We recommend that this
vague requirement be removed from the draft permit. In addition, the EPA proposes that vessel
operators use the least toxic metals (i.e., magnesium) and document their choices in their
recordkeeping. However, the Agency does not clearly articulate whether cost savings and
effectiveness are acceptable reasons to use zinc as opposed to magnesium or aluminum anodes.
Zinc is the only effective and readily available noble metal alternative. We recommend the EPA
remove the draft permit language regarding anode changes and compliance or clarify that cost
savings, availability, effectiveness or technological feasibility all be considered acceptable
justifications.
2.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
The EPA proposes to require that anchor chain "be washed carefully and thoroughly" as it is
being hauled out of the water. Although the language is unclear, we assume this means each time
it is retrieved on board. This is not a reasonable or feasible requirement. First, the anchor is
deployed into the ambient seawater and seabed and typically not for extended periods of time. It
simply does not make sense to have to carefully and thoroughly wash the anchor chain each time
it is retrieved since risk of contamination is miniscule. Second, most if any sediment that may be
attached to the anchor's flukes will be effectively washed by ambient seawater action once the
anchor is retrieved, stored and the vessel in underway. Third, there is the potential for safety to
be compromised with this requirement. We recommend it be removed from the VGP.
1082
-------
Response: With respect to cathodic protection, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
OW-2011-0141-0505-A1, excerpt 18. EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement "zinc is
the only effective and readily available noble metal alternative." Zinc, magnesium, and
aluminum anodes offer different electrochemical voltage protect and are applicable to different
vessel environs. An anode material is selected based on the vessel materials of construction and
the voltage necessary to protect a vessel's hull and submerged equipment (or hull potential).
Zinc anodes are not applicable for all vessels; for example, use in freshwater reduces or
eliminates the effectiveness of zinc anodes. As another example, engine manufacturers have
developed aluminum alloy anodes that can protect aluminum vessel components from corrosion
as an alternative to zinc that can be used in saltwater or freshwater.1
With respect to chain locker effluent discharges, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 15.
1 "Corrosion 101." Martyr Anodes. Available online at
http://66.129.219.81/downloads/marinaconf2012/Martvr%20Pressentation%20-
%20NMTA%20Marina%20and%20Boatvard%20Conference%20-%20November%2015th%202012.ppt.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA)
Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0574- A2
10
No
Comment: 2.2.19 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
The EPA requirement to discharge seawater cooling water overboard only when the vessel is
underway is technologically infeasible and does not reflect knowledge of the equipment
commonly used on board commercial fishing vessels. First, refrigeration condensers are in use at
all times, circulating ambient seawater (although warmer upon discharge) as needed to maintain
efficient cooling, which is critical to maintaining product quality. There is no way to capture this
seawater discharge so it should not be a requirement to do so. When vessels are in port,
particularly when they are waiting to discharge their product, there is no alternative to running
refrigeration condensers and auxiliary generators to maintain power and keep seawater at
appropriately low temperatures. Vessels must also access auxiliary engines for power generation.
Wet exhausts and cooling water discharges cannot be captured or stored.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0504-A1, excerpt 18.
Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director, California
Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
1083
-------
Late Comment?
No
Comment: 2.27 Cathodic Protection (p.42)
The EPA proposes to require vessel operators use the least toxic metals (i.e. magnesium) and
document their choices in their recordkeeping. However the EPA does not clearly articulate
whether cost savings and/or effectiveness are acceptable reasons for using zinc as opposed to
magnesium or aluminum anodes. Our vessel operators report that zinc is the only readily
available, and only effective, alternative. We recommend the EPA remove the current language
regarding anode metal choices vis a vis compliance; or clarify that cost savings, availability or
technologically feasibility be considered acceptable justifications.
2.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent (p.43)
The EPA proposes to require that anchor chain be washed carefully and thoroughly as it is being
hauled out of the water. This is not a feasible or reasonable requirement.
First, the anchor is deployed in ambient seawater and typically not for extended periods of time.
Thus, it does not make sense to have to carefully and thoroughly wash the chain each time it is
retrieved since risk of contamination is miniscule. Second, most if any sediment will be attached
to the flukes of the anchor which will be effectively washed by ambient seawater wave action
during the retrieval process, as well as shortly after it is retrieved, secured, and the vessel is
underway. Third, there is the potential for safety to be compromised if the EPA requires the crew
to carefully and thoroughly wash the chain each time it is deployed. We recommend this
requirement be removed from the VGP.
Response: With respect to cathodic protection, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
OW-2011-0141-0505-A1, excerpt 18.
With respect to chain locker effluent discharges, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
OW-2011-0141-05Q4-A1, excerpt 15.
Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director, California
Comment: 2.2.19 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (p.48)
The EPA requirement to discharge seawater cooling overboard when the vessel is underway is
technologically infeasible. First, refrigeration condensers are in use at all times, circulating
ambient seawater to maintain efficient cooling. There is no way to capture this discharge so it
should not be a requirement to do so. When several vessels are in port (or at the dock) at the
same time there is simply no alternative to keep seafood products wholesome without running
refrigeration condensers and auxiliary generators to maintain power and keep seawater at the
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2
6
No
1084
-------
appropriate temperature. Vessels must access auxiliary engines for power generation resulting in
wet exhaust and cooling water discharge which cannot be captured or tored.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-05Q4-A1, excerpt 18.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Brent Paine, Executive Director, United Catcher Boats
(UCB) and Glenn Reed, President, Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
United Catcher Boats (UCB) and Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0630-A2
6
No
Comment: 2.2.7 Cathodic Protection
We do not support the proposal to prioritize the use of less effective sacrificial electrodes. The
best management practice for cathodic protection should be based upon the construction material
of the hull and any immersed equipment. Many vessels active in the commercial fishing industry
are constructed of steel hulls and have immersed aluminum equipment that render an aluminum
sacrificial electrode infeasible and a magnesium one of little use. Such vessels need to use zinc
sacrificial electrodes.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0495-A1, excerpt 9.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Brent Paine, Executive Director, United Catcher Boats
(UCB) and Glenn Reed, President, Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
United Catcher Boats (UCB) and Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0630-A2
8
No
Comment: 2.2.20 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention
The requirement under this Part to not discharge removed fouling organisms within waters
subject to the VGP presents an operational safety hazard. The cleaning of seawater piping for
biofouling prevention cannot be safely or feasibly done while at sea. It must be done in port.
Response: With respect to seawater piping biofouling prevention, please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 17.
Although commenter provides no explanation for its contention that cleaning of seawater piping
cannot be safely or feasibly done conducted at sea, EPA acknowledges that operators of many
vessel classes may be able to perform some tasks safely, while operators of other vessel classes
1085
-------
may not be able to do so safely. To address, among other things, potential safety issues for
some vessel operators, EPA has included appropriate modifiers such as "where feasible". EPA
also notes in Part 1.15 of the Permit that the vessel masters have the responsibility to ensure the
safety and stability of the vessel and the safety of the crew and passengers, and nothing in this
permit is intended to interfere with their fulfillment of that responsibility.
Even if cleaning is conducted in waters subject to this permit, there are other viable approaches
to disposal of living organisms than discharge, including shore based disposal or cleaning while
in dry dock on shore. Hence, the Agency has declined to modify the prohibition of removed
fouling organisms as this is a potential vector for the spread of aquatic invasive species.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army
Corps of Engineers
US Army Corps of Engineers
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0632-A2
5
No
Comment: Issue 8. Cathodic Protection
Reference: Vessel General Permit (VGP), 2.2.7 - Cathodic Protection
Discussion: This section notes that levels of toxicity between the different types of anodes and
requires the selection of the least toxic anode. USACE do not agree with this section and think it
may mislead operators/owners to select the wrong anode. The various metals that make up the
anodes have different cathodic protection characteristics depending on the metal it is being asked
to protect and the type of seawater the vessel is in. Some anodes do not work well in salt water
and some do not work well in fresh water.
Recommendation: USACE recommends that the EPA should consider revising this section to
add both more clarity and technical properties/characteristics or eliminate the requirement to
select the least toxic anode.
Response: With respect to cathodic protection, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
QW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 15.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
4
No
Comment: 2) The Lack of Federal Management of Vessel Biofouling
By including ballast water management in the 2008 VGP and the proposed 2013 VGP. the EPA
has made a clear commitment to manage the introduction of NIS from commercial shipping
1086
-------
activities. In order to be effective, this management must include all vessel-mediated transfers of
NIS. including vessel biofouling. Vessel biofouling has been identified as being at least as
important, and possibly more important, than ballast water as a mechanism for marine NIS
introductions in several regions, including California. Hawaii, the continental U.S.. Brazil. New
Zealand. Australia, and the North Sea (Cranfield et al. 1998. Ruiz et al. 2000, Eldredge and
Carlton 2002. Gollasch 2002. Farrapeira et al. 2011. Ruiz et al. 2011). Recent estimates suggest
that vessel biofouling is responsible for 42.6% of all established coastal NIS throughout the
world (Hewitt and Campbell 2010). The 2008 VGP and the proposed 2013 VGP largely ignores
the threat of species introductions from this vector. Because of this federal void. MISP staff is in
the process of establishing regulations in California to manage the potential introduction of NIS
from vessel biofouling. To develop these regulations. MISP staff has consulted closely with the
federal governments of New Zealand and Australia, as well as the I MO. as these entities
currently recognize the biosecurity threat associated with biofouling and are developing
protective policies to improve upon the status quo. Staff encourages the EPA to incorporate
biofouling management requirements into the proposed 2013 VGP in order to protect U.S.
waters from this important maritime vector of species introductions.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the transport and relocation of invasive
species is an environmental concern caused by vessel discharges but disagrees with the notion
that EPA has "all but ignored" the issue of hull fouling in the draft VGP (and 2008 VGP for that
matter).. EPA addressed what vessel operators must do to address the threat of invasive species
in many parts of the VGP including ballast water, anti-fouling coating, chain locker effluent,
seawater piping biofouling protection, underwater ship husbandry and hull fouling discharges,
and unused live bait (see Parts 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.8, 2.2.20, 2.2.23, and 2.2.27 of the Permit).
That being said, however, based on this and other comments, EPA has expanded the existing
permit requirements with specific language further emphasizing and providing guidance on the
requirements of the permit with respect to hull fouling. In Part 2.2.23 of the permit (underwater
ship husbandry), the permit specifically discusses management measures vessel operators can
take to meet the requirement that the transport of attached living organisms be minimized
when traveling into U.S. waters from outside the U.S. economic zone or between Captain of the
Port (COTP) zones. Specifically, these measures include: selecting an appropriate anti-foulant
management system and maintaining that system, in water inspection, cleaning, and
maintenance of hulls, and thorough hull and other niche area cleaning when a vessel is in dry
dock. This language was incorporated to provide guidance to vessel owner/operators on how to
minimize the transport of living organisms. Furthermore, the clarifying language, while giving
vessel owner/operators concrete steps that reduce the risks from introducing new invasive
species, maximizes consistency with management principles established in the international
guidelines "2011 Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships' Biofouling to Minimize
the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species" (MEPC.207(62)).
Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2, excerpt 15 for more
information.
1087
-------
Commenter Name:
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
12
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Section 2.2.4: This section does not acknowledge that the purpose of ant i-toil ling
coatings is to prevent bio toil ling on ships. The ballast water requirements contained within the
draft VGP point towards a clear commitment by the US EPA to minimize the introduction of
non-indigenous species. This commitment must be reaffirmed here, as biofouling is arguable the
most important vector for NIS introductions into coastal environments (Eldredge and Carlton
2002. Fofonoff et al. 2003. Hewitt and Campbell 2010, Ruiz et al. 2011). Encouraging the use of
anti-touling coatings with the lowest effective biocide release rates, without consideration of a
vessel's unique physical and operational characteristics may be counter-productive and result in
greater biotouling accumulation and increased bioinvasion risk. A more effective strategy would
include encouraging vessel owners and operators to use the best available coatings that are suited
towards each vessels operational profile and physical structure. The use of appropriate anti-
tou ling coatings will likely result in both reduced biotouling accumulation (Le. reduced
bioinvasion risk) and reduced dependency on frequent in water hull cleaning (Le. reduced
potential for increased copper loading as a result of cleaning activities). This strategy is aligned
with current biotouling management efforts in California. Australia. New Zealand, and at the
International Maritime Organization (1MO 2011). In many cases, biocide-free fouling-release
coatings may be the most appropriate and best technologies available. However, encouraging its
inappropriate use on vessels not suited for those types of coatings will likely increase biotouling
accumulation and bioinvasion risk.
Response: EPA concurs with the commenter that the transport and relocation of invasive
species is a primary environmental concern of vessel discharges. Accordingly, EPA has
addressed what vessels operators can do to address the threat of invasive species in many parts
of the VGP including ballast water, anti-fouling coating, chain locker effluent, seawater piping
biofouling protection, underwater ship husbandry and hull fouling discharges, and unused live
bait (see Parts 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.8, 2.2.20, 2.2.23, and 2.2.27 of the Permit).
EPA also concurs with the commenter that encouraging the use of anti-fouling coatings with the
lowest effective biocide rates, without consideration of a vessel's unique physical and
operational characteristics, may be counter-productive and result in greater biofouling
accumulation and increased bioinvasion risk. For these reasons, Section 4.4.4 of the VGP Fact
Sheet provides additional discussion focused on factors specific to each vessel that affect
biofouling (e.g., vessel operational profile, including operating speed, drydocking requirements,
and the waters in which the vessel will be operating). EPA's "Underwater Ship Husbandry
Discharges" technical development document also describes vessel-specific factors likely to
affect the rate of biofouling (immobile periods, vessel speed, voyage duration, vessel movement
patterns, and environmental factors such as salinity, temperature and nutrients). Finally, Section
4.4.4 of the VGP Fact Sheet describes how an evaluation of these vessel-specific factors impact
1088
-------
the determination of the need for particular coating and selection of the type of coating to apply.
Finally, EPA concurs with the commenter that the use of appropriate anti-fouling coatings will
likely result in both reduced biofouling accumulation and reduced dependency on frequent in
water hull cleaning. For these reasons, Part 2.2.4 of the Permit requires selection of anti-fouling
coatings with the "lowest effective biocide release rates," and Part 2.2.23 of the Permit requires
management measures including "selecting an appropriate anti-foulant management system and
maintaining that system."
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
13
No
Comment: Section 2.2.7: This section should also encourage the use of Impressed Current
Cathodic Protection (ICCP) where appropriate, in lieu of sacrificial anodes. ICCP systems will
not produce discharges of metals into surrounding waters and they completely remove niches or
biofouling "hotspots" associated with sacrificial anodes, where fouling organisms may
accumulate.
Response: EPA agrees with the recommendation and rationale of the commenter. Part 2.2.7 of
the Permit states, "EPA recommends the use of Impressed Current Cathodic Protection (ICCP)
in place of or to reduce the use of sacrificial electrodes when technologically feasible (e.g.,
adequate power sources, appropriate for vessel hull size and design), safe, and adequate to
protect against corrosion, particularly for new vessels." Additional information can also be
found in Section 4.4.7 of the VGP Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
14
No
Comment: Section 2.2.20: This section should encourage the placement of release points for
chemicals or biocides within a vessel's sea chests, rather than directly into sea strainers. This will
allow for protection against biofouling not only in a vessel's seawater piping, but also within sea
chests. Sea chests are "hotspots" for biofouling accumulation and have been identified as a vessel
surface that represents significant bio invasion risk (Coutts et al. 2003. Coutts and Taylor 2004.
1089
-------
Coutts and Dodgshun 2007, Australian Shipowners Association 2007, Davidson et al. 2009.
Hopkins and Forrest 2010, Sylvester and Macisaac 2010).
Response: While EPA recognizes that sea chests are hotspots for biofouling and are required to
be cleared of any living organisms during dry-dock inspections (Part 4.1.4 of the Permit), it is
unclear to EPA whether the placement of release points for chemicals or biocides within a
vessel's sea chests would be feasible for all or even a majority of vessel types. Instead, the VGP
was written to provide the necessary flexibility for vessel owners/operators to address
biofouling management.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
21
No
Comment: Literature Cited
Australian Shipowners Association. 2007. Assessment of Introduced Marine Pest Risks
Associated with Niche Areas in Commercial Shipping. Final Report. 24 pgs.
Response: EPA notes that the information in the referenced documents supports EPA's
conclusions regarding an approach toward addressing biofouling management.
Commenter Name: Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
Commenter Affiliation: California State Lands Commission
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 23
Late Comment? No
Comment: Coutts. AD.M.. Moore. K.M., Hewitt. C.L. 2003. Ships' sea-chests: an overlooked
transfer mechanism for non-indigenous marine species? Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 1504-
1515.
Coutts. AD.M.. Taylor. M.D. 2004. A preliminary investigation of biosecurity risks associated
with biofouling on merchant vessels in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and
Freshwater Research 38: 215-229.
Coutts. AD.M.. Dodgshun. T.J. 2007. The nature and extent of organisms in vessel sea-chests: A
protected mechanism for marine bioinvasions. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54: 875-886.
1090
-------
Cranfield. H.. Gordon. D.. Willan. R. , Marshall. B.. Battershill. C.. Francis. M.. Nelson. W..
Glasby. C. & Read. G. 1998. Advent ive marine species in New Zealand. NIWA Technical
Report, 34. 48.
Davidson. I.C.. Brown. C.W.. Sytsma. M.D.. Ruiz. G.M. 2009. The role of containerships as
transfer mechanisms of marine bio foil ling species. Bio foil ling 25(7): 645-655.
Response: EPA notes that the information in the referenced documents supports EPA's
conclusions regarding an approach toward addressing biofouling management.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
25
No
Comment: Eldredge. L. & Carlton. J. 2002. Hawaiian marine bioinvasions: a preliminary
assessment. Pacific Science 2: 211-212.
Farrapeira. C.M.R.. Tenorio. D.O.. Amaral. F.D. 2011. Vessel biofouling as an inadvertent
vector of benthic invertebrates occurring in Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 832-839.
Fofonoff, R.. Ruiz. G.. Stevens. B. & Carlton. J. 2003. In ships or on ships? Mechanisms of
transfer and invasion for non-native species to the coasts of North America. IN RUIZ. G. &
CARLTON. J. (Eds.) Invasive species: vectors and management strategies. Boca Raton. Island
Press.
Gollasch. S. 2002. The importance of ship hull fouling as a vector of species introductions into
the North Sea. Biofouling 18: 105-121.
Hewitt. C.. Campbell. M. 2010. The relative contribution of vectors to the introduction and
translocation of invasive marine species. Final Report prepared for the Australian Department of
Agriculture. Fisheries and Forestry. 56 pgs.
Hopkins. G.A. , Forrest. B.M. 2010. A preliminary assessment of biofouling and non-indigenous
marine species associated with commercial slow-moving vessels arriving in New Zealand.
Biofouling 26(5): 613-621.
I MO. 2011 . International Maritime Organization Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases
BLG 15/VVP.4: Annex 1. Draft Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships' Biofouling
to Minimize the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species. 25 pgs.
Response: EPA notes that the information in the referenced documents supports EPA's
1091
-------
conclusions regarding an approach toward addressing biofouling management.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
27
No
Comment: Ruiz. G.M., P.W. Fofonoff. J.T. Carlton. M.J. Wonham and A.H. Hines. 2000.
Invasion of coastal marine communities in North America: Apparent patterns, processes, and
biases. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31: 481-531.
Ruiz. G.M., Fofonoff. P.W., Steves. B.. Foss. S.F.. Shiba. S.N. 2011. Marine invasion history
and vector analysis of California: a hot spot for western North America. Diversity and
Distributions 17: 362-373.
Response: EPA notes that the information in the referenced documents supports EPA's
conclusions regarding an approach toward addressing biofouling management.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
29
No
Comment: Sylvester. F.. Mac Isaac. H.J. 2010. Is vessel hull fouling an invasion threat to the
Great Lakes? Diversity and Distributions 16: 132-143.
Response: EPA notes that the information in the referenced documents supports EPA's
conclusions regarding an approach toward addressing biofouling management.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section
Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology (ECY)
Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECY)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0794- A2
7
Yes
1092
-------
Comment: 2.2.4 - Add a sentence: "Consider that the use of a non-toxic hard hull coating
combined with frequent cleaning can result in substantial fuel savings, reduced air pollution, and
a faster vessel."
Response: EPA notes that while fuel savings, reduced air pollution, and a faster vessel are
among the benefits of new hull coatings and frequent cleanings, EPA does not understand (and
the commenter does not explain) why the suggested language should be added to the permit,
and thus has not done so).
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (sVGP page 8 & VGP page 48): The EPA
requirement to discharge seawater cooling overboard when the vessel is underway and run on
shore power when in port is technologically infeasible. First, refrigeration condensers are in use
or the freezer is running at all times, requiring the generator/engine circulating ambient seawater
as necessary to maintain efficient, cooling. There is no way to capture this discharge so it should
not be a requirement to do so. In Alaska, adequate shore based power is not readily or
economically available, thus there is no alternative for vessels but to run auxiliary engines for
power generation in port and out.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-05Q4-A1, excerpt 18.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 23
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: Cathodic Protection on page 42 section 2.2.7: EPA should remove the vague
requirement "sacrificial anodes must not be used more than necessary ..." A commercial vessel
operator doesn't spend additional money when they don't consider it necessary and it would be
very subjective of an enforcement officer to determine what is necessary for a vessel. In addition
in this section EPA proposes to require vessel operators to use the least toxic metals and
document their choices in their recordkeeping. EPA should clearly state if cost savings and
availability are acceptable justifications for choosing the industry standard of zinc anodes.
Chain Locker Effluent on page 43 section 2.2.8: EPA proposes to require that anchor chain be
"washed carefully and thoroughly" as it is being hauled aboard. This is not a feasible or
reasonable requirement. The water that would likely be used to wash the anchor if feasible and
1093
-------
could be done safely would be the ambient water from where the anchor is being hauled. The
draft permit would also require "vessels that regularly sail outside waters subject to this permit if
technically feasible, periodically clean, rinse, and/or pump out the space beneath the chain
locker". Given the location of the chain locker and the conditions of the Pacific Ocean/Gulf of
Alaska, introducing volumes of water may create vessel safety and stability issues. EPA should
clarify when the chain locker and space below should be washed and what would be gained by
washing the anchor chain when hauled aboard.
Response: With respect to cathodic protection, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
OW-2011-0141-0505-A1, excerpt 18.
With respect to chain locker effluent discharges, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
OW-2011-0141-05Q4-A1, excerpt 15.
10. Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
Commenter Name: William Creal, Chief, Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0450-A3
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: An innovative permitting strategy needs to be used in the draft next VGP to
effectively and fairly regulate ballast water discharges given current analytical measurement
capabilities.
To effectively and fairly regulate aquatic invasive species (AIS) in ballast water discharges in the
draft next VGP, the USEPA must overcome many of the same challenges the USEPA and the
Great Lakes states faced to effectively regulate selected bio accumulative chemicals of concern
(Le., polychlorinated biphenyls [PCB]) when the Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) was written. The
water quality standard and corresponding water quality-based effluent limitation for PCBs are
well below its quantification level. Michigan recognizes a similar analytical problem exists with
respect to the final BWDLs requested for live organisms in the >10-50 um and >50 um
minimum dimension size categories.
Michigan and other states governed by the GLI overcame this type of analytical problem by
adopting what is often referred to as a "triad" permitting strategy to regulate PCB containing
wastewater discharges in NPDES permits. This triad permitting strategy consists of:
1. Inclusion of a final water quality-based effluent limitation (WOBEL) in the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that is substantially less than the
quantification level for PCB.
2. Inclusion of special effluent limitation compliance determination language in the NPDES
permit to clarify the permittee is considered in compliance with the final WOBEL when PCB
1094
-------
is not being discharged above the quantification level and the permittee is in full compliance
with an approved PCB Minimization Program.
3. Inclusion of a requirement in the NPDES permit to develop and implement a PCB
Minimization Program. The goal of the PCB Minimization Program is to maintain the
effluent concentration of PCB at or below the final WOBEL.
Michigan believes a similar "triad" permitting strategy can be used by the USEPA in the draft
next VGP to effectively and fairly regulate live organisms in ballast water that are, 10 um in
minimum dimension. In an effort to assist the USEPA, a strawman of this "triad" ballast water
discharge permitting strategy is provided in Enclosure B.
Response: EPA notes that this excerpt is a summary of the commenter's more detailed
comments. EPA has addressed the more detailed comments elsewhere in this response to
comments document. The commenter's suggested three-tiered approach includes (1)
establishing WQBELs that are below quantitation levels, (2) requiring development and
implementation of a discharge minimization plan, and (3) setting compliance levels equal to the
quantitation level provided compliance also with the discharge minimization plan. EPA
disagrees with the commenter that this approach is appropriate for the VGP, as it rests on the
ability of the Agency to derive and impose a numeric water quality-based effluent limitation.
EPA has determined that pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(k)(3), it is infeasible to calculate numeric
water quality-based effluent limit for ballast water discharges based, in part, on a National
Academy of Science (NAS) finding that the "current state of science does not allow a
quantitative evaluation of the relative merits of various [numeric] discharge standards in terms
of invasion probability." Therefore, the lack of available data and information prevents a
precise quantification of the risk associated with ballast water discharges. While EPA believes
our understanding of the risk posed by ballast water discharges and the reductions in risk
associated with treatment is improving, EPA agrees with NAS that establishing a precise,
quantified ballast water discharge standard more stringent than the numeric TBELs contained in
Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP at this time is not possible with available data and information, and
thus, numeric water quality-based effluent limits are infeasible to calculate, see the response to
sections 10.1 and 10.1.1 of this comment response document for further discussion. Thus, in
lieu of a numeric limit, EPA is including in this permit a narrative WQBEL requiring permittees
to control their discharges as necessary to meet water quality standards. EPA generally expects
that compliance with the other conditions in this permit, including Parts 2.1, 2.2, and 5, will
control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. However, the permit
requires that if at any time the owner/operator becomes aware, or EPA determines, that a
discharge causes or contributes to an exceedance of applicable water quality standards, the
owner/operator must take corrective actions as required in Part 3 of the permit and report these
exceedance(s) to EPA as required in Parts 1.14 and 4.4.1 of the permit. Where necessary,
owner/operators are required to employ additional controls to be consistent with applicable
WLAs in an approved or established TMDL or to comply with a State or Tribe's
antidegradation policies.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
1095
-------
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: III. The Clean Water Act requires NPDES permits that assure compliance with water
quality standards
Congress enacted amendments to the Clean Water Act ("CWA" or "the Act") in 1972 to "restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters" and to
achieve "water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife, and provides for recreation in and on the water." To achieve the Act's goal of
eliminating the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters, each state must establish ambient
water quality standards for intrastate waters at levels necessary to protect the "public health or
welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of' the Act.35 A water quality
standard consists of three components: (1) designated uses of the water, (2) criteria necessary to
protect the designated uses, and (3) a policy limiting the degradation of water quality to protect
water quality ("the antidegradation policy").36
To further achieve the Act's goal of eliminating the discharge of pollutants into navigable
waters, Congress created the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES"),
prohibiting the discharge of any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless that
point source receives a permit under § 402 of the Act.37 NPDES permits such as the Draft 2013
General Permit ("VGP") must contain technology-based effluent limitations ("TBELs"), which
are based on available control technologies.38
NPDES permits must also contain more stringent limits, known as water quality-based effluent
limitations ("WQBELs"), where technology-based effluent limitations alone are insufficient to
ensure that dischargers do not violate water quality standards.39 WQBELs are necessary to
control pollutants which the permitting agency "determines are or may be discharged at a level
which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any
State water quality standard."40
One component of water quality standards with particular resonance in the AIS context is
antidegradation. The antidegradation policy requires the maintenance and protection of existing
uses and the water quality necessary to protect existing uses.41 "Existing uses are those uses
actually attained in the water body on or after November 28, 1975, whether or not they are
included in the water quality standards."42 "No activity is allowable under the antidegradation
policy which would partially or completely eliminate any existing use."43
Response: This comment contains a recitation of CWA requirements which do not require a
response.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
1096
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1
7
No
Comment: B. EPA's obligations in setting WQBELs.
EPA must set WQBELs based on what is necessary to achieve water quality standards, without
regard either to cost or to whether control technology is already available to meet those
requirements. Moreover, EPA must set WQBELs that "assure compliance" with water quality
standards.48
EPA's regulations reinforce the necessity to assure compliance with water quality standards. One
regulation in particular requires permitting authorities to "ensure" that WQBELs are developed
to achieve a level of water quality that "complies with all applicable water quality standards."47
In Arkansas v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court acknowledged that "'unless there is some method
for measuring compliance, there is no way to ensure compliance.'"48 Measuring compliance
presupposes effluent limitations specific enough to be measurable. EPA itself recognizes as
much: "Each permit must be written clearly and unambiguously so that compliance can be
tracked effectively and the permit can be enforced if violations occur."49
Taken together, the provisions of the Act, as well as EPA's regulations and interpretation of the
Act, establish a requirement that WQBELs be written with sufficient specificity to enable
compliance with them to be verifiable. Only then will such limitations be enforceable as a
practical matter.
Response: EPA agrees with commenter that NPDES permits must include WQBELs as
necessary, and regardless of cost or availability of technology, to ensure discharges do not
cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an in-stream excursion above any
applicable water quality standard. As the VGP is written, EPA generally expects that
compliance with the TBELs will likely result in discharges that are controlled as necessary to
result in a very small absolute risk of invasion and thus are controlled as necessary to achieve
applicable water quality standards. Therefore, the compliance monitoring requirements in the
permit used to demonstrate compliance with TBELs also can be considered a general indicator
of compliance with WQBELs.
EPA notes that the WQBELs included in this permit are non-numeric. EPA relies on a narrative
expression of the need to control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality
standards, and to employ additional controls where necessary to be consistent with applicable
WLAs in an approved or established TMDL or to comply with a State or Tribe's
antidegradation policies. This is a reasonable approach for this permit because EPA has
determined that it is infeasible to calculate numeric water quality based effluent limits at this
time. In the context of ballast water discharges and controlling introductions of new ANS, as
discussed elsewhere in this comment response section, and in the VGP fact sheet, EPA is
supported in this determination by a National Academy of Sciences National Research Council
Report (NRC 2011), which, after exhaustively examining the issue, concluded that lack of
available and information prevents a precise quantification of the risk associated with the
concentration of living organisms in any specific ballast water discharge. Please see sections
1097
-------
10.1 and 10.1.1 of this comment response document and the VGP fact sheet for further
discussion.
Further complicating the ability to assess compliance with water quality standards, no states
have established numeric water quality standards for living organisms (or ANS); therefore, the
focus of EPA's evaluation was on protection of designated uses, narrative criteria, and relevant
anti-degradation and general policies of applicable state WQS. So, while State WQS do not
specifically address ANS, many narrative criteria and anti-degradation and general policies of
applicable state water quality standards do seek to prevent the types of degradation that is
associated with the introduction of ANS into receiving waters. Similarly, although their
language does not specifically address ANS, protection of states' designated uses also require
safeguarding against aquatic nuisance species introductions, as ANS are commonly associated
with impairment of all of the various designated uses in state water quality standards, including
industrial uses, public health and welfare uses, and aquatic and wildlife uses. For further
information, please see discussion in Section 4.4.3.9.1 of the VGP fact sheet.
While the Agency believes that generally, compliance with the TBELs will adequately protect
water quality, the permit does include additional protections should it be determined that a
discharge causes or contributes to a standards exceedance. In addition, at any time EPA may
impose additional, more stringent WQBELs on a site-specific basis, or require an individual
permit, if information suggests that the discharge is not controlled as necessary to meet
applicable water quality standards. The language in Part 2.3 affirms the permittee's requirement
to control its discharges as stringently as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards.
EPA reserves the authority to require more stringent requirements where necessary to meet
applicable standards, or, alternatively, to require the permittee to apply for an individual permit
if the Agency finds that the existing ballast water WQBELs in Parts 2.2.3 and 2.3 of the VGP
are not sufficient to ensure protection of water quality standards.
Please also see section 10.1.1 of this comment response document, which explain that the
WQBELs in today's permit are written with sufficient specificity to enable compliance with
them to be verifiable and enforceable.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0497-A1
8
No
Comment: 3. The VGP should include a numeric water quality based effluent limitation
(WOBEL) for ballast water discharge to meet state water quality standards
In the VGP, EPA has proposed to adopt the IMO D2 standard as the numeric technology based
effluent limitation (TBEL) for AIS in ballast water discharges. EPA should also issue water
1098
-------
quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs) that would not cause a contravention of any state's
water quality standards. Based on this, DEC urges EPA to "generate a set of water quality-based
ballast water discharge limitations that are protective of the environment under most situations
by making conservative assumptions, using safety factors similar to those used in ecological risk
assessments for pollutants, and/or by setting ballast water discharge limitations based on the
upper confidence limits of predictions of invasions. "8DEC believes, consistent with recent
discussions with other Great Lakes states, that a WQBEL of at least lOOx the IMO D2 standard
is needed to protect water quality, and this WQBEL should be included as a goal in the VGP.
One of the most important issues to address before finalizing the VGP is the lack of numeric
WQBELs. For example, New York's water quality standards, set forth in 6 NYCRR Section
703.2, require that no "deleterious substances" can be discharged to New York's waters, which
violate the best usage of those waters. Biological pollutants, such as AIS, qualify as such
substances, and have already significantly impacted the biological integrity of New York's
waters.
WQBELs are necessary to control pollutants which EPA "determines are or may be discharged
at a level which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion
above any State's water quality standard." 40 C,F,R. § 122.44(d)(I)(i), WQBELs are not based on
available control technology, but on what is necessary to achieve water quality standards,
40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1). EPA should ensure that water quality standards are protected in any
permit that it issues, including the VGP. This water quality obligation extends to ensuring that
the VGP is consistent with the CWA's anti-degradation policy and provides full protection of
existing and designated uses such as the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife, as well as recreation, from aquatic invasive species. See 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a) (anti-
degradation); id. § 131.6 (designated uses).
Establishing a specific WQBEL in the VGP is consistent with longstanding procedures for
developing a NPDES permit. In addition to the TBELs, EPA, or a State or Tribe, must evaluate
the discharge to determine compliance with Sections 101 and 301 (b)(1)(C) of the CWA, and 40
CFR122.44(d)(1). These require that permits include limits for all pollutants or parameters which
are or may be discharged at a level which will cause, or contribute to an excursion above any
State water quality standard, including State narrative criteria for water quality. Therefore, any
limits must be stringent enough to ensure that water quality standards are attained.
The EPA proposed 'narrative' WQBEL in the VGP incorporates the general requirement that the
vessel owner/operator must control the discharge(s) such that states' water quality standards are
not violated. However, since the IMO D2 standard does not adequately treat all AIS; any
discharge of ballast water has the potential to violate state water quality standards, and thus,
violate the VGP. For this reason, DEC urges EPA to develop an effective numerical WQBEL for
the VGP.
Response: see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A3, excerpt 2 and
section 10.1 of this comment response document for a discussion of why it is not appropriate to
use the "conservative assumptions" and "safety factors" that the commenter proposes in
developing the WQBELs in today's permit. The commenter provides no basis for concluding
1099
-------
"that a WQBEL of at least lOOx the IMO D2 standard is needed to protect water quality."
Please see sections 10.1 and 10.1.1 of this comment response document for discussion of EPA's
determinations regarding the effectiveness of the VGP's TBELs, the infeasibility of deriving
numeric WQBELs, and the imposition of non-numeric WQBELs that are protective of water
quality. EPA notes that states, including New York, have certified that the VGP's requirements
are protective of their water quality standards, and have not included numeric standards for
ballast water discharges more stringent that the IMO D-2 standard in their state 401
certifications. Please see section 12 of this comment response document and Part 6 of the VGP.
EPA disagrees with commenter that the VGP does not limit ballast water discharges as
necessary to adequately protect water quality. EPA acknowledges that in some instances, the
TBEL, consisting of both numeric and narrative requirements, may not be adequate to protect
water quality; thus, Part 2.3 of the VGP includes additional WQBELs for these discharges.
These WQBELs are intended to ensure that the VGP is protective of water quality, including
designated uses and anti-degradation. Additionally, the VGP contains a narrative WQBEL for
ballast water discharges from certain vessels entering the Great Lakes that requires these vessels
to conduct BWE in addition to treatment. EPA believes requiring BWE in addition to the
application of effluent limits that reflect best available treatment technologies (with the added
assurance provided by the narrative WQBEL in Part 2.3 of the permit) will achieve applicable
water quality standards, as we expect continued BWE to further decrease the probability that
non-native organisms will be introduced into and establish themselves in the Great Lakes.
Please see section 10.1.2 of this comment response document for additional discussion.
Also, as described in more detail in Part 4.4.3.9.4.1 of the VGP fact sheet, EPA agrees with
NAS (2011) thatquantifying the risk of successful establishment of new ANS under specific
numeric ballast water limits is not possible at this time with the information at hand. Hence,
EPA does not believe that deriving a numeric ballast water discharge standard more stringent
than the numeric TBELs contained in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP is possible with available data
and information, and thus, numeric WQBELs are infeasible to calculate. As noted by the SAB
and NAS, current sampling and analysis methods prevent testing of ballast water discharges to
any standard more stringent than D-2 and make it impracticable for verifying a standard 100
times more stringent. Thus, the WQBELs in the permit are narrative and specify that among
other things, discharges must be controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality
standards in the receiving water body or another water body impacted by your discharges.
While EPA generally expects that compliance with other conditions in the permit, including
Parts 2.1, 2.2, and 5, will control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality
standards, if at any time a permittee becomes aware, or EPA determines, that a discharge causes
or contributes to an exceedance of applicable water quality standards, the permittee must take
corrective actions as required in Part 3 of the permit. Additionally, EPA may impose additional
water quality-based limitations on a site-specific basis or, in certain circumstances, require the
discharger to obtain coverage under an individual permit.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
1100
-------
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
4
No
Comment: P. 17, Part 1.9.2 Water Quality Protection - This Part mentions that EPA may
require a permittee to obtain an individual permit "if there is evidence that the discharges
authorized by this permit cause, have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an
excursion above any applicable water quality standard."
PA's Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control provides a method
for determining reasonable potential, and that in turn determines if there is any need for water
quality-based effluent limits. Significantly, that methodology takes into consideration dilution
and whether, after dilution, there would be a reasonable potential to exceed a water quality
standard in the receiving water.
We request that the wording in Part 1.9.2 be revised to add "in the receiving water" after "any
applicable water quality standard".
Please note that Part 2.3.1 discusses water quality-based effluent limits and states that discharge
must be controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards in the receiving water
body. (Emphasis added) The change we request in Part 1.9.2 would be consistent with Part 2.3.1.
A similar request is made for Part 4.1.3.
Response: EPA agrees with commenter's recommendation to clarify in Parts 1.9.2 and 4.1.3 of
the permit that any excursion above any water quality standard is addressing an excursion "in
the receiving water." EPA elaborated further by also adding a statement noting that this may
also include another water body impacted by such discharges (e.g., a downstream water body).
Commenter Name: Brent Paine, Executive Director, United Catcher Boats
Comment: 2.3.1 Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
We strongly agree that compliance with the VGP will control discharges as necessary to meet
applicable water quality standards.
2.3.2.1 Discharges to Impaired Waters without an EPA-Approved or Established TMDL
We strongly agree that compliance with Part 2.3.1 should be the requirement for such discharges.
2.3.2.2 Discharges to Impaired Waters with an EPA-Approved or Established TMDL. We
strongly agree that if an applicable TMDL. exists either individually or categorically for a vessel
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Commenter Affiliation:
(UCB) and Glenn Reed, President, Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
United Catcher Boats (UCB) and Pacific Seafood
Processors Association (PSPA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0630-A2
11
No
1101
-------
or vessel class that EPA and lor state TMDL agencies will inform vessel owners/operators of
specific requirements.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenter's support of EPA's position that compliance with
the other conditions in the VGP (e.g., the technology-based limits, corrective actions, etc.)
generally will result in discharges that are controlled as necessary to meet applicable water
quality standards and for how the permit addresses discharges to impaired waters with or
without an EPA-approved or established TMDL. The final permit is consistent in this regard
with the draft permit as public noticed.
Commenter Name: Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section
Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology (ECY)
Commenter Affiliation: Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECY)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0794-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: 2.3.1 - Add a reminder that introduction of an invasive species is a violation of water
quality standards.
Response: While introducing living organisms that establish themselves and cause harm to a
waterbody would in many cases constitute a violation of water quality standards, water quality
standards vary greatly, so a categorical statement of the type suggested by the commenter
would be inappropriate. The fact sheet does, however, as it did in draft, contain language
explaining how the introduction of invasive species can, in specified circumstances, violate
water quality standards. See sections 4.4.3.9.1 and 4.4.3.9.3 of the Fact Sheet.
Generally, State water quality standards do not specifically address invasive species although
many narrative criteria and anti-degradation and general policies of applicable state water
quality standards do seek to prevent the types of degradation that is associated with the
introduction of these species into receiving waters. Similarly, although their language does not
specifically address aquatic nuisance species, protection of states' designated uses also require
safeguarding against aquatic nuisance species introductions, as ANS are commonly associated
with impairment of all of the various designated uses in state water quality standards, including
industrial uses, public health and welfare uses, and aquatic and wildlife uses. Examples of state
water quality standards that provide protections against invasive species are discussed in
4.4.3.9.1 of the VGP Fact Sheet.
10.1 Ballast Water
Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
1102
-------
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: II. EPA's Contemplated Finding That Numeric WQBELs Are "Infeasible To
Calculate" Would Unlawfully Abdicate Its Responsibility To Ensure That The VGP Protects
Water Quality Standards.
Our second major area of concern is with EPA's contemplated determination that numeric water
quality based effluent limitations ("WQBELs") for invasive species in ballast water are
"infeasible to calculate." As you know, WQBELs are necessary to control pollutants which EPA
"determines are or may be discharged at a level which will cause, have the reasonable potential
to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any State water quality standard." 40 C.F.R. §
122.44(d)(l)(i). WQBELs are not based on available control technology, but on what is
necessary to achieve water quality standards, without regard to technological feasibility or cost.
See Am. Paper Inst., Inc., v. U.S. EPA, 996 F.2d 346, 350 (D.C. Cir. 1993); 40 C.F.R. §
122.44(d)(1). EPA has a legal obligation to ensure that water quality standards are protected in
any permit that it issues, including the VGP. See, e.g., Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 191
F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that, under CWA, EPA "is under specific obligation to
require that level of effluent control which is needed to implement existing water quality
standards without regard to the limits of practicability") (internal citations omitted). This
obligation extends to ensuring that the VGP is consistent with the CWA's anti-degradation
policy and to provide full protection of existing and designated uses such as the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, as well as recreation, from aquatic invasive species.
See 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a) (anti-degradation); id. § 131.6 (designated uses); see also PUD No. 1
of Jefferson County v. Washington Dept. of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 715-19 (1994). At a
minimum, EPA is required to assess the reasonable potential for ballast water discharges beyond
TBELs to cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards. 40 C.F.R. §
122.44(d)(l)(i).
Although different States' water quality standards may vary in minor respects with respect to
invasive species, if EPA chooses to continue regulating vessels by means of a CWA nationwide
general permit, then EPA has the legal responsibility to establish a strong federal regulatory floor
that protects core CWA anti-degradation policy interests and designated uses that are common
across all the States. Because theoretically a reproducing population of nonindigenous organisms
can be established by the introduction of a few individuals, any solution must achieve complete
prevention. See, e.g., Anthony Ricciardi & Hugh J. Maclsaac, Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Ballast Water Exchange Policy in the Great Lakes, 18 Ecological Applications 1321, 1322
(2008).
Neither status quo ballast water management practices nor requiring compliance with IMO D-2
standards as TBELs in the next VGP will be adequate to ensure that the VGP protects water
quality standards. It is well established that the status quo management practices of ballast water
exchange and saltwater flushing are limited and highly variable in their effectiveness. See, e.g.,
EPA, Aquatic Nuisance Species in Ballast Water Discharges: Issues and Options (2001);
1103
-------
Gregory M. Ruiz et al. and David F. Reid, Current State of Understanding about the
Effectiveness of Ballast Water Exchange (BWE) in Reducing Aquatic Nonindigenous Species
(ANS) Introductions to the Great Lakes Basin and Chesapeake Bay, USA: Synthesis and Analysis
of Existing Information 4, NOAA Technical Memorandum GLERL-142125 (2007), available at
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps93114/tm-142.pdf; Anthony Ricciardi & Hugh J. Maclsaac,
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Ballast Water Exchange Policy in the Great Lakes, 18 Ecological
Applications 1321, 1322 (2008). While these practices reduce the number of organisms
introduced into a water body by ballast water discharges, they do not eliminate ballast water
discharges as a significant vector for invasive species establishment. And as for the IMO D-2
standards, as Lee et al. (2010) acknowledges, these standards were based on political
negotiations, not science. Lee, et al., "Density Matters: Review of Approaches to Setting
Organism-Based Ballast Water Discharge Standards," EPA/600/R-10/031, at 27, available at
http://www.aquaticnuisance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/20Q9/01/Densitv-Matters-
Review-of-Approaches-to-Setting-Organism-Based-Ballast-Water-Discharge-Standards.pdf. The
IMO D-2 standards are widely believed to be an improvement over the status quo but, like
ballast water exchange and saltwater flushing, inadequate to achieve full prevention of invasive
species establishment through the ballast water vector.
As we pointed out in our August 9, 2011, letter to you, the National Research Council report "did
not recommend the use of the IMO D-2 standard as effluent limits for the next VGP, and it
certainly made no claim that compliance with the IMO D-2 standard will be sufficient to protect
water quality. ... in light of the severe consequences for water quality that might follow upon
new invasions of non-indigenous species, which no one can deny, EPA bears the burden of
justifying any water quality-based effluent limits that exceed zero discharge.
Certainly, the NRC's inability to determine with any certainty the risk of invasion for any
discharge limits provides no rational basis either for choosing the IMO D-2 standard or
precluding the selection of more stringent numeric limits." (Letter from Neil Kagan, Thom
Cmar, and Debbie Sivas to Martin McDermott, U.S. Department of Justice, and Dawn Messier,
EPA Office of General Counsel, dated Aug. 9, 2011, at 2-3.
Response: The commenter mischaracterizes EPA's CWA responsibilities by stating that EPA
"bears the burden of justifying any water quality-based effluent limits that exceed zero
discharge" for ballast water. Under the CWA, EPA's responsibility with respect to water
quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) is to include in the VGP any more stringent effluent
limits "necessary to meet water quality standards." CWA section 301(b)(l)(C)(emphasis
added). Based on the record for today's permit, EPA disagrees that requiring zero discharge is
"necessary," especially in light of the significant water quality protections offered by the
numerous and varied TBELs in today's permit and additional narrative/BMP WQBELs. In fact,
nothing in the CWA or its implementing regulations suggests that where EPA cannot identify
the numeric concentration (or other limit or indicator) at which water quality standards will be
achieved, the Agency must default to a limit of zero, which, obviously, will in every case result
in protection. To the contrary, EPA's regulations clearly contemplate in that situation that the
Agency will look to the imposition of best management practices. See 40 C.F.R. 122.44(k).
Today's provision for the continued use of ballast water exchange after installation of treatment
technologies for certain vessels entering the Great Lakes is an example of such a BMP. The
1104
-------
general narrative WQBEL also provides for any additional BMPs to be determined on a site-
specific basis where necessary to meet water quality standards, as required by CWA section
301(b)(1)(C).
In addition, to the extent the commenter's assertion that because "theoretically a reproducing
population of non-indigenous organisms can be established by the introduction of a few
individuals, any solution must achieve complete prevention" is meant to provide a basis for
imposition of a WQBEL mandating zero discharge of living organisms, it does not. As even
commenter notes, the possibility of only "a few" discharged organisms establishing an invasion
is purely "theoretical" and the commenter did not provide any information demonstrating that
this theory is more than hypothetical. As discussed by Lee et al. (2010), "the successful
introduction of any specific species is a rare event." This is so even in situations where the
numbers of organisms discharged is relatively high, such as where ballast water is discharged
unmanaged (e.g., see discussion in NRC 2011, Lee et al. 2010, and response to comment EPA-
HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2, excerpt 9.) Because of the very low inoculum density, situations
where "just a few" individuals survive discharge and successfully establish themselves in a
waterbody, if possible at all, would constitute a much rarer "rare event." This is due to the fact
that risk reduction is further enhanced when one considers other vessel and voyage specific
factors, such as differences between source and receiving waters, health of any "living"
organisms after containment in ballast tank and exposure to any treatment or other physically
stressful BMPs (e.g., use of ballast water pumps), and especially Allee effects1 which pose
barriers to formation of new populations from only a few individuals. Rather than suggesting
that "zero discharge" is what is necessary to protect water quality, this analysis demonstrates
that there is likely a number greater than zero discharge of living organisms that is "necessary"
to meet water quality standards, per CWA section 301(b)(1)(C). Therefore, EPA believes it
would be unreasonable to conclude that zero discharge is "necessary."
EPA agrees that WQBELs are not based on available control technology, but on what is
necessary to achieve water quality standards. Because EPA has a legal obligation to ensure that
water quality standards, including antidegradation policies and designated uses, are protected in
the VGP, EPA has included WQBELs for ballast water discharges in today's permit to address
any residual risk of invasion after implementation of the extensive technology-based
requirements. Before setting those WQBELs, EPA assessed reasonable potential for ballast
water discharges meeting technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) to cause or contribute to
violations of water quality standards pursuant to 40 CFR 122.4(d)(l)(i), and determined that,
after application of the required TBELs, including existing controls on ballast water discharges
(such as ballast water exchange) and the variability of living organisms in the effluent after
imposition of this permit's numeric TBELs (the IMO standard after installation of treatment
technology), reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality
standards exists. See section 4.4.9.3 of today's VGP fact sheet, entitled "Reasonable Potential
for Ballast Water Discharges," for a detailed discussion of EPA's reasonable potential
determination.
EPA agrees with commenter that the National Research Council (NRC) "made no claim that
compliance with the IMO D-2 standard will be sufficient to protect water quality." With respect
to the IMO D-2 standard, the NRC stated that "[a]s a logical first step, a benchmark discharge
1105
-------
standard should be established that clearly reduces concentrations of coastal organisms below
current levels resulting from ballast water exchange (such as the IMO D-2 standard)." Page 110
prepublication version. In evaluating whether ballast water discharges subject to the
technology-based effluent limits in this permit equivalent to the IMO D-2 standard would cause,
or have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any water quality
standard, EPA assessed whether the TBELs were sufficient to "safeguard against the
establishment of new aquatic non-indigenous species and to protect and preserve existing
indigenous populations of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and other beneficial uses of the nation's
waters." After surveying and evaluating the wide array of state water quality standards, EPA
concluded that this characterization accurately captures what would be necessary to protect all
water quality standards. See section 4.4.3.9.1 of the VGP fact sheet for further discussion about
EPA's review of applicable state water quality standards that address aquatic nuisance species
and its rationale for the above-quoted characterization of those standards. As a result, EPA
determined that there is reasonable potential for ballast water discharges, after imposition of the
TBELs/IMO D-2 standard, to cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards,
and thus included WQBELs in the permit.
EPA's finding that numeric WQBELs are infeasible to calculate does not "unlawfully abdicate
its responsibility to ensure that the VGP protects water quality standards," as commenter
asserts. EPA notes that many permit limits are lawfully expressed in the form of non-numeric
control measures, commonly referred to as best management practices (BMPs). BMPs are
considered "effluent limitations" within the meaning of the CWA. See Citizens Coal Council v.
EPA, 447 F.3d 879, 895-96 (6th Cir. 2006); Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486,
502 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that site-specific BMPs at issue constitute effluent limitations
within the meaning of the CWA); Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 673 F.2d 400, 403
(D.C. Cir. 1982) ("section 502(11) defines 'effluent limitation' as 'any restriction' on the
amounts of pollutants discharged, not just a numerical restriction."). Through the Agency's
NPDES permit regulations, EPA interpreted the CWA to allow BMPs to take the place of
numeric effluent limitations under certain circumstances. 40 CFR §122.44(k), entitled
"Establishing limitations, standards, and other permit conditions," provides that permits may
include BMPs to control or abate the discharge of pollutants when: (3) "[n]umeric effluent
limitations are infeasible"; or (4) "[t]he practices are reasonably necessary to achieve effluent
limitations and standards or to carry out the purposes and intent of the CWA." 40 CFR
122.44(k).
Various courts have held that the CWA does not require EPA to set numeric limits where such
limits are infeasible. See, e.g., Natural Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 568 F.3d at 1380
("when numerical effluent limitations are infeasible, EPA may issue permits with conditions
designed to reduce the level of effluent discharges to acceptable levels"); Citizens Coal Council
v. EPA, 447 F.3d 879, 895-96 (6th Cir. 2006). The Sixth Circuit cited to Waterkeeper Alliance,
Inc. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486, 502 (2d Cir. 2005), stating "site-specific BMPs are effluent
limitations under the CWA" (agreeing with EPA that the CWA does not require numeric
effluent limits "where such limits are infeasible" because "a baseline pollutant loading cannot
be calculated.").
Overall, EPA determined that it is not feasible for the Agency to calculate numeric technology-
1106
-------
based or water-quality based limits for many of the discharges covered by this permit, and
based on the authority of 40 CFR 122.44(k)(3), has chosen to adopt non-numeric effluent limits.
This determination is based primarily on the mobile nature of vessels used in a capacity of
transportation. With thousands of water bodies across the country, and the potential for any
vessel to discharge into almost any water, it is infeasible for EPA to calculate numeric limits for
each vessel for each water body at this time.
Specifically with respect to ballast water discharges, today's permit contains numeric
technology-based effluent limits. See Section 4.4.3 of the VGP fact sheet and sections 9.1.1 and
9.1.2 of this comment response document for further discussion. However, in addition to the
general determination described above and the current state of the science and lack of available
data, EPA has determined that calculation of a numeric WQBEL for ballast water discharges is
infeasible at this time. In making this determination, EPA notes that while "[i]n principle, a
well-supported model of the relationship between invasion risk and organism release could be
used to inform a ballast water discharge standard," (NRC, 2011, page 5) the "current state of
science does not allow a quantitative evaluation of the relative merits of various [numeric]
discharge standards in terms of invasion probability." (NRC, 2011, page 130). Therefore, the
lack of available data and information prevents an accurate quantification or estimation of the
level at which the risk associated with ballast water discharges is controlled as necessary to
meet water quality standards. Though EPA believes that the work done by numerous scientists
(Lee et al., 2010, USCG 2008, Drake et al., 2005) has greatly improved our understanding of
the risk posed by ballast water discharge events, and some have clearly quantified a relative
reduction in risk by using various standards versus ballast water exchange (USCG 2008), EPA
agrees with the NRC panel that establishing a precise, quantified ballast water discharge
standard more stringent than the numeric TBELs contained in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP at this
time is not possible with available data and information, and thus, numeric water quality-based
effluent limits are infeasible to calculate.
The determination that it is infeasible to calculate numeric water quality-based effluent limits
for ballast water discharges pursuant to the NPDES regulations does not mean that EPA must
impose a numeric limit of zero in today's permit. The CWA requires limits necessary to achieve
water quality standards. In fact, the regulations (see 40 CFR 122.44(k)) contemplate use of
BMPs "to control or abate the discharge of pollutants" when EPA determines that numeric
limits are infeasible to calculate. EPA has determined that these BMPs, combined with the
narrative WQBEL in Part 2.3 of the permit make the permit as stringent as necessary to meet
water quality standards, as required by CWA section 301(b)(1)(C).
Though EPA believes that the approaches outlined by Lee et al, Drake, et al, and other
scientists have merit, particularly for informing the Agency about relative risk, the Agency
acknowledges that "a profound lack of data" has impaired the Agency's ability to calculate a
numeric WQBEL based on existing information alone. (NRC, 2011). EPA believes that the
models highlighted by Lee et al. (2010), USCG (2008), and others may present a viable option
for calculating numeric water quality based effluent limits in the future. However, the Agency
notes that, as the NRC panel found, sufficient data to input, calibrate, and validate those models
is lacking. Hence, EPA is working with our federal partners to fill many of the data gaps
identified by the 2011 NRC ballast water study for use in future iterations of this permit as
1107
-------
needed. As additional data are gathered, modeling inputs are further explored and refined, and
the state of the science further developed, EPA will reexamine whether numeric water quality
based limits for the numbers of living organism in ballast water are feasible to calculate.
1 As described by Courchamp et al. "[t]he Allee effect describes a scenario in which populations at low numbers
are affected by a positive relationship between population growth rate and density, which increases their likelihood
of extinction." (Franck Courchamp, Tim Clutton-Brock, Bryan Grenfell, 1999. Inverse density dependence and the
Allee effect, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 14(10): 405-410). As described by Lee et al. (2010), the Allee effect
is widely predicted to reduce the likelihood of invasions with low propagule pressure because of several factors,
including:
"1) Mate limitation (i.e., difficulty in finding a mate at low densities).
2) Genetic inbreeding and loss of heterozygosity.
3) Demographic stochasticity of a small population, which may result from random fluctuations in sex ratios
and/or birth rates or environmental perturbations.
4) Increased predation due to less effective or lack of predator swamping.
5) Increased predation due to less effective cooperative defense against predators.
6) Absence or reduction of cooperation in social species, including cooperative feeding.
7) Absence or reduction in habitat alteration that increases fitness of recruits.
8) Increased dispersal away from areas of low density" (Lee et al. 2010).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
6
No
Comment: EPA's failure to identify the criteria that must be evaluated to determine WQBELs
for invasive species in ballast water discharges contrasts with the efforts that States have made to
identify those criteria and adopt standards to ensure their water quality is fully protected. In
2006, California adopted stringent water-quality based standards recommended by the California
Advisory Panel on Ballast Water Performance Standards. (California State Lands Commission,
Report on Performance Standards for Ballast Water Discharges in California Waters (2006),
available at http://www.slc.ca.gov/spec pub/mfd/ballast water/Documents/CSLCPerformance
StndRpt 2006.pdf.) The California panel found that its recommended standards "are
significantly better than ballast water exchange,., are in-line [sic] with the best professional
judgment from the scientific experts participating in the IMO Convention, and... approach a
protective zero discharge standard." (Id. at 37.)
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation agreed with California's assessment,
adopting California's standards as conditions to the VGP under its CWA Section 401 authority to
certify that the VGP would comply with state water quality standards. (Letter from William R.
Adriance, Chief Permit Administrator, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, to Barbara Finazzo, Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Dec. 17, 2008), available at
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/401 newvork.pdf.) As New York found, "there is overwhelming
1108
-------
evidence that water quality, including fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation and survival, has
been impaired in recent decades" in the Great Lakes by the introduction and spread of invasive
species through vessels' ballast water discharges, and only a stringent water quality based
standard is adequate to ensure that those existing and designated uses are protected from invasive
species introduced and spread through ballast water. (Id.) The New York Supreme Court,
Appellate Division, agreed that "ample scientific evidence and expert opinion exists in the record
to support DEC's determination that [New York's Section 401] conditions are necessary to
ensure federal permittees' compliance with New York's existing narrative water quality
standards." Port of Oswego Auth. v. Grannis, 70 A.D.3d 1101, 1103 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't
2010).
Given EPA's legal responsibility to ensure that the VGP protects water quality, and the manifest
reality that neither status quo ballast water management practices nor requiring compliance with
the IMO D-2 standards will satisfy that requirement, EPA must develop a new approach to
setting strong federal WQBELs in the next VGP.
Response: EPA notes that commenter's view that it is "the manifest reality" that imposition of
the requirements of today's permit will not ensure compliance with water quality standards is
unsupported, and as explained in response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1 and
elsewhere today's record, EPA disagrees.
EPA's approach to setting appropriate WQBELs in today's VGP is protective of water quality
and is consistent with the CWA and its implementing regulations. Please see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpt 4. EPA identified the criteria that must be
evaluated to determine appropriate WQBELs for aquatic nuisance species in ballast water
discharges. Because no states have established numeric water quality standards for living
organisms (or ANS), the focus of EPA's evaluation was on protection of designated uses,
narrative criteria, and relevant anti-degradation and general policies of applicable state WQS.
While State WQS do not specifically address ANS, many narrative criteria and anti-degradation
and general policies of applicable state water quality standards do seek to prevent the types of
degradation that is associated with the introduction of ANS into receiving waters. For examples,
see section 4.4.3.9.2 of the VGP fact sheet.
The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) Report that commenter refers to is out-of-date,
as is the letter cited above from New York State providing certification of the 2008 permit. For
a discussion about the most recent CSLC reports and why the "no detectable living organism
standard" proposed by California is actually no more stringent than the IMO standard at this
time, see section 4.4.3.5.1 of the VGP Fact Sheet, specifically, "EPA's Consideration of
Conclusions Found in the California State Lands Commission Ballast Water Treatment Report."
Additionally, please see discussion of the California report and standards in sections 9.1.1 and
9.1.9 of this comment response document. Furthermore, EPA notes that states, including New
York, have certified that the VGP's requirements are protective of their water quality standards,
and have not included numeric standards for ballast water discharges more stringent than the
IMO D-2 standard in their state 401 certifications. Please see section 12 of this comment
response document and Part 6 of the VGP.
1109
-------
Commenter Name:
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
7
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: III. EPA Must Require WQBELs For Any Vessel (Or Class of Vessels) For Which
TBELs Are Not Going To Be Required During The Term of the Next VGP.
Our third major area of concern is that EPA must evaluate and require in the next VGP
appropriate WQBELs during any period in which a TBEL is not being required for any vessels
(or class of vessels). This is especially true for vessels, such as so-called "laker" vessels that only
travel within the Great Lakes, for which EPA does not intend to require compliance with any
TBELs at all during the permit term of the next VGP. The fact that lakers do not travel outside
the Great Lakes does not mean that their ballast water discharges do not contain biological
"pollutants" that must be regulated under the Clean Water Act. Much as it did with respect to the
now-vacated 40 C.F.R. § 122.3, which from 1973 until 2009 had exempted discharges incidental
to the normal operation of a vessel from NPDES requirements until it was struck down by a
California district court as an ultra vires regulation, EPA lacks authority to effectively exempt
lakers' ballast water discharges from NPDES permitting. NWEA v. EPA, No. C 03-05760 SI,
2005 WL 756614, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2005), aff'd, 537 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2008).
In addition, EPA itself noted that its adoption of the IMO schedule for installation of technology
to meet the IMO D-2 standards would result in only half of ocean-going vessels' having installed
treatment technology by the expiration of the next VGP. The result of this schedule - namely that
the majority of ballast water discharges over the course of the next VGP and a substantial
number of the discharges in the third VGP - will be discharges that clearly will cause or
contribute to violations of water quality standards, even if EPA were correct in using the IMO D-
2 standards as a benchmark for developing TBELs. (To be clear, we think EPA is incorrect in
this regard.) Any other pollution source proposing to discharge in violation of water quality
standards would be required to operate under a variance or compliance schedule or some
combination thereof. Yet EPA proposes to completely ignore the substantial risk of new
invasions from this massive additional input of untreated ballast water over the course of the next
decade based on its inability to determine how many invasive species can be discharged without
risk, relying instead on a fig leaf of a narrative standard that is meaningless, as described above.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. We hope to discuss them with you further at
a date and time that is mutually convenient for all parties.
Response: Commenter is incorrect in stating that there is a "period in which a TBEL is not
being required for any vessels (or class of vessels)." See Part 2.2 of today's VGP, which
contains technology-based effluent limitations and related requirements, which are applicable to
specific vessel discharge categories upon the permit's effective date. See also Part 5 of today's
VGP, which contains TBELs and related requirements for specific classes of vessels. Please
also see sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, and 9.1.4 of this comment response document. Furthermore, EPA
1110
-------
did evaluate and does require appropriate WQBELs in addition to imposition of TBELs. For
details of EPA's analysis and development of the WQBELs in today's permit, see section
4.4.3.9.4.2 of the VGP fact sheet and response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1,
excerpt 4.
EPA has developed appropriate limits for those classes of vessels that are not subject to the
numeric technology-based ballast water discharge limits. With respect to ballast water
discharges from Lakers, EPA did not "exempt Lakers ballast water discharges from NPDES
permitting," as commenter asserts. Today's permit contains both TBELs and WQBELs in the
form of BMPs that are applicable to those vessels, including limits that specifically address
ballast water discharges from Lakers. While EPA determined that Lakers would not be required
to meet the numeric technology-based effluent limits in part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP, as their special
characteristics render treatment technologies or other strategies to meet the limits currently
unavailable and/or economically unachievable, EPA established three ballast water
management measures specific to Lakers. EPA found these requirements to be available and
economically achievable, as they represent simple to implement and common sense approaches
to managing ballast water discharges for these vessels to minimize the spread of aquatic
nuisance species. Part 2.2.3.4 of today's VGP contains TBELs applicable to Lakers
("Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices for 'Lakers'") and Part 2.3 of the VGP
outlines "Additional Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits" that supplement the permit's
TBELs. See the VGP fact sheet and response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1,
excerpt 4, which discuss EPA's determination that numeric limits were infeasible to calculate
and that imposition of BMPs as effluent limits is appropriate. Please also see the response essay
in section 9.1.4 of this comment response document for further discussion of TBELs for Lakers.
Commenter's statement that "EPA itself noted that its adoption of the IMO schedule for
installation of technology to meet the IMO D-2 standards would result in only half of ocean-
going vessels' having installed treatment technology by the expiration of the next VGP," is not
accurate. Given the 5-year permit term finalized for today's VGP, EPA estimates that well over
half of "ocean-going vessels" will be required to meet the numeric ballast water treatment
limits/install treatment technology prior to expiration of today's permit. In accordance with the
implementation schedule, assuming drydockings are spread out roughly evenly over the permit
term (which is a reasonable assumption because the U.S. Coast Guard requires vessels to be
drydocked every five years, and drydock schedules are staggered due to limited drydock
availability), all new build vessels, nearly 100% of existing vessels with ballast water capacity
of 1500 - 5000 cubic meters, and more than 50% of existing vessels with either less than 1500
m3 or greater than 5000 m3 ballast water capacity will be required to install ballast water
treatment technology prior to December 19, 2018 (the expiration date of today's VGP).
Regardless, EPA is not persuaded by commenter's conclusion that "the result of this schedule -
namely that the majority of ballast water discharges over the course of the next VGP and a
substantial number of the discharges in the third VGP - will be discharges that clearly will
cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards," as it wholly ignores the value of
the controls imposed on vessels not yet subject to the numeric limits. Evidence in the record
before the Agency demonstrates that ballast water exchange alone results in a significant
decrease in the risk of successful invasions and the large number of BMPs imposed on ballast
1111
-------
water management are designed to further reduce the risk. As for vessels operating exclusively
in the Great Lakes subject to neither exchange nor treatment limits, today's permit includes
requirements that are designed to aid substantially in reducing any spread of invasive species
already present in the Great Lakes. See Part 2.2.3.4 of the permit and in section 9.1.4 of this
comment response document. In addition, these "Laker" requirements should not be viewed in a
vacuum, as today's permit's provision requiring that vessels travelling from fresh or brackish
water ports into the Great Lakes conduct both ballast water exchange and treatment is expected
to substantially reduce the number of living aquatic organisms discharged into the Great Lakes
in the first instance, thus reducing the number of organisms available for dispersal (and
establishment).
As discussed in the fact sheet, EPA believes the reduction in invasion risk expected of these
provisions is substantial and will likely result in a very small absolute risk of invasion; however,
due to the variety of factors that influence invasion potential, and the lack of data and/or
methodologies that would allow the Agency to precisely quantify both the level of reduction in
species offered by the various BMPs and the level of reduction that would be needed to protect
water bodies from invasions the Agency could not conclude that there was no "reasonable
potential" for invasions after imposition of these standards. This conclusion, however, is a far
cry from commenter's unsupported assertion that the discharges "clearly will cause or
contribute to violations of water quality standards."
EPA imposed BMP WQBELs and a narrative WQBEL for ballast water discharges, which are
included to address the "reasonable potential" addressed above. The narrative WQBEL requires
that discharges be controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. EPA
disagrees that these narrative WQBELs are "a fig leaf." see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
OW-2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpt 17 for a discussion of how the narrative WQBEL could be
used to impose specific requirements upon vessel owner/operators.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
9
No
Comment: Indeed, in light of the severe consequences for water quality that might follow upon
new invasions of non-indigenous species, which no one can deny, EPA bears the burden of
justifying any water quality-based effluent limits that exceed zero discharge. Certainly, the
NRC's inability to determine with any certainty the risk of invasion for any discharge limits
provides no rational basis either for choosing the IMO D-2 standard or precluding the selection
of more stringent numeric limits-
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpt 4.
1112
-------
Commenter Name:
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
17
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: B. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
Water quality-based effluent limitation standards are also necessary to ensure that the VGP is
consistent with the CWA's anti-degradation policy and to provide full protection of existing and
designated uses such as the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, as well as
recreation, from aquatic invasive species. See 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a) (anti-degradation); id. §
131.6 (designated uses); see also PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Dept. of
Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 715-19 (1994).
Although the VGP currently contains what EPA characterizes as a WQBEL, the purported
WQBEL only incorporates the general requirement that "discharge^] must be controlled as
necessary to meet applicable water quality standards in the receiving waterbody or another
waterbody impacted by... discharges." VGP § 2.3.1. The current VGP makes no attempt to
define, let alone quantify, how water quality standards should be applied in the invasive species
context. In the absence of any such definition, it is impossible for any meaningful WQBELs to
be applied to vessels. The current VGP contains no analysis of whether its effluent limitations
are sufficient to protect the unique freshwater ecosystem of the Great Lakes and coastal water
quality.
Although different States' water quality standards may vary in minor respects with respect to
invasive species, if EPA chooses to continue regulating vessels by means of a CWA nationwide
general permit, then EPA has the legal responsibility to establish a strong federal regulatory floor
that protects core CWA anti-degradation policy interests and designated uses that are common
across all the States. To the extent that technologies are not commercially available that would
enable vessels to comply immediately with any WQBELS that are more stringent than applicable
TBELs, the CWA allows for EPA to incorporate a compliance schedule into a permit.33 U.S.C. §
1311(b)(1)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(5).
What the CWA does not allow, however, is for EPA to postpone compliance with the law
indefinitely based on a thin promise that it may require it in the future, as it does in the current
VGP by asserting that numeric effluent limitations are not "feasible." VGP § 4.4.3. Because
theoretically a reproducing population of non-indigenous organisms can be established by the
introduction of a few individuals, any solution must achieve complete prevention.28 EPA's
failure in the current VGP to identify the criteria that must be evaluated to determine WQBELs
for invasive species in ballast water discharges contrasts with the efforts that States have made to
identify those criteria and adopt standards to ensure their water quality is fully protected. In
2006, California adopted stringent water-quality based standards recommended by the California
Advisory Panel on Ballast Water Performance Standards.29 The California panel found that its
recommended standards "are significantly better than ballast water exchange,... are in-line [sic]
1113
-------
with the best professional judgment from the scientific experts participating in the IMO
Convention, and... approach a protective zero discharge standard."30
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYS DEC") agreed with
California's assessment, adopting California's standards as conditions to the VGP under its
CWA Section 401 authority to certify that the VGP would comply with state water quality
standards.31 As NYS DEC found, "there is overwhelming evidence that water quality, including
fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation and survival, has been impaired in recent decades" in the
Great Lakes by the introduction and spread of invasive species through vessels' ballast water
discharges, and only a stringent water quality-based standard is adequate to ensure that those
existing and designated uses are protected from invasive species introduced and spread through
ballast water.32
We are aware that EPA and the Coast Guard have convened a National Research Council
Committee ("NRC Committee") that is in the process of reviewing the California standards and
other potential approaches to establishing environmentally protective numeric ballast water
discharge limits in the next VGP and/or pursuant to Coast Guard regulations.33 We strongly
support this effort, but at the same time, we have some concerns with what we have seen so far
from the NRC Committee. One of the starting points of the NRC Committee's review of
potential approaches to setting numeric ballast water discharge limits is a white paper by EPA
scientists entitled "Density Matters: Review of Approaches to Setting Organism-Based Ballast
Water Discharge Standards."34 On June 11, 2010, the National Environmental Coalition on
Invasive Species ("NECIS"), of which many of the undersigned organizations are members,
submitted comments to the NRC Committee on the "Density Matters" white paper.35 We attach
those comments as an exhibit and incorporate them by reference here, and we note that they
apply with equal force to EPA in the context of setting WQBELs for invasive species in ballast
water discharges that will ensure full protection of state water quality standards.
Overall, we believe that EPA must set zero detectable living organisms as a numeric goal, unless
EPA is able to determine with confidence that there is a level of invasive species above zero that
could be discharged into differing receiving water bodies without causing establishment of
reproducing populations of the species. Such a zero detectable living organisms approach
encourages the development of technology to better protect aquatic ecosystems. This includes,
for example, the development of novel ballasting technology and techniques, such as flow
through ballast tanks or other mechanisms that would result in no movement of live organisms,
or possibly even water, from one bioregion to another. This approach is consistent with the one
taken by California and New York, which were unable to find any valid scientific basis to
recommend less stringent standards.36
In deriving WQBELs for the next VGP, we urge EPA not to conflate the issue of what level of
invasive species can be detected and quantified with the issue of how a narrative water quality
standard (e.g., that invasive species shall not be discharged in amounts that impair existing or
designated uses) can be defined and implemented. The technical limitations of the current state
of sampling and detection capabilities of invasive species in ballast water has no place in that
consideration.
1114
-------
This does not mean that EPA should not consider the limitations on sampling and detection
methods in the development of WQBELs - only that EPA should not consider them until after it
has determined what the numeric goal for the receiving water body should be. It is only once
EPA has decided on that biologically protective numeric goal that EPA should consider how
limitations on the ability to sample and detect invasive species should affect the translation of
that numeric goal into WQBELs for the next VGP. The practical significance of this is that it
would make clear that, as the sampling and detection methods improve, the permit limit would
have to decrease along with them - and it should create a stronger mandate to improve upon
existing sampling and detection methods over time.
As is also set forth in our comments to the NRC Committee, we further urge EPA to include
WQBELs in the next VGP that prevent introductions of pathogens and diseases through ballast
water.37 The ability of commercial vessels to transport pathogens and diseases is a serious
concern for regions across the United States for reasons including, but not limited to, risks to
plant and animal health, to human health and recreation, and to freshwater/drinking water
reservoir protection.
While little is known of the potential significance of commercial vessel movement of pathogen
and diseases via ballast, researchers are raising the alarm that ballast water may be an important
way waterborne diseases move around the globe. Researchers have asked, "Are we playing
Johnny Appleseed with aquatic micro-organisms as global shipping inadvertently spreads them
around the world in discharged ballast water? And if so, need we be concerned that some of
those microbes are harmful? Certainly these questions are ones of considerable interest to
microbial ecologists, but given the context, are pertinent to water quality managers and
regulatory agencies as well."38
And in 2005, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration determined that microbial
pathogens were found in ballast tank residuals of international vessels transiting to the Great
Lakes (including cholera and giardia). While the researchers said tanks carrying pathogens are
not a likely health risk to humans, they recommended more investigation.39 These calls for
greater understanding of the issue are underscored by irregular, but tragic, outbreaks of
waterborne disease, which some postulate were sparked by contaminated ballast discharges.40
Finally, EPA should consider whether regional or waterbody-specific WQBELs are appropriate
for the next VGP.41 We are concerned that "interacting mechanisms" may differ across
ecosystems and may influence the likelihood of a live organism's successful population
establishment differently, for example there may be different interacting mechanisms influencing
the likelihood of species establishment from a ballast discharge in closed freshwater ecosystems
versus a brackish coastal embayment or a saltwater coastal ecosystem. If EPA is aiming to set a
single, nationally applicable set of WQBELs in the next VGP, we believe that those WQBELs
should be set to protect the most sensitive receiving waterbody, which will in turn protect less
sensitive receiving waterbodies.
2
8 See Anthony Ricciardi & Hugh J. Maclsaac, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Ballast Water Exchange Policy in
the Great Lakes, 18 Ecological Applications 1321, 1322 (2008).
1115
-------
29
California State Lands Commission, Report on Performance Standards for Ballast Water Discharges in
California Waters (2006), available at http://www.slc.ca.gov/spec pub/mfd/ballast water/Documents/
CSLCPerformanceStndRpt 2006.pdf.
30
Id. at 37.
31
Letter from William R. Adriance, Chief Permit Administrator, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, to Barbara Finazzo, Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Dec. 17, 2008), available at http://www.epa. gov/npdes/pubs/401 newvork.pdf.
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division recently found that "ample scientific evidence and expert
opinion exists in the record to support DEC'S determination that [New York's Section 401] conditions are necessary
to ensure federal permittees' compliance with New York's existing narrative water quality standards." Port of
Oswego Auth. v. Grannis, 70 A.D.3d 1101, 1103 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2010). "These existing standards aim to
protect the state's waters from pollution and the conditions are reasonable restrictions intended to reduce the
unintentional discharge of invasive aquatic species and other pathogens, thereby protecting the state's waters from
the harm that such species and pathogens inflict." Id.
32
Letter from William R. Adrian ce, Chief Permit Administrator, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, to Barbara Finazzo, Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Dec. 17, 2008), available at http://www.epa. gov/npdes/pubs/401 newvork.pdf.
33
Project: Assessing Numeric Limits for Living Organisms in Ballast Water,
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49224 (last visited November 24, 2010).
34
Lee, et al., "Density Matters: Review of Approaches to Setting Organism-Based Ballast Water Discharge
Standards," EPA/600/R-10/031, available at http://www.aQuaticnuisance.org/wordpress/wpcontent/
uploads/2009/01/Densitv-Matters-Review-of-Approaches-to-Setting-Organism-Based-Ballast-Water-Discharge-
Standards.pdf.
35
Letter from National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species to National Research Council (June 11, 2010),
available at http://www.necis.net/files/necis-comments-to-nrc-in-their-entiretv.pdf.
36 See California State Lands Commission, Report on Performance Standards for Ballast Water Discharges in
California Waters (2006), at App. A-4, available at http://www.slc.ca.gov/spec pub/mfd/ballast water/Documents/
CSLC PerformanceStndRpt 2006.pdf;, Letter from William R. Adrian ce, Chief Permit Administrator, New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, to Barbara Finazzo, Director, Division of Environmental Planning
and Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Dec. 17, 2008), available at
http://www.epa. gov/npdes/pubs/401 newvork.pdf.
37 Id.
38 Dobbs, F.C., "Ships ballast Tanks: How Microbes Travel the World," Microbiology Today (2008), available at
httv://www. sem. ac. uk/vubs/micro todav/vdf/050805. vdf.
39 Johengen, T. et al. (2005) "Assessment of Transoceanic NOBOB Vessels and Low-Salinity Ballast Water as
Vectors for Non-indigenous Species Introductions to the Great Lakes" NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research
Laboratory.
40 In 1991 in Peru, a ship carrying contaminated water from Asia in its ballast tanks sparked off a cholera
epidemicthat spread rapidly throughout South and Central America. About 11 000 people died. World Health
Organization, "Removing Obstacles for Healthy Development" 1999. httv://www. who, int/infectious-
diseaserevort/vaees/chl 3text.html
41 Letter from National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species to National Research Council (June 11, 2010),
available at http://www.necis.net/files/necis-comments-to-nrc-in-their-entiretv.pdf.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpts 4
and 6.
Regarding the unique portions of the comment, EPA did consider whether regional or
waterbody-specific WQBELs are appropriate, and after "analysis of whether [the permit's]
effluent limitations are sufficient to protect the unique freshwater ecosystem of the Great
Lakes," today's VGP finalizes the requirement for certain vessels entering the Great Lakes to
conduct ballast water exchange in addition to ballast water treatment (the "exchange plus
1116
-------
treatment" requirement). See section 4.4.3.9.4.2 of the VGP Fact Sheet and section 10.1.2 of
this comment response document.
EPA disagrees that the VGP "postpone[s] compliance with the law indefinitely" with its
determination that numeric WQBELs are infeasible to calculate, as for reasons described
elsewhere, the narrative water-quality based effluent limitations in today's permit reflect an
approach permissible under the CWA and its implementing regulations. Please also see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1, which discusses the determination
that numeric WQBELs are infeasible to calculate, and notes that EPA intends to re-examine that
determination as science continues to develop.
EPA developed the permit's effluent limits and related requirements (i.e, BMPs) to be
protective of water quality standards, as the CWA requires. Until a treatment system is installed
to achieve the numeric TBEL in 2.2.3.5, EPA believes that it is reasonable to conclude that the
suite of BMPs including parts 2.2.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.2.3.3, 2.2.3.4, 2.2.3.6, 2.2.3.7, and part 2.3 of
the permit will help to ensure that the discharge does not cause or contribute to an exceedance
of water quality standards. See section 10.1.1 of this comment response document for a
discussion of why the general narrative WQBEL is not meaningless, as commenters argue.
EPA has not "conflate[d] the issue of what level of invasive species can be detected and
quantified with the issue of how a narrative water quality standard.. .can be defined and
implemented," as commenter asserts. EPA's discussion and consideration of detection and
quantification of numeric limits for ballast water discharges is appropriately in the context of
deriving TBELs. Please see the response essay in section 9.1.2 for a discussion of information
and studies relevant to EPA's ballast water BAT determination and the role of detection and
quantitation in deriving the TBELs for ballast water discharges in today's permit.
Commenter Name: William Creal, Chief, Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0450-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: A protective set of water quality-based limitations for live organisms in ballast water
discharges needs to be included in the draft next VGP.
During the August 31,2011, meeting, the USEPA staff initially indicated that the draft next VGP
would only include a set of treatment technology-based effluent limitations for live organisms in
ballast water discharges that were equivalent to the IMO D-2 standard. The USEPA staff
explained that, in their view, a protective set of numeric water quality-based effluent limitations
for live organisms in ballast water discharges could not be developed and included in the draft
next VGP because there is an absence of data and models necessary to support a science-based,
quantitative process for determining a ballast water discharge standard. After Michigan
questioned how the USEPA intended to address water quality concerns, the USEPA staff
1117
-------
indicated that a narrative water quality-based effluent limitation would be included in the draft
next VGP. However, later in the meeting, the USEPA staff indicated that they were still
considering how to address water quality requirements in the next VGP, but they were
unprepared to discuss those efforts during the call.
The USEPA has a responsibility to develop protective water quality-based effluent limitations
for live organisms in ballast water discharges even when state-of-the-art science is not available.
We urge the USEPA to "generate a set of water quality-based ballast water discharge limitations
that are protective of the environment under most situations by making conservative
assumptions, using safety factors similar to those used in ecological risk assessments for
pollutants, and/or by setting ballast water discharge limitations based on the upper confidence
limits of predictions of invasions," as suggested by Lee II, H. et al. (2010). Michigan is confident
that any set of water quality-based ballast water discharge limitations for live organisms
developed by the USEPA using such a process will be considerably more restrictive than the
IMO D-2 standard, and will need to be included in the draft next VGP to remain consistent with
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System regulations (Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 122.44) and the federal Clean Water Act.
Response: The effluent limits and related requirements (i.e, BMPs) in today's VGP are
consistent with 40 CFR 122.44, and EPA used the process mandated by the CWA in developing
protective water quality-based effluent limitations for ballast water discharges, see the response
to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpt 4. As noted in that response, while
EPA believes that the approach suggested by Lee et al that commenter refers to has merit, the
Agency acknowledges that the "profound lack of data" allowing for a calculation of the
concentration of living organisms that must be achieved to safeguard against new invasions has
impaired the Agency's ability to calculate a numeric WQBEL based on existing information
alone. EPA believes that the model highlighted by Lee et al. (2010) may present a viable option
for calculating numeric water quality based effluent limits in the future. However, the Agency
notes that, as the NRC panel found, sufficient data to input, calibrate, and validate those models
is lacking. Hence, EPA is working with our federal partners to fill many of the data gaps
identified by the 2011 NRC ballast water study for use in future iterations of this permit as
needed. As additional data are gathered, modeling inputs are further explored and refined, and
the state of the science further developed, EPA will reexamine whether numeric water quality
based limits for the numbers of living organism in ballast water are feasible to calculate.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief, Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0450-A2
2
No
Comment: Michigan urges the USEPA to fulfill its responsibilities under the federal Clean
Water Act and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System regulations (Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 122.44) by developing and including a protective set of
1118
-------
water quality-based effluent limitations for live organisms in ballast water discharges in the draft
next VGP, even though current AIS invasion risk science is not perfect. The National Research
Council Committee's conclusion that "there is a profound lack of data/information to develop
and validate models of the risk/release relationship" does not preclude the USEPA from
developing and including a protective set of water quality-based ballast water discharge
standards in the draft next VGP.
As recommended by Lee II, H. et al. (2010), the USEPA could generate a protective set of water
quality-based ballast water discharge limitations "by making conservative assumptions, using
safety factors similar to those used in ecological risk assessments for pollutants, and/or by setting
ballast water discharge limitations based on the upper confidence limits of predictions of
invasions." Michigan believes any water quality-based ballast water discharge limitations
developed using such a process would be about 2 orders of magnitude more stringent than their
corresponding IMO D-2 standard for the >10 - <50 um and >50 um in minimum dimension live
organism size categories. Even the United States Coast Guard (USCG) concluded invasion
risk reduction below that provided by the IMO D-2 standard was important enough to justify a
second phase ballast water discharge standard three orders of magnitude more strict than IMO D-
2. Based on a set of assumptions that seem reasonable to Michigan, the Per Capita Invasion
Probability (PCIP) model developed by D. Reusser, Henry Lee II, Melanie Frazier, and Greg
Ruiz to resolve many of the limitations associated with other such models, generated a potential
ballast water discharge standard for the Pacific Coast of 0.087 organisms/m3 for the >50 um
minimum dimension live organism size category (Lee II, H. et al., 2010). Although developed
using less complete data, the PCIP calculated for Great Lakes macrofauna was twofold larger
than the comparable Pacific Coast PCIP, suggesting the Great Lakes may be at an even greater
risk for AIS establishment and in need of a ballast water discharge standard more stringent than
0.087 organisms/m3.
Response: Please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpt 4
and EPA-HQ-0450-A1, excerpt 3. Furthermore, the NRC specifically examined the per capita
invasion probability approach commenter refers to and concluded that: "Of the more
scientifically based approaches suggested to date and reviewed in this report, descriptive
statistical modeling with proxy variables (such as the per capita invasion probability method) is
currently available to empirically examine the risk-release relationship because there are data
available for ballast volume (derived indirectly from vessel arrival data) and historical invasion
rates across estuaries. However, it must be cautioned that these are extraordinarily coarse-level
data because (a) vessel arrival data often do not directly translate into a measure of ballast water
actually discharged, (b) when actual ballast volume data are available, these do not translate
well into known propagule supply and, (c) there is no significant relationship between ballast
volume and invasions. Thus, while statistical modeling has been applied to current datasets, the
data are not sufficient in present form to characterize a biologically meaningful relationship,
much less estimate the associated uncertainty, to be able to identify with confidence the
invasion probabilities associated with particular discharge standards."(NRC, 2011, page 7,
emphasis in original). EPA believes that while the per capita invasion approach has promise for
establishing WQBELs in the future, absent better data, use of that approach does not provide
EPA sufficient precision or confidence to calculate a numeric WQBEL.
1119
-------
Commenter Name:
William Creal, Chief, Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0450-A3
6
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: Michigan's basis for AIS water quality-based discharge limitations.
AIS are a severe and inadequately addressed threat to the ecology of the Great Lakes region.
Natural resources, including water quality and fish, shellfish and wildlife propagation, have been
severely damaged by AIS, a form of biological pollution. Here in Michigan's waters of the Great
Lakes, zebra and quagga mussels, just 2 of the more than 180 species we confront, have caused
fundamental changes to sport and commercial fisheries and continue to exact a very real toll on
our economy, including causing major problems with municipal and industrial water supply. AIS
carried in ships' ballast water are responsible for a significant proportion of AIS releases in the
Great Lakes. The inclusion of the water quality-based BWDLs presented in Enclosure A along
with aggressive but reasonable effective dates in the draft next VGP, is critical to our goal of
preventing the introduction of AIS within the Great Lakes region.
During the August 5, 2011, meeting, USEPA staff asked Michigan to identify the specific parts
of our state laws and rules that pertain to the water quality-based regulation of AIS in ballast
water discharges. A list of those laws/regulations is presented below:
1. Section 324.31 03a(l )(a) of Part 31, Water Resources Protection, of the Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (NREPA), establishes a goal
for Michigan "to prevent the introduction of and minimize the spread of aquatic nuisance
species within the Great Lakes."
2. Section 324.3103a(l)(b) of Part 31 of the NREPA requires Michigan to "cooperate with the
United States and Canadian authorities, other states and provinces, and the maritime
industry" to achieve the goal of preventing the introduction of and minimizing the spread of
aquatic nuisance species within the Great Lakes.
3. Section 324.3106 of Part 31 of the NREPA requires the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to "establish pollution standards for lakes, rivers, streams,
and other waters of the state in relation to public use to which they are or may be put, as it
considers necessary." This section of Part 31 also requires the MDEQ to "issue permits that
will assure compliance with state standards to regulate municipal, industrial, and commercial
discharges or storage of any substance that may affect the quality of the waters of the state."
4. Section 324.3109(1) of Part 31 of the NREPA stipulates that "a person shall not directly or
indirectly discharge into the waters of the state a substance that is or may become injurious to
any of the following: (a) to the public health, safety, or welfare; (b) to domestic, commercial,
industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other uses that are being made or may be made of
1120
-------
such waters;... (d) to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, aquatic life, or plants or to their
growth or propagation; (e) to the value of fish and game."
5. Section 324.3109(4) of Part 31 of the NREPA states that "unless authorized by a permit...,
the discharge into the waters of this state from an oceangoing vessel of any ballast water is
prima vacie evidence of a violation of this part... " Section 324.3112(6) of Part 31 provides,
in part, that "beginning January 1,2007, all oceangoing vessels engaging in port operations in
this state shall obtain a permit from the department. The department shall issue a permit for
an oceangoing vessel only if the applicant can demonstrate that the oceangoing vessel will
not discharge aquatic nuisance species or ... that the operator of such a vessel will utilize
environmentally sound technology and methods, as determined by the department, that can
be used to prevent the discharge of aquatic nuisance species."
6. The Part 4 Rules, Water Quality Standards, promulgated under Part 31 of the NREPA
establish "water quality requirements applicable to the Great Lakes, connecting waters, and
all other surface waters of the state, to protect the public health and welfare, to enhance and
maintain the quality of water, to protect the state's natural resources ..."
7. R 323.1098(2) of the Part 4 Rules requires "the level of water quality necessary to protect
existing uses shall be maintained and protected" for all of the waters of the state.
8. R 323.1100(1) of the Part 4 Rules establishes the designated uses for all surface waters of the
state. This rule stipulates that "at a minimum, all surface waters of the state are designated
for, and shall be protected for, all of the following uses: (a) agriculture, (b) navigation, (c)
industrial water supply ..., (e) warmwater fishery, (f) other indigenous aquatic life and
wildlife ... " In addition, R 323.1100(5) demands that "all Great Lakes and their connecting
waters... shall be protected, as coldwater fisheries."
Response: EPA notes that it reviewed and evaluated Michigan's water quality standards, along
with other states, in determining the WQBELs in today's VGP. See discussion, including
examples, of the state water quality standards EPA reviewed deriving the WQBELs in today's
permit in section 4.4.3.9.1 of the VGP fact sheet. In addition, EPA notes that Michigan's 401
certification of the VGP contains a requirement for a vessel discharging ballast water into
Michigan waters to obtain a Michigan state permit. That state permit contains no numeric
effluent limitations for living organisms discharged in ballast water, but instead prescribes four
different treatment technologies that must be used by a vessel if it discharges ballast water.
Michigan Ballast Water Control General Permit - Port Operations and Ballast Water Discharge;
Permit No. MIG140000, March 9, 2012. Hence, EPA interprets the Michigan 401 certification
and permit to indicate that Michigan believes these conditions, in addition to the other
conditions in the VGP and the other management measures required by the State 401
certification, are sufficient to meet water quality standards in Michigan's waters.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
1121
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
36
No
Comment: Question 19. EPA's determination, including the detailed explanation, that water
quality-based effluent limits for ballast water discharges are infeasible to calculate at this time.
CSA agrees with EPA's determination. While we are certainly not biologists or environmental
experts, it is our view that insufficient data has been collected relative to spatial and temporal
distribution of vessels as well as aquatic ecosystem data to make any justifiable assumptions for
establishing water quality-based effluent limits.
Response: EPA acknowledges this comment.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 30
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question #19: Is it correct that it is currently infeasible to calculate water quality-
based effluent limits for ballast water discharges?
LCA Response: Yes. This is not merely the position of LCA, but this was the conclusion reached
by the National Academies of Science in their year-long study which was funded by the EPA and
Coast Guard.
Response: EPA notes that the NRC did not conclude that it is infeasible to calculate water
quality-based effluent limits for ballast water discharges. Please see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A3, excerpt 2 for a discussion of the results and conclusion of
the NRC study. However, EPA has determined, based in part upon the results of the NRC study,
that WQBELs are infeasible to calculate.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
8
No
Comment: Numerical Limitations and Environmentally Protective Standards
The proposed permit is not consistent with other Clean Water Act discharge permits that are
issued by states and by the federal government. The State of Wisconsin has been required since
the inception of the Clean Water Act in the 1970s, to issue discharge permits which contain
numerical limitations, when effluent limit guidelines were available, that are protective of water
1122
-------
quality standards or provide an administrative process that assures that water quality standards
are achieved over the term of the permit. We cannot afford to wait any longer for additional
research. Invasive problems like viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) are appearing and forcing
states to react quickly to try to stop the spread. A1S differ from chemical pollutants in that they
are a self-replicating form of pollution. Invasions of new species begin on a small scale, but the
problem grows over time as the organisms reproduce. We strongly recommend that national
numeric water quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) for live organisms in ballast water
discharges that are protective of water quality in the entire Great Lakes basin be adopted and
imposed.
Response: EPA notes that there are no Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) for ballast water
discharges, and that EPA has developed narrative WQBELs that, when applied along with the
TBELs in the permit, are as stringent as necessary to achieve water quality standards. Today's
VGP establishes numeric TBELs for live organisms in ballast water discharges, as well as
narrative WQBELs, including WQBELs that are Great Lakes-specific.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
9
No
Comment: Reasonable Potential Determination for Ballast Water Discharges. Wisconsin DNR
agrees with EPA's assessment that there is reasonable potential for discharges subject to the
TBEL to cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards and, further, encourages
EPA to establish a more protective, numeric WQBEL and to develop effluent limitations
guidelines.
Response: The issue of whether it is feasible to establish a numeric WBEL for ballast water
discharges is addressed elsewhere in this response to comment document. The issue of whether
to develop ELGs is outside the scope of today's action.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A2
5
No
Comment: VGP2
3. Numeric concentration-based ballast water discharge limitations for AIS that are protective
of water quality throughout the entire Great Lakes basin - As Michigan already
communicated to the USEPA during meetings held on August 5, August 31, and September
1123
-------
22, 2011, and in follow-up letters dated August 12, September 15, and October 4, 2011, the
USEPA needs to use best professional judgment and conservative assumptions/safety factors
with the available science to develop protective water quality-based effluent limitations
(WQBEL) for ballast water for the draft VGP2, even though the AIS invasion risk/propagule
release science is not perfect.
Michigan shares the belief presented in Lee (2010)1 that it is possible to generate ballast water
WQBELs that are "protective of the environment under most situations by making conservative
assumptions, using safety factors similar to those used in ecological risk assessments for
pollutants, and/or by setting the standards based on the upper confidence limits of predictions of
invasions." Historically, the USEPA has applied such conservative approaches to derive water
quality standards/limits for heavy metals and organic chemicals using available data and
information when perfect toxicological datasets were lacking. The USEPA's unwillingness to
apply a similar approach to develop ballast water WQBELs in the draft VGP2 is unjustified and
inconsistent with past USEPA practices.
The National Research Council (NRC) Committee's conclusion that "there is a profound lack of
data/information to develop and validate models of the risk/release relationship" should not
preclude the USEPA from developing and including a protective set of ballast water WQBELs in
the draft VGP2. According to the NRC Committee's report, a 10-15 year time horizon will be
required to obtain the experimental and field data needed to parameterize and ground-truth the
risk-release models. Michigan supports the USEPA's desire to collect these data and is willing to
commit staff and equipment resources, as available, to help further this effort. However,
Michigan strongly objects to the USEPA's apparent determination that protective ballast water
WQBELs cannot be derived and included in the draft VGP2 until these experimental and field
data are collected. Attachment A presents two separate best professional judgment-based
processes for the USEPA to consider that produce a protective ballast water WQBELs for live
organisms in the >50 um size category.
Michigan believes the USEPA's decision to only include a set of technology-based ballast water
discharge limitations equivalent to the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) D-2
standard in the draft VGP2 will not provide an adequate degree of water quality protection for
the Great Lakes and other waters of the United States (U.S.). Michigan recommends the draft
VGP2 be modified to include ballast water WQBELs that are no less than 2 orders of magnitude
more stringent than their corresponding IMO D-2 standard for the >10 - <50 um and >50 um in
minimum dimension live organism size classes. Inclusion of such ballast water WQBELs in the
draft VGP2 for these live organism size categories would be expected to result in reasonable
probabilities of establishment (<0.01) for high invasion risk scenario species (i.e., Daphnia
retrocurva) and also would be expected) to result in approximately only 1 new AIS invasion
every 1000 years based on the Per Capita Invasion Probabilities approach.
The United States Coast Guard (USCG) determined that invasion risk reduction below that
provided by the IMO D-2 standard was important enough to justify a second phase standard
three orders of magnitude stricter than IMO D-2.2 Also, in January 2004 as part of the IMO's
International Conference on Ballast Water Management for Ships, the U.S. delegation
recommended the Conference "set environmentally sound, biologically protective and
1124
-------
enforceable standards that allow innovation, adaptation and inspiration to be focused through
intense technology development." For live organisms >50 um (zooplankton), the U.S. delegation
urged the Conference to adopt a ballast water standard of <0.01 organisms/m3. For protists
(including phytoplankton), the U.S. delegation proposed a ballast water discharge standard of
<0.01 organisms/ml. Just as the U.S. delegation encouraged the Convention "not to settle for
standards simply because they could be accomplished using existing or soon-to-be-available
technology" back in January 2004, Michigan strongly urges the USEPA not to make that same
mistake now in their development and issuance of the draft VGP2.
Michigan recognizes the draft VGP2 needs to be written in such a manner to ensure the ballast
water treatment technology industry is given sufficient time to develop ballast water
management systems (BWMS) that can effectively achieve ballast water WQBELs for the >10 -
<50 um and >50 um live organism size categories of 0.1 organisms/m3 and 0.1 organisms/ml of
ballast water, respectively. Vessel owners also will need sufficient time to complete the process
of selecting, purchasing, and installing a BWMS on their ship that is capable of meeting the
ballast water WQBELs. Consequently, Michigan recommends that an effective date of January
1, 2026, be included in the draft VGP2 for oceangoing vessels with respect to the ballast water
WQBELs for the >10 - <50 um and >50 um live organism size categories. This ballast water
WQBEL compliance date needs to be accompanied in the draft VGP2 with appropriate language
to provide an opportunity for vessel owners to request an extension of the ballast water WQBEL
effective date. Such extension requests must include sufficient justification to effectively
demonstrate that there is a shortage in supply of the technology or other factors related to the
availability and installation of technology beyond the vessel owner's control that delays the
technology being available and installed in time to meet the ballast water WQBEL. Michigan has
outlined a compliance schedule for USEPA's consideration (Attachment B).
Michigan also recommends that the draft VGP2 include language to "grandfather" a vessel's
continued use of a BWMS that has been shown to be capable of achieving concentrations 10
times more restrictive than the IMO D-2 standard for the >10 - <50 um and >50 um live
organism size categories by reliable testing, as long as that BWMS was installed by January 1,
2014, for existing vessels with ballast water capacities between 1500 - 5000 m3, or by January
1, 2016, for vessels with ballast water capacities <1500 m3 or >5000 m3. "Grandfathering" of
such a BWMS would be for the life of the system and would supersede the numeric ballast water
WQBEL for live organisms compliance date of January 1, 2026.
4. Protective numeric concentration-based ballast water WQBELs to eliminate patchwork
regulations in the Great Lakes - Failure by the USEPA to include such WQBELs in the
VGP2 will place the states in a predicament with respect to fulfilling their Section 401 Water
Quality Certification (Certification) responsibilities. Any state that believes the IMO D-2
standard is not adequately protective of its water quality standards will be forced to include
more restrictive ballast water WQBELs in their respective Certifications for the draft VGP2.
According to the USEPA's VGP2 Fact Sheet, the USEPA intends to house all of the state
Certifications in Section 6 of the VGP2. The USEPA's similar handling of the state
Certifications for the current VGP created a controversial patchwork of ballast water
regulations for any vessel intending to operate on the Great Lakes. Unless the USEPA
derives and includes protective numeric concentration-based ballast water WQBELs in the
1125
-------
draft VGP2 that satisfy the most restrictive of the various Great Lakes states water quality
standards, vessels operating on the Great Lakes (and potentially other U.S. waters) can
expect to continue to face a similar patchwork of ballast water regulations after the states
issue their Certifications for the draft VGP2. And, absent such a uniform and fully protective
standard, and at least some individual state water quality standards, including
Michigan's, will not be effectively met.
The ability of various AIS species to spread into adjacent connected waters is well known.
Populations expand outward into new territory that has not yet been colonized, thereby impacting
not only the initial location where they were released but also to adjacent areas. Outward
expansion of populations in the Great Lakes is facilitated by active movement of certain
organisms and by passive forces such as winds and currents for other organisms. Neither of these
AIS transport mechanisms recognizes state or national boundaries. Bulk carrier vessels and
recreational vessels also contribute to the spread of AIS in the Great Lakes.
To effectively prevent the continued introduction of AIS into the Great Lakes and other U.S.
waters, the USEPA needs to derive and include a single set of protective ballast water WQBELs
in the VGP2 that are applicable to at least oceangoing vessels. As stated above, Michigan
recommends the USEPA include ballast water WQBELs of 0.1 organisms/m3 and 0.1
organisms/m3 respectively for the >10 - <50 um and >50 um live organism size categories, in the
draft VGP2. Such an action by the USEPA would likely eliminate the continuation of the
patchwork of ballast water regulations that exist in the Great Lakes and other U.S. waters now.
Inclusion of a single set of protective ballast water WQBELs in the draft VGP2 will also ensure
that the entire Great Lakes ecosystem is protected from ballast water-mediated AIS invasions,
regardless of the location where a vessel discharges its ballast water.
1 Lee II, H., et al., 2010. Density Matters: Review of Approaches to Setting Organism-Based Ballast Water
Discharge Standards. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory, Western Ecological Division.
2
United States Coast Guard. Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement. April 2008.
Response: EPA has included WQBELs in today's VGP, and contrary to commenter's
assertion, did not conclude "that protective ballast water WQBELs cannot be derived and
included in the draft VGP2 until these experimental and field data are collected." As discussed
elsewhere in this response to comment document, EPA has concluded that the provisions of
today's permit will ensure protection of water quality standards. Please see the response to
comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpts 4 and 6 for an explanation of why
numeric WQBELs, including those "no less than 2 orders of magnitude more stringent than
their corresponding IMO D-2 standard," are inappropriate for inclusion in the VGP at this time,
and EPA's determination that narrative WQBELs are included in today's VGP because it is
infeasible to calculate numeric WQBELs.
In issuing their final rule, the U.S. Coast Guard ultimately decided to defer the "second phase
standard" to which commenter refers. The U.S. negotiating position in 2004 is not relevant to
today's permit as it not based on CWA requirements. EPA found that technologies are available
to meet the numeric effluent limits for ballast water discharges contained in today's VGP. see
1126
-------
the response essay in section 9.1.2 and other responses within that section of this comment
response document and Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP fact sheet.
Please see the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response document for a
response to commenter's request to "grandfather" BWMS once installed. Also, EPA declines to
include either the numeric limits or the 2026 effective date commenter proposes info in today's
permit because such limits and implementation schedule do not reflect best available
technology.
EPA disagrees that the effluent limits included in the VGP have "place[d] the states in a
predicament with respect to fulfilling their Section 401 Water Quality Certification...
responsibilities." Instead, as commenter suggests, states have the right to place more stringent
limitations upon discharges that they deem necessary to meet their water quality standards
through the 401 certification process. EPA notes that no states, including Michigan, have
provided 401 certification conditions with numeric effluent limits more stringent that the VGP's
limits for ballast water discharges. Please see section 12 of this comment response document for
further discussion of state 401 certification conditions.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A2
9
No
Comment: 7. Michigan state laws and regulations - On page 121 of the draft VGP2 Fact Sheet,
the USEPA states that a "review of state water quality standards revealed no provisions that
specifically address aquatic nuisance species." Although Michigan's Part 4 Rules, Water Quality
Standards, promulgated under Part 31, Water Resources Protection, of the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended, do not specifically address AIS, the
water quality-based regulation of AIS is addressed (some more specifically than others) by
Michigan laws and regulations listed in Attachment C. This same list of state laws and
regulations was provided to the USEPA by the MDEQ's WRD in a letter dated August 12, 2011.
Michigan is confident the continued introduction of AIS into the Great Lakes (and other U.S.
waters) will not be effectively prevented if the USEPA issues the VGP2 without protective
ballast water WQBELs for the >10 - <50 um and >50 um live organism size categories.
Response: Commenter's list of state laws and regulations is included in the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0450-A3, excerpt 6. EPA maintains that its review of state
water quality standards revealed no provisions that specifically address aquatic nuisance species
and that no states have established numeric water quality standards for living organisms or
ANS. EPA notes that the Michigan laws and regulations cited to by commenter are not CWA
303(c) state water quality standards that have been approved by EPA (e.g., NREPA Part 31
Section 3106, which provides the state with the ability to issue permits and promulgate water
quality standards), but instead, are generic state provisions that address water quality in general
1127
-------
(e.g., Part 31 Section 3109) that commenter cites to as a basis for numeric WQBELs for ballast
water discharges, and contain general prohibitions of discharging a substance that is
"injurious...to the public health, safety, and welfare...[or] to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish,
aquatic life, or plants or to their growth or propagation."
All of this being said however, EPA's discussion of the lack of provisions specifically
addressing aquatic nuisance species was by way of background, and in no way affects EPA's
determination as to the appropriate goal for protection of relevant water quality standards, of
which there are many types. See, e.g. Fact Sheet 4.4.3.9.1. As discussed in the Fact Sheet at
4.4.3.9.3, EPA's goal in protecting all of the various types of applicable water quality standards
is to "safeguard against the establishment of new aquatic nonindigenous species and to preserve
existing indigenous populations of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and other beneficial uses the
nation's waters."
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A3
1
No
Comment: The ballast water permitting strategy proposed by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) in the draft Vessel General Permit (VGP2) and further described in
the associated VGP2 Fact Sheet requires select covered existing vessels to treat their ballast
water discharges with an EPA-ETV approved ballast water management system (BWMS) and
meet the IMO D-2 standard by their first drydocking after 2014 or 2016, depending on size class.
New vessels constructed after January 1, 2012, are required to treat their ballast water discharges
with an EPA-ETV approved BWMS and meet the IMO D-2 standard, upon delivery. Certain
vessels entering the Great Lakes would be required to continue exchange/flushing in
combination with an approved BWMS.
Response: This is the commenter's summary of portions of the proposed VGP, and thus no
response is needed.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A3
2
No
Comment: IMO D-2 is considered a BPT/BAT treatment technology-based effluent limitation
by the USEPA, not a water quality-based effluent limitation (WQBEL). According to the VGP2
Fact Sheet, the USEPA determined that it is infeasible to calculate numeric WQBELs for ballast
1128
-------
water because "at this time the lack of available data and information prevents a precise
quantification of the invasion risk associated with ballast water discharges." Section 1.9.1
(Modification of the VGP) of the draft VGP2 indicates the USEPA will consider modifying the
permit after the "scientific understanding of .. .invasion biology has evolved such that new
information would have justified the application of significantly more stringent effluent
limitations .. .had this been understood at the time of permit issuance..." The National Research
Council (NRC) Committee's report indicates a 10-15 year time horizon will be required to obtain
the experimental and field data needed to parameterize and ground-truth the risk/release models.
Apparently, the USEPA needs these data collection/data analysis/modeling efforts to be
completed before the USEPA would be in a position to derive numeric concentration-based
WQBELs for live organisms in ballast water.
Michigan is concerned that additional invasions will occur during the proposed WQBEL
development period of 10-15 years and questions the protectiveness of the IMO D-2 standard
during this time interval. The Science Advisory Board report acknowledges the limited focus of
BWMS technology development, which has had no incentive to go beyond achievement of the
IMO D-2 standard. Further development of BWMS technology beyond IMO D-2 is not likely to
occur, unless the USEPA issues the VGP2 with a set of ballast water WQBELs (more stringent
than IMO D-2) combined with a reasonable and fair compliance schedule. Michigan believes
that numeric WQBELs more stringent than IMO D-2 are justified, can be developed now from
existing data, and can be refined based on additional data collection, analysis, and modeling.
Ballast Water WQBEL Derivation
The NRC Committee report's conclusion that "there is a profound lack of data/information to
develop and validate models of the risk/release relationship" should not preclude the USEPA
from developing and including a protective set of ballast water WQBELs in the draft VGP2.
Michigan shares the belief presented in Lee et al. (20101) that it is possible to generate ballast
water WQBELs that are "protective of the environment under most situations by making
conservative assumptions, using safety factors similar to those used in ecological risk
assessments for pollutants, and/or by setting the standards based on the upper confidence limits
of predictions of invasions." Historically, the USEPA has applied such conservative approaches
to derive water quality standards/limits for heavy metals and organic chemicals when perfect
toxicological datasets were lacking. The USEPA's unwillingness to apply a similar approach to
develop ballast water WQBELs for the draft VGP2 is inconsistent with past USEPA practices.
Michigan believes a ballast water WQBEL for live organisms in the >50 um size category that
is protective of the environment under most situations can be derived in at least two different
ways:
1. The first ballast water WQBEL derivation approach is based on the predicted probability of
establishment (P(£upper,high)) determined by Bailey et al. (20092) for the parthenogenetic
water flea (Daphnia retrocurva) in enclosures given inoculum densities of 1-10
individuals/m3. Probabilities of establishment based on the upper projection trajectories
(P(£upper,low) for I), retrocurva were predicted by Bailey et al. (2009) to be slightly greater
than 0.1 and 0.25 for inoculum densities of 1 individual/m3 and 10 individuals/m3,
respectively. Michigan considers any ballast water discharge limitation predicted using upper
1129
-------
projection trajectory data to result in probabilities of establishment >0.01 for high risk (for
invasion) species such as D. retrocurva to be unacceptable and not adequately protective of
U.S. waters. To ensure probabilities of establishment >0.01 for such high risk (for invasion)
species introduced to U.S. waters via the ballast water vector under favorable physical,
chemical, and biological conditions, an inoculum density (or ballast water WQBEL) of 0.1
individual/m3 is needed.
2. The second ballast water WQBEL derivation procedure is based on the Per Capita Invasion
Probabilities (PCIP) approach described in Chapter VIII of Lee et al. (2010). The PCIP is
defined by the authors as the "per year probability that an individual non-native propagule
discharged from ballast water will become established as a new nonindigenous species in a
specified waterbody." The PCIP is calculated as:
Equation 1. PCIP = Nh / (Dh * Ch)
Where:
PCIP = per capita invasion probability (new invading species * organism-1)
Nh = historical annual invasion rate of potential ballast-associated invaders for a waterbody (new
invading species * year-1)
Dh = historic annual foreign ballast discharge rate into a waterbody (m3 year-1)
Ch = historic concentration of organisms in ballast water discharged into a waterbody (organisms
* m-3)
After the PCIP is calculated, the number of new, unique invaders per year for a given ballast
water organism concentration and ballast water volume can be predicted as:
Equation 2. Np = PCIP * Dp * Cp
Where:
Np = predicted annual invasion rate of potential ballast-associated invaders for a waterbody
(new invading species * year-1)
Dp = predicted annual foreign ballast discharge rate into a waterbody (m3 year-1)
Cp = predicted concentration of organisms in ballast water discharged into a waterbody
(organisms * m-3)
Ballast water discharge limitations can be generated for an individual waterbody (or coasts) by
rearranging the above equation to calculate the organism concentration in ballast water (Cp)
associated with predicted ballast water volume (Dp), acceptable risk represented by the number
of new invaders per year (Np), the PCIP for the waterbody (or coast), and a safety factor:
Equation 3. Cp = Np/(Dp * PCIP * Safety Factor)
Selection of the specific values to use for Np, the PCIP and Safety Factor in the above equation
are risk management decisions that need to be made by the permitting authority after
consideration of stakeholder input. Michigan considers the following values appropriate for Np,
PCIP, and the Safety Factor:
1130
-------
Np = 1 x 10-3 invaders/yr.
PCIP = Upper 95% Confidence Interval
Safety Factor =10
Michigan also supports doubling the current foreign ballast discharge rate into a waterbody for
use as Dp in the above equation.
Using information presented in Table 12, Chapter VIII of Lee et al. (2010), ballast water
discharge limitations calculated using Equation 3 for the East Coast, Gulf Coast, Pacific Coast,
and Great Lakes are shown below:
East Coast Cp = (1 x 10-3 invaders/yr)/ (14,815,664 m3/yr * 4.64E-11 * 10)
= 0.145 organisms/m3
Gulf Coast Cp = (1 x 10-3 invaders/yr)/ (39,210,680 m3/yr * 7.67E-12 * 10)
= 0.332 organisms/m3
Pacific Coast Cp = (1 x 10-3 invaders/yr)/ (29,576,738 m3/yr * 3.83E-11 * 10)
= 0.088 organisms/m3
Great Lakes Cp = (1 x 10-3 invaders/yr)/ (2,790,922 m3/yr * 9.10E-11 * 10)
= 0.39 organisms/m3
The median PCIP (rather than the upper 95% confidence interval PCIP) was used above to
calculate the ballast water discharge limitation for the Great Lakes because individual ship
records were not available in 1991 to support the generation of PCIP distributions. Consequently,
Lee et al. (2010) were forced to use the mean ballast water organism concentration from the IMO
baseline study (4640/m3, MEPC, 2003) to calculate the PCIP (median) for the Great Lakes. As
explained in Lee et al. (2010), "because the distribution of organism concentrations in ballast
water is highly skewed, the mean concentration may over or underestimate the true propagule
pressure depending upon the concentrations in the specific set of ships discharging within the
waterbody."
Michigan recognizes the need to include a single ballast water WQBEL for live organisms in the
>50 um size category in the VGP2 that is applicable to all waters of the U.S. Based on the above
ballast water discharge limitations generated using the PCIP approach for the East, Gulf, and
Pacific Coasts and the Great Lakes, it is apparent that selection of 0.1 organisms/m3 (0.088
organisms/m3 for the Pacific Coast rounded to 0.1 organisms/m3) as the ballast water WQBEL
for live organisms in the >50 um size category would adequately protect all United States waters
from aquatic invasive species since it is the most stringent.
1 Lee II, H., et al., 2010. Density Matters: Review of Approaches to Setting Organism-Based Ballast Water
Discharge Standards. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory, Western Ecological Division.
2 Bailey, S.A., L.A. Velez-Espino, O.E. Johannsson, M.A. Koops, C.J. Wiley. 2009. Estimating establishment
probabilities of Cladocera introduced at low density: an evaluation of the proposed ballast water discharge
standards. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 66:261-276.
Response: EPA's obligation under the CWA is to derive WQBELs that are protective of water
1131
-------
quality, not to set a WQBEL on the basis that "it is the most stringent," as commenter
recommends. Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpt
4 and section 4.4.3.9 for a discussion of how EPA developed the WQBELs for ballast water
discharges in today's permit. Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-
0450-A2, excerpt 2 for a discussion of why use of the PCIP model and safety factors is
inappropriate for development of the WQBELs in today's permit.
In light of the NRC Committee report's conclusion that "there is a profound lack of
data/information to develop and validate models of the risk/release relationship", the
commenter believes that nonetheless, EPA still should develop a numeric WQBELs. The
commenter suggests that the use of conservative assumptions, using safety factors similar to
those used in ecological risk assessments for pollutants, and/or by setting the standards based on
the upper confidence limits of predictions of invasions would be useful in setting such a limit.
EPA acknowledges that the establishment of any WQBEL for living organisms involves a
considerable amount of judgment by the permitting authority in the face of the scientific
uncertainty noted by the NRC. EPA believes that it therefore behooves the permitting authority
to use the best available information to make this judgment. EPA believes, however, that the
approach described by the commenter, in light of that uncertainty, involves a remarkably large
number of assumptions unsupported by data so as to render the results of any of the approaches
as speculative.
In recommending that a numeric WQBEL can be developed as it proposes, the commenter
glosses over the tremendous scientific uncertainty surrounding the use of the very modeling
approaches it proposes. As the NRC concluded, reducing propagule pressure will reduce the
probability of invasions, when controlling for all other variables. "The key issue, however, is
the ability to characterize quantitatively the risk-release relationship, with the goal of
functionally describing the incremental reduction in invasion probability achieved with
declining propagule supply." (NRC at 103). The commenter provided two modeling approaches
for characterizing that relationship and deriving a WQBEL. Each will be discussed in more
detail below.
Before turning to each, it is instructive to note that the sponsoring agency's charge to the NRC
was in part to:
Evaluate the state of the science of various approaches that assess the risk of establishment of
aquatic nonindigenous species given certain concentrations of living organisms in ballast water
discharges.
Recommend how these approaches can be used by regulatory agencies to best inform risk
management decisions on the allowable concentrations of living organisms in discharged ballast
water in order to safeguard against the establishment of new aquatic nonindigenous species and
to protect and preserve existing indigenous populations of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and other
beneficial uses of the nation's waters. (NRC at page vii).
In responding to this charge, the NRC concluded that "(a)t the present time, none of the
available models have been validated, due mainly to a lack of key data, creating too many
1132
-------
untested assumptions to provide confidence in the resulting estimates of invasion probability."
The NRC report goes on to note that "(b)ecause of existing data gaps, past analyses have relied
on either proxy variables that have been of limited value or theoretical approaches that have not
yet been validated." (NRC, 2001, page 107).
Specifically, the commenter suggested the per capita invasion probability approach as a valid
means of developing a numeric WQBEL. Based on currently available data, EPA does not
believe it is appropriate to use this approach at this time. While EPA believes the per capita
invasion approach could have promise to help support development of a numeric WQBEL in
the future, our limited understanding of the risk release relationship does not allow EPA to
utilize this approach at this time. In support of its determination, EPA notes that the NRC panel
specifically analyzed a variety of per capita invasion approaches fundamentally similar to the
approach proposed by the commenter and concluded:
"The current state of science does not allow a quantitative evaluation of the relative merits of
various discharge standards in terms of invasion probability (see the Statement of Task in
Chapter 1). Of the approaches suggested to date and reviewed in this report, descriptive
statistical modeling with proxy variables (such as the per capita invasion probability approach;
see Chapter 4) is currently available to empirically examine the risk-release relationship
because there are data available for ballast volume (derived indirectly from vessel arrival data)
and historical invasion rates across estuaries. However, it must be cautioned that these are
extraordinarily coarse-level data because (a) as noted above, vessel arrival data often do not
directly translate into a measure of ballast water actually discharged, (b) when actual ballast
volume data are available, these do not translate well into known propagule supply, such as
species richness or abundance, and, further, (c) there is no significant relationship between
ballast volume and invasions. In addition, the actual number of historical invasions in all
estuaries is considered to be underestimated, perhaps significantly so (Carlton, 2009). Thus,
while statistical modeling has been applied to current datasets, the data are not sufficient in
present form to characterize a biologically meaningful relationship, much less estimate the
associated uncertainty, to be able to identify with confidence the invasion probabilities
associated with particular discharge standards (propagule supplies)."
Additionally, the NRC report noted "(a)t the present time, none of the available models have
been validated, due mainly to a lack of key data, creating too many untested assumptions to
provide confidence in the resulting estimates of invasion probability." (NRC, 2011, page 104).
"All of the quantitative models reviewed in Chapter 4 seek to explain or predict the number of
invasions (probability of successful establishment) as a function of propagule supply. These
approaches assume that (a) reliable measures of propagule supply and invasion outcome are
available over some meaningful spatial, temporal, and taxonomic range or (b) this relationship
can be reliably derived from first principles (theory) in population biology. At the present time,
neither of these criteria is met. There is a critical lack of data needed to populate empirical
models or to validate theoretical ones." (NRC, 2011, page 124). As the NRC concluded,
"invasion probability increases with propagule pressure when conditions in the recipient system
(such as a bay or port) are suitable for colonization. However, the inflection point(s) in this
relationship are simply not known. These inflection points are required to predict invasion
probability over the operational range of discharge concentrations being considered. It is critical
1133
-------
to also recognize that this relationship will vary with the nature of propagule pressure itself
(e.g., species richness, abundance, frequency of inoculation, life stage, and genetic composition)
as well as source region, recipient region, taxonomic group, season, voyage conditions, and
many other potential variables. Such variation has important implications for establishing
discharge standards, in that invasion probability is obviously context dependent, with many
potential influences beyond simply the number of propagules delivered." (NRC, 2011, page
104).
In light of these findings, EPA has concluded that the data available from which to derive
scientifically based standards for living organisms in ballast discharge are incomplete and
insufficient, as is the scientific understanding of the biological processes involved. Therefore,
EPA has concluded as a matter of its technical judgment that the tremendous amount of
scientific uncertainty to characterize quantitatively the risk-release relationship fundamentally
prevents the development of a scientifically defensible numeric WQBEL at this time.2
In addition to the reasons outlined above, EPA notes that this lack of understanding is unlike
any other parameter for which EPA has developed numeric water quality criteria, or developed
numeric interpretations of applicable narrative criteria. Toxic pollutants, for instance, do not
have confounding factors which so substantially complicate establishment of a numeric
WQBEL; factors such as Allee effects, variability in risk of invasion dependent on the vessel
source region, ballast water from hundreds or thousands of source regions, ballast water from
multiple waters accumulated over time and only partially drained, the degree to which negative
environmental consequences are rare and not predictable based on current scientific approaches
(i.e., successful invasions are rare events), biological interactions with existing biota (e.g.,
completion, predation), or the potential for polyvectic invaders. Therefore, EPA has not taken
the approach recommended by commenter of making assumptions and applying safety factors
within an accepted toxicological or other model, because no such model with sufficient data for
model calibration exists for these unique parameters.
In light of the scientific uncertainties described above, EPA has determined that no statistical or
deterministic model at this time is sufficiently validated, nor is the data to input into those
models of a caliber to produce a meaningful result, let alone to set any sort of numeric water
quality-based effluent limitation. EPA notes that expert opinion has been used as an alternative
to scientifically derived standard setting processes in establishing the IMO D-2 standard. EPA
in today's permit, has established that standard as the TBEL.
Given the scientific uncertainties with respect to determining an appropriately protective
WQBEL, EPA has concluded that the TBEL "causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or
contributes" to an excursion of the applicable water quality standards. However, in light of the
scientific uncertainties described above, EPA in its technical judgment does not have sufficient
scientific information to establish the level of control of living organisms needed to protect
water quality. EPA notes that a WQBEL set at a very low levels ("no less than 2 orders of
magnitude more stringent than their corresponding IMO D-2 standard," as recommended by
this commenter, or at zero, as other commenters have suggested) is necessary to attain
applicable water quality standards is also unsupported by science, and may in fact ultimately
prove to be more stringent than necessary to meet water quality standards.
1134
-------
2 EPA does not believe that Bailey et al. (2009) provides a sufficient basis for calculating a numeric water quality-
based limit - see the response essay in section 9.1.1 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A4
3
No
Comment: 4. On or before the first drydocking after January 1, 2014 (for existing vessels with
ballast water capacities between 1500 and 5000 m3) or January 1, 2016 (for existing vessels with
ballast water capacities <1500 m3 or >5000 m3), owners/operators shall install and operate a
ballast water treatment system on their vessel that has been shown through reputable efficacy
testing to be capable of reducing the concentration of live organisms in the >10 - <50 um and
>50 um size categories to 10 organisms/ml and 10 organism/ m3 of ballast water, respectively.
5. On or before January 1, 2026, owner/operators shall install and operate a ballast water
treatment system on their vessel that has been shown through reputable efficacy testing, to be
capable of reducing the concentration of live organisms in the >10 - <50 um and >50 um size
categories to 0.1 organisms/ml and 0.1 organism/m3 of ballast water, respectively.
No extensions will be made to the above January 1, 2026, implementation date, unless the vessel
owner/operator makes a request for an extension to the USEPA and can provide sufficient
justification for such a request. Any such extension request shall state and demonstrate that: (1)
there is a shortage in supply of the technology necessary to meet the ballast water discharge
limitations for live organisms in the >10 - <50 um and >50 um size categories of 0.1
organisms/ml and 0.1 organism/m3 , respectively, or a vessel-specific engineering constraint, or
other factor related to the availability and installation of technology beyond the vessel
owner/operator's control, that delays the technology being available and installed in time to
comply with the discharge limitations; (2) the unavailability of supply or installation constraint is
the only reason the January 1, 2026, date cannot be met, and (the vessel owner/operator) has
exhausted all other options to comply with the discharge limitations. Any extension request must
be made no later than June 30, 2024, and the extension request shall indicate when the vessel
will come into compliance with the discharge limitations.
Response: This comment is a detailed explanation of the approach commenter has outlined in
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A3, excerpt 2. Please see the response to that
comment for why EPA declines to include the ballast water discharge limits and
implementation schedule commenter proposes here.
Commenter Name: William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
1135
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A5
1
No
Comment: Michigan's laws and rules that pertain to the water quality-based regulation of
Aquatic Invasive Species in ballast water discharges are presented below:
1. Section 324.3103a(l)(a) of Part 31, Water Resources Protection, of the Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (NREPA), establishes a goal
for Michigan "to prevent the introduction of and minimize the spread of aquatic nuisance
species within the Great Lakes."
2. Section 324.3103a(l)(b) of Part 31 of the NREPA requires Michigan to "cooperate with the
United States and Canadian authorities, other states and provinces, and the maritime
industry" to achieve the goal of preventing the introduction of and minimizing the spread of
aquatic nuisance species within the Great Lakes.
3. Section 324.3106 of Part 31 of the NREPA requires the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to "establish pollution standards for lakes, rivers, streams,
and other waters of the state in relation to public use to which they are or may be put, as it
considers necessary." This section of Part 31 also requires the MDEQ to "issue permits that
will assure compliance with state standards to regulate municipal, industrial, and commercial
discharges or storage of any substance that may affect the quality of the waters of the state."
4. Section 324.3109(1) of Part 31 of the NREPA stipulates that "a person shall not directly or
indirectly discharge into the waters of the state a substance that is or may become injurious to
any of the following: (a) to the public health, safety, or welfare; (b) to domestic, commercial,
industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other uses that are being made or may be made of
such waters;. . . (d) to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, aquatic life, or plants or to their
growth or propagation; (e) to the value of fish and game."
5. Section 324.3109(4) of Part 31 of the NREPA states that "unless authorized by a permit
the discharge into the waters of this state from an oceangoing vessel of any ballast water is
prima vacie evidence of a violation of this part. . ." Section 324.3112(6) of Part 31 provides,
in part, that "beginning January 1, 2007, all oceangoing vessels engaging in port operations
in this state shall obtain a permit from the department. The department shall issue a permit
for an oceangoing vessel only if the applicant can demonstrate that the oceangoing vessel
will not discharge aquatic nuisance species or . . .that the operator of such a vessel will utilize
environmentally sound technology and methods, as determined by the department, that can
be used to prevent the discharge of aquatic nuisance species."
6. The Part 4 Rules, Water Quality Standards, promulgated under Part 31 of the NREPA
establish "water quality requirements applicable to the Great Lakes, connecting waters, and
all other surface waters of the state, to protect the public health and welfare, to enhance and
maintain the quality of water, to protect the state's natural resources..."
1136
-------
7. R 323.1098(2) of the Part 4 Rules requires "the level of water quality necessary to protect
existing uses shall be maintained and protected" for all of the waters of the state.
8. R 323.1100(1) of the Part 4 Rules establishes the designated uses for all surface waters of the
state. This rule stipulates that "at a minimum, all surface waters of the state are designated
for, and shall be protected for, all of the following uses: (a) agriculture, (b) navigation, (c)
industrial water supply... (e) warmwater fishery, (f) other indigenous aquatic life and
wildlife..." In addition, R 323.1100(5) demands that "all Great Lakes and their connecting
waters... shall be protected, as coldwater fisheries."
Response: This recitation of Michigan's state laws and regulations is addressed in responses to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-045Q-A3, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadiens)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadiens)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A3
8
No
Comment: 19. Issue: EPA's determination, including the detailed explanation that water
quality-based effluent limits for ballast water discharges are infeasible to calculate at this time.
CSA Response: The CSA supports this position.
Response: EPA acknowledges this comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kirk Jones, Director, Government an Industry Affairs,
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
Canada Steamship Lines International (CSLI)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0554- A3
7
No
Comment: 19.Issue: EPA's determination, including the detailed explanation, that water
quality-based effluent limits for ballast water discharges are infeasible to calculate at this time.
Response: In its report, the National Academies of Sciences concluded that there are insufficient
data to support a water quality based effluent limit. We therefore, support the EPA's
determination that it is infeasible to calculate a QBEL at this time.
Response: EPA acknowledges this comment.
1137
-------
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0564-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: The EPA should adopt a zero discharge water quality-based effluent limitation. EPA
must set zero detectable living organisms as a numeric water quality-based effluent limitation
unless the agency is able to determine that there is a level of discharge greater than zero that
would not result in the establishment of reproducing populations of the species in different water
bodies. Such a water quality-based effluent limitation encourages the development of technology
to better protect aquatic ecosystems. This includes, for example, the development of novel
ballasting technology and techniques, such as flow through ballast tanks or other mechanisms
that would result in no movement of ballast-mediated live organisms or water, from one
bioregion to another.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpt 4,
which addresses commenter's assertion that "EPA should adopt a zero discharge" WQBEL for
ballast water discharges. With respect to technology-forcing effluent limitations for ballast
water discharges, please see the response essay in section 9.1.2 of this comment response
document.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Late Comment? No
Comment: 19. Comment on EPA's determination, including detailed explanation that water
quality-based effluent limits for ballast water discharge are infeasible to calculate at this time.
We concur that based upon available technology and scientific methods available at this time,
quality-based effluent limits are infeasible to calculate at this time.
Response: EPA acknowledges this comment.
Commenter Name: Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
Commenter Affiliation: California State Lands Commission
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
1138
-------
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
3
No
Comment: 1) The absence of protective, water quality-based performance standards for living
organisms in ballast water discharges.
The proposed 2013 VGP performance standards (also known as the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) standards) are inadequate, as the best available science indicates that that
they do not improve significantly upon ballast water exchange (the current status quo). For a
significant proportion of vessels discharging in the U.S., Minton et al. (2005) estimated that, for
the largest organism size class (>50 microns (micrometers)), approximately 17.2% of
discharging vessels could meet the proposed 2013 VGP standard through ballast water exchange,
and 3.8 % of vessels could meet the proposed 2013 VGP standard for this size class without
performing ballast water exchange at all. In 2003 the IMO Study Group on Ballast Water and
Other Ship Vectors (SGBOSV) reviewed their collective data on organism concentrations in
unexchanged ballast water and found that even ballast water tanks that were not exchanged often
met an equivalent to the proposed VGP standard for the 10 - 50 micrometer size class of
organisms (MEPC 2003, Annex 1). Furthermore, the proposed 2013 VGP standards for ballast
water discharge do not meet some states' recreational water quality contact requirements,
including the geometric means set forth in the California Ocean Plan (Water Board 2005). The
proposed 2013 VGP standards are therefore not protective in terms of maintaining healthy
marine habitats or human health.
Therefore, adoption of the proposed 2013 VGP standards (Le. the IMO standards) does little to
advance the protection of U.S. waters from NIS introductions. If the EPA adopts these standards
and does not take a more protective, pro-active, water-quality based approach to setting ballast
water discharge standards, it is very likely that many states will opt for more protective discharge
standards. Thus the adopted federal standards will not simplify the regulatory environment for
ship owners/operators.
Based on the aforementioned analysis, and in response to question #17 in the Federal Register
Notice for the proposed 2013 VGP (dated 12/8/11), MISP staff encourages EPA to include
California's performance standards or the U.S. Coast Guard Phase II standards (as proposed in
the Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 166, August 28,2009) in the final VGP. The California
standards/USCG Phase II standards are techno logy-forcing standards that are supported based on
preliminary analysis conducted by MISP staff (see California State Lands Commission 2010,
Dobroski et al. 2011), and necessary to reach the stated Clean Water Act goal of eliminating the
discharge of pollutants into the Nation's navigable waters.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the standards included in today's
VGP are no better than ballast water exchange. The same paper cited by the commenter
(Minton et al., 2005) also found that for the largest size class of organisms (greater than 50 ^im),
the limits contained in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP would result in a reduction in coastal organisms
relative to when vessels conduct ballast water exchange. Ballast water exchange has been
documented to "reduce concentrations of live coastal organisms by, on average, 88 to 99
percent." (NRC, 2011). In Part 4.4.3.9.2, EPA estimates that the reduction in the numbers of
1139
-------
living organisms discharged in ballast water would be reduced by between 95 and 99.994%
from the mean, median, or mode values found in ballast water tanks by various studies (whether
mean, median or mode is used depends on the study and how the authors present the data).
NRC (2011) also clearly states that the IMO D-2 standard (equivalent to the limits in Part
2.2.3.5 of the VGP) is better than exchange, where they state: "As a logical first step, a
benchmark discharge standard should be established that clearly reduces concentrations of
coastal organisms below current levels resulting from ballast water exchange (such as the IMO
D-2 standard)." (emphasis added). EPA believes that the scientific consensus is that the limits
included in today's VGP are significantly better than ballast water exchange. EPA also notes, as
discussed elsewhere in this response to comment document (e.g., sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.9), with
the state of current monitoring technologies, the California performance standards are, in
practice, no more stringent than those in today's VGP. This is reinforced by NRC (2011) which
states that "[bjecause of the practical constraints in detecting living organisms when they are
rare, the zero-detectable standard may be operationally no more stringent than other standards."
As discussed elsewhere, EPA has declined to include either California's performance standards
or the U.S. Coast Guard phase II standards in today's VGP. See section 4.4.3.5.1 of the VGP
fact sheet and response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpt 6.
Additionally, please see sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.9 of this comment response document. EPA also
notes that it would need more concrete information or analysis to consider commenter's
assertion that the VGP does not protect "some states' recreational water quality contact
requirements."
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nicole Dobroski, Environmental Program Manager, Marine
Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division,
California State Lands Commission
California State Lands Commission
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0633-A2
32
No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.5: Ballast Water Numeric Discharge Limitations - The proposed 201
VGP standards (i.e. IMO standards) are not protective enough (see General Comment #1). EPA
has set the proposed 2013 VGP standards as a Technology Based Effluent Limit (TBEL) instead
of a Water Quality Based Effluent Limit (WQBEL). While MISP staff recognizes that the
National Academy of Sciences (see NRC 2011) was unable to support a WQBEL at this time,
Staff believes information provided in the proposed 2013 VGP comment letters supplied by the
States of Michigan and New York, as well as the joint letter from the Alliance for the Great
Lakes, Great Lakes United, National Wildlife Federation, National Resources Defense Council,
and Northwest Environmental Advocates, provide additional information and data that should be
used to support the establishment of a WQBEL in U.S. waters. Furthermore the research
presented by Minton et al. (2005) and the IMO SGBOSV clearly do not support EPA setting the
IMO standard as the most protective management strategy for U.S. waters (see General
Comment #1).
Response: EPA established numeric effluent limits equivalent to the IMO standard as
1140
-------
technology-based effluent limits pursuant to the CWA, not "as the most protective management
strategy for U.S. waters," as commenter asserts. EPA has established other TBELs and
WQBELs for ballast water discharges in today's permit in Parts 2.2.3.7 and 2.3; it is all of these
provisions together that EPA concludes ensure compliance with water quality standards.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gary Rosenlieb, Acting Chief, National Park Service Water
Resources Division, United States Department of the
Interior
National Park Service, United States Department of the
Interior
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0742-A2
3
No
Comment: We request the explicit adoption of more protective ballast treatment standards.
Since NPS policy prohibits any release of live invasive organisms we feel that moving to higher
standards will be essential in the future. Further development of BWMS technology beyond IMO
D-2 is not likely to occur, unless the EPA issues the 2013 VGP with water quality-based effluent
limitations (WQBELs) for ballast water that are more stringent than IMO D-2 combined with a
reasonable and fair compliance schedule. This would create a climate where treatment
manufacturers know if they invest in system development for these classes, there will be a
market for the system. Scientists with the State of Michigan believe that numeric WQBELs more
stringent than IMO D-2 are justified, can be developed now from existing data, and can be
refined based on additional data collection, analysis, and modeling. The affordability of
treatment is denoted in a number of articles and studies by Dr. Dennis King, Economic
Assessment Lead for the Maritime Environmental Resource Center.
Response: Please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpts 4
and 6. EPA notes that "the affordability of treatment" discussed in articles/studies by King et al.
are in the context of ballast water treatment systems that meet the IMO D-2 standard and not
more stringent numeric effluent limits. See, e.g., "Preview of global ballast water treatment
markets," Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology Volume 11, No 1, January 2012.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
2
No
Comment: However, these standards are weak international standards and are not strict enough
to ensure the next major invasive species threat is prevented. Therefore, we recommend that that
ballast water requirements within the VGP be strengthened. In particular, we recommend zero
discharge water quality-based effluent limitation to ensure no movement of live organisms or
1141
-------
water, from one bioregion to another. In addition, there are significant inconsistencies among
various vessels as well as the States. The states of New York and California have already
adopted far more stringent standards, based upon their own scientific determinations that such
standards are vital to the protection of their waters. At a minimum, the EPA standards should be
at least as stringent as the highest standards established by the states or other federal agencies.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpt 4.
10.1.1 Narrative Limit Applicable to Ballast Water
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
5
No
Comment: EPA's proposed solution to the inadequacy of the IMO D-2 standards to protect
water quality seems to be that a so-called "narrative" WQBEL can be added to the permit as a
backstop. Although the VGP currently contains a similar provision, this purported WQBEL only
incorporates the general requirement that "discharge^] must be controlled as necessary to meet
applicable water quality standards in the receiving waterbody or another waterbody impacted
by... discharges." VGP §2.3.1. The current VGP makes no attempt to define, let alone quantify,
how water quality standards should be applied in the invasive species context. In the absence of
any such definition, it is impossible for any meaningful WQBELs to be applied to vessels, and
thus, in our view, the purported "narrative WQBEL" contemplated by EPA would be
meaningless. If EPA cannot itself determine a numeric discharge limit for invasive species that
will protect existing and designated uses, it is completely unreasonable for the Agency to expect
states, let alone ship captains, to know what level of invasive species can be discharged in ballast
water that will ensure that those uses will be protected.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpt 17
for a discussion of how EPA defined, and determined that it was infeasible to calculate a
numeric WQBELs for ballast water discharges.
First, EPA notes that it put in considerable effort to find a way to numerically define the level at
which ballast water treatment will result in discharges that achieve water quality standards. See
discussion of NAS study in section 10.1 of this comment response document and 4.4.3.9 of the
VGP fact sheet. In addition, EPA does provide a definition in the fact sheet for generally what it
means to ensure compliance with WQS in the invasive species context, which is to "safeguard
against the establishment of new aquatic nonindigenous species and to protect and preserve
existing indigenous populations, of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and other beneficial uses of the
nation's waters." Fact Sheet 4.4.3.9.3, f.n. 38.
EPA disagrees that its determination that WQBELs for ballast water discharges are infeasible to
1142
-------
calculate at this time means that "it is impossible for any meaningful WQBELs to be applied to
vessels." In addition to the narrative WQBEL in Part 2.3 of the permit, today's VGP contains
additional water quality-based best management practices for certain vessels entering the Great
Lakes. In addition, EPA does not agree with commenter that because it is infeasible to calculate
a numeric WQBEL, the resulting narrative WQBEL does not protect existing and designated
uses. Please see section 10.1 of this comment response document that discuss why the narrative
WQBELs in today's permit are protective of water quality standards, including designated uses.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Late Comment? No
Comment: VI. EPA's "Narrative WQBEL" is flawed.
EPA appropriately "determined that, after application of the required TBELs, reasonable
potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards exists."107 EPA's
subsequent determination, however, "that calculation of a numeric WQBEL is infeasible at this
time,"108 is flawed. Moreover, EPA's so-called narrative WQBEL for ballast water discharges is
illegal, because it is not practically enforceable.
It is already well-established that EPA's TBELs - the IMO D-2 standards - were not designed to
achieve complete prevention of new invasive species introductions and thus fully protect water
quality standards. Although negotiations over the IMO Ballast Water Convention resulted in a
consensus on a set of numeric standards for live organism concentration in ballast water
discharges, the standards agreed upon were not based purely on a scientific assessment of the
level of protection needed to prevent significant risk of ballast-mediated species invasions, but
also incorporated "inputs from experts in other disciplines, such as shipping and engineering,
risk managers, as well as state, national, non-governmental organization^] (NGO[s]), and
industry representatives."109 During the negotiations, the U.S. delegation (led by the Coast
Guard) proposed a concentration-based discharge standard 1000 times more stringent than that
which was ultimately agreed upon in the negotiations, "based on the large number of organisms
that would be discharged even at these low concentrations and the additive densities from
multiple ship discharges."110 Other countries urged that substantially weaker standards be
adopted, however, and "the numbers ultimately adopted reflect a negotiated outcome among the
many countries with differing views," which "makes it extremely difficult, or impossible, to
parse exactly how a decision was made" or to determine "whether the IMO standards are
sufficiently protective."111 Nevertheless, a further analysis of the IMO's own data by the
California Advisory Panel on Ballast Water Performance Standards found that nearly half of all
commercial vessels that discharge ballast water would meet the IMO standards without
conducting any treatment or ballast water exchange whatsoever, indicating that the IMO
standards do not represent a substantial improvement in protection over the status quo.112
EPA's purported WQBEL only incorporates the general requirement that "discharge^] must be
controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards in the receiving waterbody or
1143
-------
another waterbody impacted by . . . discharges."113 This is not specific enough to be measurable
or practically enforceable, either by the agency or citizens. Moreover, if EPA itself cannot
determine a numeric discharge limit that will protect existing and designated uses or meet water
quality criteria,114 it is completely unreasonable for the agency to expect States, let alone ship
captains, to know what concentration of organisms in ballast water discharges will assure
compliance with water quality standards.
Significantly, EPA nowhere finds or determines, as it must, that the "WQBEL" will assure
compliance with water quality standards; the agency only "expects" it "to be as stringent as
necessary to achieve water quality standards."115 Furthermore, this expectation is entirely
unsupported by any reasoned analysis demonstrating that the "WQBEL" will protect designated
or existing uses.
Although different States' water quality standards may vary in minor respects with respect to
invasive species, if EPA chooses to continue regulating vessels by means of a CWA nationwide
general permit, then EPA has the legal responsibility to establish a strong federal regulatory floor
that protects core CWA antidegradation policy interests and designated uses that are common
across all the States. To the extent that technologies are not commercially available that would
enable vessels to comply immediately with any WQBELS that are more stringent than applicable
TBELs, the CWA allows for EPA to incorporate a compliance schedule into a permit.116
What the CWA does not allow, however, is for EPA to postpone compliance with the law
indefinitely based on a thin promise that it may require it in the future, as it does in the draft
VGP by asserting that numeric WQBELs are "infeasible."117 Because theoretically a reproducing
population of non-indigenous organisms can be established by the introduction of a few
individuals, any solution must achieve complete prevention 1 8. Further, as noted above, EPA is
not allowed to consider economic or technological feasibility in making determinations as to
what WQBELs are necessary in the VGP to protect water quality standards.119 EPA's failure in
the draft VGP to identify the criteria that must be evaluated to determine WQBELs for invasive
species in ballast water discharges contrasts with the efforts that States have made to identify
those criteria and adopt standards to ensure their water quality is fully protected. In 2006,
California adopted stringent water-quality based standards recommended by the California
Advisory Panel on Ballast Water Performance Standards.120 The California panel found that its
recommended standards "are significantly better than ballast water exchange... are in-line [sic]
with the best professional judgment from the scientific experts participating in the IMO
Convention, and... approach a protective zero discharge standard."121
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYS DEC") agreed with
California's assessment, adopting California's standards as conditions to the VGP under its
CWA Section 401 authority to certify that the VGP would comply with state water quality
standards.122 As NYS DEC found, "there is overwhelming evidence that water quality, including
fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation and survival, has been impaired in recent decades" in the
Great Lakes by the introduction and spread of invasive species through vessels' ballast water
discharges, and only a stringent water quality-based standard is adequate to ensure that those
existing and designated uses are protected from invasive species introduced and spread through
ballast water.123
1144
-------
EPA's failure to establish a meaningful WQBEL, in conjunction with its extended schedule for
compliance with the TBELs applicable to oceangoing vessels, means that a substantial
percentage of vessels likely will not be required to meet any numeric effluent limitations during
the term of the next VGP. This is unacceptable.
Overall, we believe that EPA must set zero detectable living organisms as a numeric goal, unless
EPA is able to determine with confidence that there is a level of invasive species above zero that
could be discharged into differing receiving water bodies without causing establishment of
reproducing populations of the species. Such a zero detectable living organisms approach has the
benefit of being "technology-forcing," i.e., it would encourage the development of technology to
better protect aquatic ecosystems.12 This includes, for example, the development of novel
ballasting technology and techniques, such as flow through ballast tanks or other mechanisms
that would result in no ballast-mediated movement of live organisms, or possibly even water,
from one bioregion to another. This approach is consistent with the one taken by California and
New York, which were unable to find any valid scientific basis to recommend less stringent
standards.125
In deriving WQBELs for the VGP, we urge EPA not to conflate the issue of what level of
invasive species can be detected and quantified with the issue of how a narrative water quality
standard (e.g., that invasive species shall not be discharged in amounts that impair existing or
designated uses) can be defined and implemented. The technical limitations of the current state
of sampling and detection capabilities of invasive species in ballast water has no place in that
consideration.
This does not mean that EPA should not consider the limitations on sampling and detection
methods in the development of WQBELs - only that EPA should not consider them until after it
has determined what the numeric goal for the receiving waterbody should be. It is only once
EPA has decided on that biologically protective numeric goal that EPA should consider how
limitations on the ability to sample and detect invasive species should affect the translation of
that numeric goal into WQBELs for the next VGP. The practical significance of this is that it
would make clear that, as the sampling and detection methods improve, the permit limit would
have to decrease along with them - and it should create a stronger mandate to improve upon
existing sampling and detection methods over time.
We further urge EPA to include WQBELs in the VGP that prevent introductions of pathogenic
organisms through ballast water. The ability of commercial vessels to transport pathogens is a
serious concern for regions across the United States for reasons including, but not limited to,
risks to plant and animal health, to human health and recreation, and to freshwater/drinking water
reservoir protection.
Microorganisms are transported in large volumes in ballast water. There is a general
understanding that due to the sheer number of microorganisms in water, combined with unique
survival strategies, microorganisms possess a "great capacity to invade new environments." 26
For an example of the tremendous number of microorganisms being transported, one study
quantified microorganisms in ballast water of international commercial vessels arriving at
1145
-------
Chesapeake Bay from overseas ports and reported mean abundances of 8.3 x 108 bacteria and
7.4 x 10 9 virus-like particles per 1-1.127
While little is known of the potential significance of commercial vessel movement of pathogens
via ballast, researchers are raising the alarm that ballast water may be an important way
waterborne diseases move around the globe. Researchers have asked, are we playing Johnny
Appleseed with aquatic micro-organisms as global shipping inadvertently spreads them around
the world in discharged ballast water? And if so, need we be concerned that some of those
microbes are harmful? Certainly these questions are ones of considerable interest to microbial
ecologists, but given the context, are pertinent to water quality managers and regulatory agencies
as well.128
And in 2005, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration determined that microbial
pathogens were found in ballast tank residuals of international vessels transiting to the Great
Lakes (including cholera and giardia). While the researchers said tanks carrying pathogens are
not a likely health risk to humans, they recommended more investigation.12 These calls for
greater understanding of the issue are underscored by irregular, but tragic, outbreaks of
waterborne disease, which some postulate were sparked by contaminated ballast discharges.130
Finally, EPA should consider whether regional or waterbody-specific WQBELs are appropriate
for the VGP. We are concerned that "interacting mechanisms" may differ across ecosystems and
may influence the likelihood of a live organism's successful population establishment
differently, for example there may be different interacting mechanisms influencing the likelihood
of species establishment from a ballast discharge in closed freshwater ecosystems versus a
brackish coastal embayment or a saltwater coastal ecosystem. If EPA is aiming to set a single,
nationally applicable set of WQBELs in the VGP, we believe that those WQBELs should be set
to protect the most sensitive receiving waterbody, which will in turn protect less sensitive
receiving waterbodies.
107
U.S. EPA, 2011 Proposed Issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel
General Permit (VGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels: Draft Fact Sheet, at 120, 125.
108
Id. This determination is inconsistent with, and renders irrational, EPA's simultaneous statement that it
"generally expects that vessels that achieve the permit's technology-based limits through the careful implementation
of effective pollution control measures and BMPs are likely to already be controlling their vessel discharges to a
degree that would make additional water quality-based controls unnecessary." Id. at 149. See also VGP § 2.3.1
("EPA generally expects that compliance with the other conditions in this permit, including Parts 2.1, 2.2, and 5,
will control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards.")
109
Henry Lee II, et al., Density Matters: Review of Approaches to Setting Organism-Based Ballast Water Discharge
Standards, ix, 12 (2010) (U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, EPA/600/R-10/031), available at
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vessels densitvmatters fmal.pdf.
110 Id. at 15.
111 Mat 15-16.
112
California State Lands Commission, Report on Performance Standards for Ballast Water Discharges in
California Waters, 4, app. 2 & 4 (2006), available at
http://www.slc.ca.gov/spec pub/mfd/ballast water/Documents/CSLCPerformanceStndRpt 2006.pdf.
113 VGP §2.3.1.
1146
-------
114
EPA acknowledges that "many narrative criteria and anti-degradation and general policies of applicable state
water quality standards do seek to prevent the types of degradation that is associated with the introduction of ANS
into receiving waters." Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 121.
115 Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 149.
116 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(5).
117 Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 120.
118
See Anthony Ricciardi & Flugh J. Maclsaac, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Ballast Water Exchange Policy in
The Great Lakes, 18 Ecological Applications 1321, 1322 (2008).
119 See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1341(a)(1), 1341(d); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1); see also Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 191
F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that, under CWA, permitting authority "is under specific obligation to
require that level of effluent control which is needed to implement existing water quality standards without regard to
the limits of practicability") (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted); In re Moscow, 10 E.A.D. 135, NPDES
Appeal 00-10, 2001 WL 988721, at *24 (E.A.B. July 27, 2001) ("[SJection 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA requires
unequivocal compliance with applicable water quality standards, and does not recognize an exception for cost or
technological infeasibility.").
120
California State Lands Commission, Report on Performance Standards for Ballast Water Discharges in
California Waters (2006), available at
http://www.slc.ca.gov/spec pub/mfd/ballast water/Documents/CSLCPerformanceStndRpt 2006.pdf.
121
Id. at 37.
122
Letter from William R. Adriance, Chief Permit Administrator, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, to Barbara Finazzo, Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Dec. 17, 2008), available a? http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/401_newyork.pdf.
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division recently found that "ample scientific evidence and expert
opinion exists in the record to support DEC'S determination that [New York's Section 401] conditions are necessary
to ensure federal permittees' compliance with New York's existing narrative water quality standards." Port of
Oswego Auth. v. Grannis, 70 A.D.3d 1101, 1103 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2010). "These existing standards aim to
protect the state's waters from pollution and the conditions are reasonable restrictions intended to reduce the
unintentional discharge of invasive aquatic species and other pathogens, thereby protecting the state's waters from
the harm that such species and pathogens inflict." Id.
123
Letter from William R. Adrian ce, Chief Permit Administrator, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, to Barbara Finazzo, Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Dec. 17, 2008), available a? http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/401_newyork.pdf.
124 See, e.g., U.S. Steel v. Train, 556 F.2d 822, 838 (7th Cir. 1977); Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 191 F.3d
1159, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999); In re Moscow, 10 E.A.D. 135, NPDES Appeal 00-10, 2001 WL 988721, at *24 (E.A.B.
July 27, 2001).
125
See California State Lands Commission, Report on Performance Standards for Ballast Water Discharges in
California Waters (2006), at App. A-4, available at
http://www.slc.ca.gov/spec pub/mfd/ballast water/Documents/CSLCPerformanceStndRpt 2006.pdf; Letter from
William R. Adrian ce, Chief Permit Administrator, New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, to Barbara Finazzo, Director, Division of Environmental Planning
and Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Dec. 17, 2008), available at
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/401_newyork.pdf.
126 Drake, L. et al (2002) "Microbial ecology of ballast water during a transoceanic voyage and the effects of open
ocean exchange" Mar Ecol Prog Ser, Vol. 233: 13-20
127
Ruiz GM, et al (2000) "Global spread of microorganisms by ships" Nature 408:49-50
128
Dobbs, F.C., "Ships ballast tanks: How Microbes Travel the World," Microbiology Today (2008), available at
http://www.sgm.ac.uk/pubs/miCTO_today/pdf/050805.pdf.
129
Johengen, T. et al. (2005) "Assessment of Transoceanic NOBOB Vessels and Low-Salinity Ballast Water as
Vectors for Non-indigenous Species Introductions to the Great Lakes" NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research
Laboratory.
130
In 1991 in Peru, a ship carrying contaminated water from Asia in its ballast tanks sparked off a cholera epidemic
that spread rapidly throughout South and Central America. About 11 000 people died. World Health Organization,
1147
-------
"Removing Obstacles for Healthy Development" 1999. http://www.who.int/infectious-diseasereport/
pages/ch 13text.html.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpt 17.
Regarding the unique portions of this comment, EPA disagrees that its determination that it is
infeasible to calculate a numeric WQBEL is "inconsistent with, and renders irrational, EPA's
simultaneous statement" that EPA generally expects that compliance with the technology-based
limits in the permit will control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality
standards. In the fact sheet for today's permit and elsewhere in the record for today's permit,
EPA discusses that the TBELs will result in, among other things, a significant reduction in what
EPA believes is the key factor for reducing invasion risk, inoculum density, and therefore can
reasonably be expected to greatly reduce, if not eliminate altogether, future invasions. However,
EPA also determined, consistent with the CWA and implementing regulations, even after
imposition of the TBELs, reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a water quality
standards exceedance exists because the variety of factors other than propagule pressure that
influence invasion outcome should not be completely ignored, even at the TBEL level of
discharge. Because a profound lack of data prevents a precise quantification of the risk
associated with ballast water discharges, EPA imposed narrative WQBELs for ballast water
discharges in today's permit.
The commenter correctly notes that the IMO D-2 standards are the result of "expert opinion,"
consistent with the discussion by the NAS about the IMO D-2 standard. EPA agrees that EPA's
TBELs, which are consistent with the IMO D-2 standards, were not imposed based on a
determination that they would result in complete prevention of new invasive species
introductions- the TBELs in today's permit are based upon the CWA requirements for
technology-based limitations to be based on available control technology. However, for reasons
discussed in section 10.1 of this comment response document, EPA disagrees that imposition of
a zero discharge standard is "necessary" to achieve water quality standards.
To the extent commenter maintains that compliance schedules could be used to ameliorate the
practical reality that ships would be unable to comply with the zero discharge standard they
advance, EPA seriously questions that conclusion. Compliance schedules to meet WQBELs are
only permissible where such compliance schedules are allowed by the applicable water quality
standard. Given the number (and types) of water quality standards at issue here, it is difficult for
the Agency to see (and the commenter does not explain) how use of compliance schedules
would completely address the practical issues associated with an unattainable WQBEL. (Note
that this issue is ultimately irrelevant to the Agency's finding that zero discharge is not
"necessary" to achieve water quality standards.)
The commenter inaccurately characterizes the narrative WQBEL in part 2.3 of the VGP by
stating that "EPA's purported WQBEL only incorporates the general requirement that
'discharge^] must be controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards." Part
2.3 of the VGP also requires that if at any time the owner/operator becomes aware, or EPA
determines, that a discharge causes or contributes to an exceedance of applicable water quality
standards, the owner/operator must take corrective actions as required in Part 3 of the permit
and report those exceedance(s) to EPA as required in Part 1.14 and 4.4.1 of the permit. Where
1148
-------
necessary, owner/operators are required to employ additional controls to be consistent with
applicable waste load allocations in an approved or established TMDL or to comply with a
State or Tribe's antidegradation policy.
EPA disagrees with commenter's assertion that " nearly half of all commercial vessels that
discharge ballast water would meet the IMO standards without conducting any treatment or
ballast water exchange whatsoever, indicating that the IMO standards do not represent a
substantial improvement in protection over the status quo." EPA concurs with the well-
documented finding in the NAS study that the IMO D-2 standard will result in significant
reductions in concentrations of living organisms beyond current management practices (i.e.,
ballast water exchange and other management practices). For further discussion about why the
numeric discharge limitations for ballast water in the permit are expected to be effective in
reducing the risk from untreated or exchanged ballast water discharges, see section 4.4.3.9.2 of
the VGP fact sheet. The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) Report that commenter
refers to is out-of-date, as is the letter cited above from New York State providing certification
of the 2008 permit. For a discussion about the most recent CSLC reports and why the "no
detectable living organism standard" proposed by California is actually no more stringent than
the IMO standard at this time, see section 4.4.3.5.1 of the VGP Fact Sheet, specifically, "EPA's
Consideration of Conclusions Found in the California State Lands Commission Ballast Water
Treatment Report." Additionally, please see discussion of the California report and standards in
section 9.1.1 and 9.1.9 of this comment response document. Furthermore, EPA notes that states,
including New York, have certified that the VGP's requirements are protective of their water
quality standards, and have not included numeric standards for ballast water discharges more
stringent than the IMO D-2 standard in their state 401 certifications. Please see section 12 of
this comment response document and Part 6 of the VGP.
The commenter is incorrect in stating "a substantial percentage of vessels likely will not be
required to meet any numeric effluent limitations during the term of the next VGP." EPA notes
that EPA estimates that well over half of "ocean-going vessels" will be required to meet the
numeric ballast water treatment limits/install treatment technology prior to expiration of today's
permit. Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0446-A1, excerpt 7 for further
discussion.
The commenter notes that they believe there is "a general understanding that due to the sheer
number of microorganisms in water, combined with unique survival strategies, microorganisms
possess a great capacity to invade new environments." The commenter cites Drake et al. (2002)
as their justification for this statement. EPA does not dispute that microorganisms from
unmanaged, untreated ballast water pose a risk for creating new invasions. However, the
commenter fails to note that the exact same paper, Drake et al. (2002), states that ballast water
exchange is effective in significantly reducing the numbers of microorganisms in ballast water:
"Five days following the [ballast water] exchange process, all microbial metrics tested (i.e.
bacteria concentration, virus-like particle density, chlorophyll] a, and phaeopigment
concentration, and microbial bio mass) had decreased 1.6 to 34 fold from initial values." After
15 days, the researchers noted that microbiological communities had recovered, however, they
note that they did not test for species composition, and EPA notes that regrowth may have
occurred as a result of the introduction of mid-ocean organisms.1 Additionally, EPA notes, that
1149
-------
though not quantified in this permit, the same processes that treat larger organisms (those in the
10 to 50 micrometer size class) and indicator pathogens (e.g., e. coli and enterococci) such as
chlorination and UV treatment also remove other microbiological organisms. Hence, between
ballast water exchange, requirements for ballast water treatment, and other requirements in the
permit (e.g., those found in Part 2.2.3.3 of the permit such as minimize or avoid areas known to
have infestations or populations of harmful organisms and pathogens (e.g., toxic algal blooms)),
EPA believes that the technology-based and water quality-based effluent limits in the permit
reduce the number of microbiological organisms in the ballast water tanks to be sufficiently
protective of water quality standards.
1 As discussed in the VGP fact sheet and elsewhere in this response to comments document, mid-ocean organisms
pose considerably less risk for successfully causing invasions of coastal or inland waters.
Commenter Name: Holley Horrell, Mills Legal Clinic on behalf of Northwest
Environmental Advocates
Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: Similarly, EPA erroneously relied on the commissioned NAS report in making its
determination that setting numeric WQBELs is infeasible. Given the history of this matter, it is
unsurprising that the NAS panel concluded that "a profound lack of data" exists,26 but that
conclusion does not absolve EPA from its legal obligations to establish WQBELs as necessary to
comply with water quality standards.27 That is, EPA cannot simply conclude that, based on the
unavailability of data to the NAS panel, "the lack of available data and information prevents a
precise quantification of the risk associated with ballast water discharges"28 and leave it at that.
In particular, EPA was required, but failed to consider relevant data in its analysis of whether
ballast discharges, even after the imposition of proposed TBELs, have the reasonable potential to
cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards. Logically and legally, EPA must
begin its reasonable-potential analysis by determining what water quality standards it intends to
meet.29 Under the plain language of its own regulations, moreover, EPA must consider states'
narrative criteria for water quality.30 As we pointed out to EPA in our comments on the previous
VGP,31 and as the NRDC/NWF Comments on the Draft VGP discuss, although state water
quality standards vary in many respects, they are more similar than they are different.
Specifically, they all do or should have in common the protection of existing uses under Tier I of
the antidegradation policy,32 and all states have designated uses of aquatic life in the waters into
which ballast water will be discharged. Most states have also implemented narrative biocriteria
for water quality standards, to protect against harm to waterbodies' resident biological
communities.33 While the specific individual species encompassed in aquatic life use
designations may differ, they are all sensitive to the encroachment of invasive species, and many
are listed as threatened or endangered. In light of the sensitivity of these uses to the
encroachment of invasive species, moreover, and since the introduction of even a few living
1150
-------
foreign organisms can create a reproducing, invasive population, the standard to protect these
designations should be zero.34
Moreover, EPA cannot treat all discharges from ships as the same when not only the receiving
water but the quality of the discharge may be different. The port of origin of the ballast water to
be discharged, for example, may have significant bearing on the impacts to water quality and
hence to compliance with standards.35 To the extent that EPA has no expectation whatsoever that
ship captains can make this analysis, it cannot then expect its narrative WQBEL to ensure that
discharges under the VGP do not cause or contribute to violations of standards. If that is true,
EPA has violated the most fundamental of requirements for issuing a permit, that the permit
issuer, not the discharger, "ensure compliance with the applicable water quality requirements of
the affected States."36
In its analysis for this Draft VGP, EPA failed to reasonably set water quality standards criteria.
First, although we agree with the Agency's ultimate determination that reasonable potential to
cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards exists,37 several of EPA's
statements in its discussion on this topic are troubling.
Specifically, EPA asserts that the proposed TBELs "are expected to be effective in reducing the
risk from untreated or exchanged ballast water discharges."38 Reducing risk, however, does not
equate to meeting the Clean Water Act's demand that a permit assures compliance with water
quality standards.39 EPA also states that treatment to the IMO discharge standard "will result in a
significant decrease" in the concentration of living organisms in ballast water discharge, citing
studies on the effect of treatment to the IMO standard on organisms greater than 50 |im.40 EPA
ignores, however, studies indicating that while the IMO standard may effectively treat those
larger organisms, it actually is less effective at treating smaller organisms than current status quo
treatment practices.41 To the extent that EPA nonetheless has determined that reasonable
potential exists, these statements may be harmless, but they are still inaccurate. Having
determined correctly, however, that reasonable potential exists, EPA proposes an inadequate
excuse for a narrative WQBEL without considering relevant state water quality standards.
Although the Agency set out in the Fact Sheet a "general narrative description of what would be
necessary to protect all applicable state WQS," EPA incorrectly asserts that no state water
quality standards "specifically address aquatic nuisance species."42 On the contrary, the State of
California has adopted stringent water-quality based standards specifically addressing ballast
water discharge.43 These standards "approach a protective zero discharge standard."44 EPA only
looked at California's Water Code45 and therefore ignored this important aspect of the problem.
Whether or not NAS considered that aspect of the problem, EPA's failure to consider and
evaluate it renders arbitrary and capricious the determination that it is infeasible to set water
i • • *46
quality criteria.
26 National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Assessing the Relationship Between Propagule
Pressure And Invasion Risk In Ballast Water 5 (2011) [hereinafter NAS Report].
27
Unfortunately, the NAS panel constituted a group of researchers who had vested interests in being funded to
undertake the research they concluded is necessary to better understand invasion risks from ballast water discharges.
For example, after the NAS panel identified a "profound lack of data and information" and called for additional
research, the Northeast-Midwest Institute, whose scientist served on the NAS panel, announced it had received over
$1 million over the next two years to study this issue with a group of academics and non-profits in the Great Lakes
1151
-------
region. See http://www.glpf.org/fundedproiects/characterizing-risk-release-relationship-aQuatic-mvasive-species-
great-lakes.
oo
Fact Sheet, Part 4.4.3.9.4.1, at 125 (emphasis in original).
29 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d).
30
40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1) ("Achieve water quality standards... including State narrative criteria for water
quality."); id. § 122.44(d)(l)(i) ("Limitations must control all pollutants... [that] are or may be discharged at a level
which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any State water quality
standard, including State narrative criteria for water quality."); id. § 122.44(d)(l)(ii) ("When determining whether a
discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an instream excursion above a narrative or
numeric criteria within a State water quality standard, the permitting authority shall use [certain specified]
procedures...").
31 Comment Letter from Nw. Envtl. Advocates, et al., on Docket ID No. EPA-F1Q-OW- 2008-0055 (VGP), to
EPA 16-20 (July 31, 2008). See attached.
32 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(i).
33 See, e.g., Or. Admin. R. 340-041-0011 (2011) ("Waters of the State must be of sufficient quality to support
aquatic species without detrimental changes in the resident biological communities."); EPA, States & Tribes -Adopt
Narrative Biological Criteria,
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aQlife/biocriteria/narrative.cfm (last visited Feb. 20,
2012). See attached.
34
See Anthony Ricciardi & Flugh J. Maclsaac, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Ballast Water Exchange Policy in the
Great Lakes, 18 ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS 1321, 1322 (2008).
35
See. e.g., Jeffery R. Cordell, et al., Factors influencing densities of non-indigenous species in the ballast water of
ships arriving in ports in Puget Sound, Washington, United States, 19 AQUATIC CONSERV.MAR. FRESHW.
ECOSYST. 322-343 (2009); Jeffery R. Cordell, et al., Asian copepods on the move: recent invasions in the
Columbia-Snake River system, USA, 65 ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE 753-758 (2008); David J.
Lawrence & Jeffery R. Cordell, Relative contributions of domestic and foreign sorced ballast water to propagule
pressure in Puget Sound, Washington, USA, 143 BIO. CONSERV. 700-709 (2010). These articles are attached.
36 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d).
37 Fact Sheet, Part 4.4.3.9, at 120.
38 Id., Part 4.4.3.9.2, at 122.
39 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(2); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(l)(vii)(A).
40 Fact Sheet, Part 4.4.3.9.2, at 122.
41
Allen Pleus, Wash. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, Comparison of Ballast Water Standards: Number of Introduced
Organisms (May 6, 2008). See attached.
42Fact Sheet, Part 4.4.3.9.1, at 121.
43
California State Lands Commission, Report on Performance Standards for Ballast WaterDischarges in California
Waters (2006), available at
http://www.slc.ca.gov/spec_pub/mfd/ballast_water/Documents/CSLCPerformanceStndRpt_2006.pdf. See attached.
44
Id. at 37.
45 Fact Sheet, Part 4.4.3.9.1, at 122.
46 EPA also cites various scientific studies to support its expectation - not finding - that TBELs "may be protective
of water quality standards." Fact Sheet, Part 4.4.3.9.1, at 124. Although this expectation falls short of an actual
finding, and EPA did find to the contrary that there was reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards, id.,
Part 4.4.3.9.3, at 124-25, we emphasize that EPA has articulated no rational basis for its logical leap that TBELs
"may" meet quality standards. The Agency fails to explain how even if the proposed TBELs reduced the
concentration of organisms in ballast water discharge, and even if it reduced those concentration levels significantly,
that those concentrations would protect our waters' designated uses. EPA has not and cannot rationally explain that
logical leap because it has failed, as discussed above, to set the criteria for water quality standards. And since EPA is
unable to support its conclusion, its "expectation" is arbitrary and capricious. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs., 463 U.S. at
43.
Response: EPA agrees with commenter that the NAS's conclusions do "not absolve EPA from
its legal obligations to establish WQBELs as necessary to comply with water quality standards."
1152
-------
EPA established narrative WQBELs for ballast water discharges based upon an evaluation that
was focused on protection of designated uses, narrative criteria, and relevant anti-degradation
and general policies of applicable state WQS. See VGP fact sheet section 4.4.3.9.1 for a
discussion of this evaluation, and response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1,
excerpts 7 and 14, which explain EPA's determination that the narrative WQBELs for ballast
water discharges in today's VGP are appropriate and consistent with the CWA. EPA does not
believe the "standards to protect [water quality] designations should be zero." Please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1, excerpt 4, and EPA notes that it does
not "set water quality standards criteria" in NPDES permits like today's VGP.
Contrary to commenter's assertion, EPA did "consider relevant data in its analysis of whether
ballast discharges, even after the imposition of proposed TBELs, have the reasonable potential
to cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards," and concluded that
reasonable potential exists. In reaching the conclusion that "EPA expects that compliance with
the permit's numeric effluent limitations will likely result in discharges that are controlled as
necessary to achieve applicable water quality standards," EPA stated that "[nonetheless, EPA
also finds that the variety of other factors that influence invasion outcome should not be
completely ignored, and therefore, even at the IMO level of discharge, reasonable potential
exists for such discharges to cause o contribute to violations of applicable water quality
standards pursuant to 122.44(d)(1)(ii). Because the reductions in concentrations of living
organisms in ballast water achieved by technology meeting the IMO standard are generally
superior to that which would be achieved by the application of BMPs either during the time
prior to imposition of that limit, or for vessels not subject to the limit, EPA concludes that there
is reasonable potential for discharges subject to those limits as well." EPA agrees that simply
reducing risk alone does not per se equate to meeting the Clean Water Act's demand that a
permit assures compliance with water quality standards, and EPA's effluent limitations in
today's permit are not based on such a conclusion. Instead, it is the significant extent of the risk
reduction offered by the TBELs along with the water-quality-based Great Lakes BMP and the
"safety net" of the narrative WQBEL that EPA bases its conclusion that the permit ensures that
water quality standards will be met. EPA did "logically and legally.. .begin its reasonable
potential analysis by determining what water quality standards it intends to meet."As noted in
the response to comments referred to above, EPA observed that no states have established
numeric water quality standards for living organisms (or ANS), and EPA therefore focused its
evaluation on states' narrative criteria for water quality. EPA agrees with commenter that
"although state water quality standards vary in many respects, they are more similar than they
are different." See VGP fact sheet section 4.4.3.9.1, where EPA states that "While state WQS
do not specifically address ANS, many narrative criteria and anti-degradation and general
policies of applicable state water quality standards do seek to prevent the types of degradation
that is associated with the introduction of ANS into receiving waters," and provides specific
examples of various state narrative standards. See also Fact Sheet 4.4.3.9.3, f.n.38.
EPA does not "treat all discharges from ships as the same when not only the receiving water but
the quality of the discharge may be different." For example, the additional narrative WQBELs
for ballast water discharges into the Great Lakes, known as "exchange plus treatment,"
specifically take into account the "quality of the discharge," including "the port of origin of the
ballast water to be discharged," and the "impacts to water quality" of the Great Lakes, as
1153
-------
commenter suggests.
EPA notes that it "looked at California's Water Code" because it contains the components of
the state's CWA § 303(c) water quality standards that have been approved by EPA. The
"stringent water-quality based standards specifically addressing ballast water discharge" from
the California State Lands Commission Report that the commenter cites are not based upon the
state's CWA water quality standards, but instead, are based upon the state's Marine Invasive
Species Act, which has not been submitted by the state or approved by EPA as state water
quality standards.
For discussion about why the "no detectable living organism standard" proposed by California
is actually no more stringent than the IMO standard at this time, see section 4.4.3.5.1 of the
VGP Fact Sheet, specifically, "EPA's Consideration of Conclusions Found in the California
State Lands Commission Ballast Water Treatment Report." With respect to discussion of the
California report and standards, please see section 9.1.1 and 9.1.9 of this comment response
document.
The commenter cites to "studies indicating that while the IMO standard may effectively treat
those larger organisms, it actually is less effective at treating smaller organisms [in the 10 to 50
um size class] than current status quo treatment practices." EPA believes that the commenter
errs in making this statement and notes that the methodology used in the "Comparison of
Ballast Water Standards: Number of Introduced Organisms" dated May 2008 that commenter
refers to is flawed because, as an initial matter, it ignores that ballast water exchange has a
greater variability than merely reducing organism concentration by 95% (which is the
underlying assumption used in the analysis cited to by the commenter). As discussed in the fact
sheet for today's permit, and in numerous publications cited in today's fact sheet, that
variability ranges significantly (ballast water exchange variability can range from 88 to 99%
(NAS, 2011)), and depends upon a number of factors. In addition, exchange cannot be
conducted in all circumstances due to vessel route or vessel safety concerns. Hence, estimating
that 200 billion organisms are discharged after exchange is an assumption-based calculation and
is not representative of the maximum, median, average, or minimum values of organisms
discharged after exchange. While that is one possible value of organisms discharged after
exchange, the actual number could be much higher or lower dependent on whether the vessel
took on ballast water in freshwater or saltwater, the type of exchange conducted, when
exchange was conducted, the organisms in the tank during exchange, the length of the vessel
voyage, where exchange was conducted, and whether exchange was even conducted at all due
to safety or voyage pattern reasons.
In contrast, the number used to calculate the number of organisms discharged meeting the IMO
limit is based on the maximum value of organisms that could be discharged in a milliliter of
water. The discharge limit for the 10-50 um size class in today's VGP is an instantaneous
maximum, and therefore, the value the "Comparison" generates is clearly an overestimate. It is
statistically impossible that the maximum value of organisms would be discharged for every
milliliter of water and still be in compliance with the permit's limits. Assuming the number of
organisms being discharged are distributed in a Poisson distribution, if the instantaneous
maximum limit would be met 99% of the time, the average number of organisms would be far
1154
-------
lower than 10. If one assumes that the average was 6, the estimate drops to 240 billion
organisms if the entire tank were discharged. Furthermore, EPA notes that this limit is the
maximum limit, and that some systems may be more effective than treating just to the limit. If
some systems are more effective than merely treating right to the limit, then the number of
organisms would be reduced.
In summary, EPA believes that the "Comparison" to which commenter refers is not a valid one
scientifically, and that the numbers of living organisms discharged by ballast water, even in the
10 to 50 micrometer size class, will be substantially reduced on average after vessels meet
treatment limits. EPA further notes that this conclusion is supported by the NRC, which as
discussed in this section and the VGP fact sheet, unequivocally stated that as "a logical first
step, a benchmark discharge standard should be established that clearly reduces concentrations
of coastal organisms below current levels resulting from ballast water exchange (such as the
IMO D-2 standard). This will serve to reduce the likelihood of invasion in coastal ecosystems
beyond that of the present time." (NRC 2011).
EPA disagrees that it "has articulated no rational basis for its logical leap that [numeric]TBELs
'may' meet [water] quality standards." EPA's conclusion that the permit's TBELs for ballast
water discharges, particularly requiring treatment to the IMO standard, "will likely result in
discharges that result in a very small absolute risk of invasion and thus are controlled as
necessary to achieve applicable water quality standards" (Fact Sheet 4.4.3.9.3) and its finding
that nonetheless, reasonable potential does exist were informed by both the findings of the NAS
and other expert sources. EPA's charge to the NRC included the question: "Recommend how
these approaches can be used by regulatory agencies to best inform risk management decisions
on the allowable concentrations of living organisms in discharged ballast water in order to
safeguard against the establishment of new aquatic non-indigenous species and to protect and
preserve existing indigenous populations of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and other beneficial uses
of the nation's waters." EPA developed NRC charge question #2 as a general narrative
description of what would be necessary to protect all applicable state WQS. In response to this
question, the NRC concluded "[i]t is abundantly clear that reducing propagule pressure (i.e., the
quality, quantity, and frequency with which living organisms are introduced into a given
location) will reduce the probability of invasions, when controlling for all other variables,"
noting that "[t]here is both strong theoretical and empirical support for this, across a diverse
range of habitats, geographic regions, and types of organisms." (NRC, 122). EPA concurs with
the NRC study that such limitations will result in significant reductions in concentrations of
living organisms beyond current management practices (i.e., ballast water exchange and the
other management practices described in the permit). Due to its much more consistent and
effective reduction in propagule pressure, treatment to meet the numeric discharge limitations
for ballast water in the proposed permit is expected to be effective in reducing the risk from
untreated or exchanged ballast water discharges, and it is this reduction in risk that led EPA to
conclude that the TBEL will likely be protective of water quality standards. On this basis, EPA
determined that a reduction in propagule pressure would decrease the risk of aquatic nuisance
species introductions, and that such a risk reduction would protect state water quality standards.
Specifically, EPA noted that although the language of states' water quality standards do not
specifically address aquatic nuisance species, protection of designated uses requires
safeguarding against aquatic nuisance species introductions, as ANS are commonly associated
1155
-------
with impairment of all of the various designated uses in state water quality standards, including
industrial uses, public health and welfare uses, and aquatic and wildlife uses. See section
4.4.3.9.1 of the VGP fact sheet. The numeric TBEL in today's permit substantially reduces
propagule pressure, which in turn will reduce the likelihood of invasions. See Fact Sheet
4.4.3.9.2 for a discussion of EPA's examination of the effectiveness of the numeric TBEL in
reducing propagule pressure, which is based on a suite of studies (in the record for today's
permit) that examined the numeric concentration-based limits finalized in today's permit; those
studies indicate the reduction in risk associated with reduced inoculum density in ballast water
discharges (which is achieved by meeting the numeric TBEL in today's permit). In addition,
invasions don't happen simply as a result of the introduction of species - there are several other
factors (healthy living organisms, organisms suited to the environment into which it is being
discharged , etc.) that must align to allow for an invasion; see page 55 of NAS 2011 for further
discussion. Thus, EPA reasonably concluded that the numeric TBEL will likely be protective of
water quality standards, including designated uses.
Nonetheless, EPA still found that reasonable potential exists after the imposition of the permit's
TBELs because it found that even with the reduction in propagule pressure and other relevant
facts based on the TBELs , there remains some, albeit very likely small, risk of invasion.
EPA acknowledges that the researchers on the NAS panel had significant research experience,
ongoing research projects, and expertise in the areas directly relevant to the charge. As world
renowned experts on the topic, they might also receive future research funding on the areas in
their expertise. However, EPA does not believe that the panel consisted of these experts who
might conduct work based upon these recommendations in any way undermines the validity of
the recommendations. If the NAS were to have put scientists on the panel who were not likely
to conduct research on the topic in the future, it is reasonable to assume that the scientific
product would not be based on the advice of many of the most well regarded experts in the
world on the topic.
Commenter Name: Holley Horrell, Mills Legal Clinic on behalf of Northwest
Environmental Advocates
Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Environmental Advocates
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0576-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Late Comment? No
Comment: C. EPA's "Narrative WOBEL" is flawed.
Even assuming that EPA can support its decision not to establish numeric WQBELs, the Agency
must still set meaningful narrative WQBELs, not the cursory and inadequate "narrative
WQBEL" it proposes in this Draft VGP.62 EPA is required to ensure that its general permit
contains limitations to control any pollutants that may present a risk of causing or contributing to
violations of water quality standards.63 Further, it must specially take into account "existing
controls on point and nonpoint sources," the "variability of the pollutant," and dilution in the
receiving water.64 Finally, once EPA has made a determination of reasonable potential and
established appropriate limits, EPA is required to ensure that WQBELs are derived from and
1156
-------
comply with all applicable water quality standards and that they are consistent with the
assumptions and requirements of any available wasteload allocation for the discharge.65 Here,
EPA has not explained how its reasonable potential analysis can be the same for ships that will
be required to install treatment technology during the term of the permit and those that will not
be required to have installed technology even after the permit's expiration. EPA has also made
no finding that its blanket WQBEL, for which it provides permittees with no indications on how
it is to be interpreted and applied,66 is in any way derived from and compliant with state water
quality standards. Indeed, as noted above, EPA failed to consider California's standards for
ballast water, specifically how California was able to establish treatment standards intended to
protect beneficial uses, a task EPA does not even attempt.67 Nor has EPA ensured that the
discharges allowed under the permit will meet any wasteload allocations set under total
maximum daily loads for invasive species or other pollutants contained in ballast
water discharges.
Moreover, the Clean Water Act requires EPA to define narrative WQBELs with enough
specificity to ensure compliance. Clean Water Act regulations provide that EPA may not issue a
permit when "the conditions of the permit do not provide for compliance with the applicable
requirements of [the] CWA, or regulations promulgated under [the] CWA."68 EPA also may not
issue a permit "[w]hen the imposition of conditions cannot ensure compliance with the
applicable water quality requirements of all the affected States."69 Thus, under its own
regulations, EPA may not issue permits if it has no basis for a belief that the permit terms and
limitations will ensure that the discharges will not cause or contribute to violations of standards.
For the Draft VGP, EPA's sole assurance that discharges covered under the permit will, in fact,
not cause or contribute to the violations of water quality standards is its single narrative
WQBEL. But not only has the Agency not evaluated whether there is reasonable potential for
these violations to occur, EPA also has not provided a shred of evidence that the dischargers
covered under the permit will have the capacity to determine what precisely that WQBEL means.
We would certainly agree that the boilerplate statement that discharges must not violate water
quality standards is a useful addition to any NPDES permit.70 The inclusion of this kind of
boilerplate, however, can never stand as a defense by a permitting agency that it need not comply
with the implementing regulations' requirements. As the NRDC/NWF Comments explain,
EPA's boilerplate statement lacks sufficient specificity to enable compliance with the WQBELs
to be verifiable.71 EPA could provide greater specificity by conducting further analysis. First, it
could - and as explained above, it must - set criteria for what it means in the context of
discharging invasive species to cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards.
Second, in conformance with its own implementing regulations, it could evaluate whether
discharges of invasive species into different categories of waters72 have the reasonable potential
to cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards. But it has not even attempted these
steps, which would provide clarity to permittees. It is unreasonable and implausible for EPA to
expect individual permittees or ship captains to conduct this analysis, which would be necessary
to determine if the ship's discharges have exceeded "applicable water quality standards." An
agency's determination, if implausible and unsupported by evidence in the record, is arbitrary
and capricious. To the extent that EPA's so-called narrative WQBEL relies on an implausible
assumption that ship captains can individually devine how to "meet applicable water quality
standards, the WQBEL cannot stand. Finally, EPA has required no monitoring and reporting to
1157
-------
assess compliance with the WQBEL. With no ability to assess compliance, EPA cannot ensure
compliance.
Without more specificity in its narrative WQBEL and meaningful monitoring and reporting
requirements, EPA cannot ensure compliance with water quality standards. In sum, its single
narrative WQBEL utterly fails to satisfy the Clean Water Act's mandate.
62 See also NRDC Comment, Section VI.
63 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1).
64 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(ii).
65 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(vii)(A) and (B).
66 EPA's so-called narrative WQBEL is mere boilerplate: "Your discharge must be controlled as necessary to meet
applicable water quality standards in the receiving waterbody or another waterbody impacted by your discharges."
Draft VGP, Part 2.3.1, at 54. The Draft VGP further instructs that if a permittee "become[s] aware" or EPA
"determines" that the vessel's discharges have exceeded water quality standards, the permittee must take corrective
actions as required under Part 3 of the Draft VGP. Id. These two cursory sentences are EPA's sole "limitation"
related to water quality standards.
California State Lands Commission, Report on Performance Standards for Ballast Water Discharges in
California Waters (2006).
68 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(a) (emphasis added).
69 Id. § 122.4(d).
70 See Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. City of Portland, 56 F.3d 979, 988-90 (9th Cir. 1995).
71
40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(l)(vii)(A) (requiring permitting authorities to "ensure" that WQBELs achieve a level of
water quality that "complies with all applicable water quality standards"); Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 111
(1992) ("[U]nless there is some method for measuring compliance, there is no way to ensure compliance.").
72
These categories include: waters that have been deemed water quality-limited by invasive species; waters that
may be impaired by invasive species but have not been placed on a state's 303(d) list of impaired waters; waters
with threatened and endangered native species; and waters that are not impaired by invasive species. See, e.g., 40
C.F.R. § 122.4(i); 131.12(a)(i).
Response: EPA notes that there are no total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for numbers of
living organisms or invasive species contained in ballast water discharges, nor did the
commenter cite to any such TMDLs. EPA has ensured that ballast water discharges will meet
any wasteload allocations set under TMDLs for other pollutants contained in ballast water
discharges. The final permit provides that, where necessary, owner/operators are required to
employ additional controls to be consistent with applicable WLAs in an approved or established
TMDL or to comply with a State or Tribe's antidegradation policies. See Part 2.3.2 of today's
VGP, which outlines the requirements for discharges into water quality impaired waters.
EPA disagrees that the narrative WQBELs applicable to ballast water discharges are "cursory
and inadequate," and notes it did establish those limits pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1), to
which commenter refers. Furthermore, EPA did explain how the narrative WQBELs are
"derived from and compliant with state water quality standards." EPA did first assess "existing
controls," such as ballast water exchange, in making its determination that reasonable potential
exists. See section 4.4.3.9.3 for EPA's reasonable potential determination for ballast water
discharges. Contrary to commenter's statement, EPA did differentiate between ships that would
be required to install technology during the term of the permit and those that would not be
required to do so in making a determination that reasonable potential exists. EPA clearly
1158
-------
explained its rationale for concluding that ballast water discharges have reasonable potential to
cause or contribute to a water quality standards exceedance after imposition of the TBELs
imposed by today's permit, which includes existing controls such as ballast water exchange and
imposition of numeric limits (the IMO standard after installation of treatment technology). EPA
then determined that it was infeasible to calculate numeric limits, based on the NAS study
results and consistent with the CWA and implementing regulations.
EPA disagrees with commenter's characterization of the narrative WQBEL as providing the
"sole assurance" that water quality standards will be met under today's permit. As discussed
elsewhere, EPA believes that the TBELs and other BMP-based WQBELs in the permit combine
to result in a reasonable likelihood that water quality standards will be met. However, it is
simply the reality of the situation that with (1) the extremely large number of vessels subject to
the permit, each of them engaging in their own voyage and discharge patterns, (2) the variety of
factors dependent on ship, waterbody, and species specific characteristics that can influence
invasion potential after the great reduction in propagule pressure that results from application of
the permit's requirements2; and (3) the fact that there is no way at this time to assess
numerically the number of living organisms that can be discharged without risk of invasion, that
EPA cannot rule out rare vessel-specific circumstances where water quality might be
compromised by specific discharges. It is that residual risk that the narrative WQBEL is
primarily meant to address. (Contrary to the suggestion of commenters, EPA is not asking
mariners to derive the numeric WQBELs that EPA, as the expert Agency, is unable itself to
derive.)
In that light, EPA believes it is reasonable (and unavoidable) that the standard generally
requires that discharges be controlled as necessary to achieve standards. EPA does not view this
as a meaningless standard, as this and other commenters assert, but if it becomes necessary, a
very useful one in individual circumstances, such as in situations where EPA or the shipping
community becomes aware of unusual risks posed by a particular voyage pattern. For example,
if the vessel community or EPA became aware that a certain port were a known source of an
unusually virulent pathogen capable of transport via ballast water tanks, vessel owner/operators
would be expected to take any necessary action to protect against the discharge of that pathogen
in waters of the United States. Under the permit, how that would be achieved (e.g., not uptaking
ballast water in the foreign port in question, not discharging ballast water in U.S. ports if ballast
water was taken up in that port, etc.) would typically be left to the owner/operator (the person
usually in the best position to know the specifics of the situation), although EPA could, in
appropriate circumstances, issue advisories to the shipping community and/or invoke the
provision of the VGP allowing imposition of additional water quality-based limits on a site-
specific basis.
In addition, while exceedingly unlikely, if great advances in invasion risk science and
technology development occur during the term of today's permit, such that it became clear that
treatment technologies exist that clearly reduce the risk of invasion to levels necessary to
protect water quality standards, the narrative standard could, as appropriate, be used in the aid
of ensuring those standards are met. Finally, commenters assert that the narrative WQBEL is
patently unenforceable. EPA disagrees. Certainly, numeric standards are typically easier to
enforce than narrative ones, but Agencies impose narrative standards in all sorts of context. The
1159
-------
commenter offers no explanation as to why this particular narrative standard would be per se
unenforceable, and EPA has no reason to believe it will be. Also, in the pathogen example
discussed above, EPA can envision a scenario in which a ship ignores the known (and unusual)
invasion risk in a foreign port and subsequently causes a pathogen outbreak in a US port that
compromises, for example, designated uses. EPA sees no reason why it could not enforce
against the ship owner in such circumstances.
2
As discussed by Lee et al. (2010), "the successful introduction of any specific species is a rare event." These
events are rare when ballast water is unregulated and unmanaged; the likelihood will decrease significantly when
ballast water treatment and other permit requirements are applied. As discussed in Part 4.4.3.9.2 of the VGP fact
sheet, the reduction in the inoculum density (i.e., number of living organisms discharged) after ballast water
treatment is substantial, in some cases being as high as a 99.994% reduction (the percentage that the discharge
concentration would be reduced from mean values found in ballast water tanks presented in David et al. (2007) if
ballast water were discharged at the maximum allowable concentration found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP. The
reduction after exchange is also significant, although as discussed extensively in the record for today's permit, not
as great as that achieved through treatment). The reduction after exchange is also significant, although as discussed
elsewhere, not as great as that achieved through treatment. As discussed by the NAS (2011), any reduction in
inoculum density (and therefore propagule pressure) reduces the likelihood of successful invasion: e.g., . .it is
thought lowering the total concentration of organisms in ballast water is critical to reducing the risk of a successful
invasion" (NAS 2011, page 27); "It is abundantly clear that significantly reducing propagule pressure will reduce
the probability of invasions, when controlling for all other variables." (NAS 2011; page 4). Hence, with imposition
of the numeric ballast water treatment limits and other technology-based limits, strengthened by the narrative
WQBELs in both Parts 2.2.3.7 of the permit, EPA has reduced the likelihood of a successful ballast water mediated
introduction such that it is likely at most an extremely "rare event".
10.1.2 Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment
Response Essay:
Many commenters commented on EPA's proposal to require ballast water exchange plus ballast
water treatment ("ballast water exchange plus treatment") for certain vessels entering the Great
Lakes. EPA's proposed VGP included the requirement that certain vessels entering the Great
Lakes using ballast water treatment systems would be required to conduct BWE or saltwater
flushing (as applicable) in addition to treating their ballast water. Under the proposed VGP,
vessels subject to this requirement are those that:
• Operate outside the EEZ and more than 200 nm from any shore and then enter the Great
Lakes via the St. Lawrence Seaway System; and
• Have taken on ballast water that has a salinity of less than 18 parts per thousand (ppt)
from a coastal, estuarine, or freshwater ecosystem within the previous month.
After consideration of comments submitted, EPA has finalized this requirement in today's
permit as proposed. The purpose of this additional requirement is to add another measure of
protection against invasive species when freshwater or brackish water has been recently or is
being transported via ballast tanks of ships entering the Great Lakes. The use of BWE or
saltwater flushing reduces the biological compatibility of source and recipient waters, subjects
low-salinity organisms to osmotic (salinity) shock, and physically flushes a significant
percentage of the coastal organisms from the ballast water tanks. Please see Part 4.4.3.9 of the
VGP fact sheet for additional discussion on why EPA included this water quality-based effluent
1160
-------
limit (WQBEL). EPA solicited comments on the ballast water exchange plus treatment
requirement for vessels entering the Great Lakes from freshwater and brackish ecosystems.
EPA also solicited comments on whether BWE should be required for all vessels entering the
Great Lakes that are subject to the numeric technology-based effluent limitation (TBEL),
regardless of origin, whether this requirement should be considered for other freshwater
destinations in U.S. waters, and/or whether this requirement should be considered for other
destinations in U.S. waters, regardless of the ports where those vessels took on ballast water.
This essay is responsive to comments on those questions as well as other comments on this
provision.
Numerous commenters, including Natural Resources Defense Council, the Government of
Canada, the Alliance for the Great Lakes et al., the States of New York, Michigan, Minnesota,
and Wisconsin, FEDNAV, the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, Izaak Walkton League
of America, the American Great Lakes Ports Association, the Citizens Campaign for the
Environment, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, and the Great Lakes
Commission, generally expressed support for the ballast water exchange plus treatment
requirement for vessels entering the Great Lakes. A few commenters, including the State of
Oregon and some environmental groups, supported expanding the requirement to make it
applicable nationally. Other commenters, including the World Shipping Council, the Cruise
lines International Association, the Shipping Federation of Canada, Maersk Line North
America, the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, Hornbeck Offshore Operators, and the
Chamber of Shipping of America, generally opposed the requirement in either the Great Lakes
or opposed any expansion of the requirement beyond the Great Lakes.
The commenters raised several issues, with the most notable being (expressed from
commenters' perspective):
• There is no or limited science to support the exchange plus treatment requirement (EPA
interprets these comments as there is limited to no science to support these requirements
as a WQBEL),
• There may be practicability concerns associated with exchange plus treatment, including
safety concerns,
• Exchange plus treatment would cause additional burden,
• Even if EPA were to finalize the requirement for the Great Lakes, expanding it
nationally is not appropriate,
• EPA should expand the requirement nationally,
• EPA should require exchange plus treatment for coastal vessels (i.e., Atlantic nearshore
voyages),
• Exchange plus treatment requirements are appropriate, but should be a technology based
effluent limit and not a water quality based effluent limit,
• Additional research exploring exchange plus treatment is ongoing, and the effectiveness
of this measure is not proven.
Some commenters argued that there is no scientific basis for requiring ballast water exchange
plus treatment for vessels entering the Great Lakes. EPA disagrees. EPA is requiring the ballast
water exchange plus treatment requirement for certain vessels entering the Great Lakes as a
narrative WQBEL or best management practice (BMP). During the 2006-2007 shipping season,
approximately 381,930 metric tons (cubic meters) of ballast water (approximately 100,895,000
1161
-------
gallons) was discharged into the Great Lakes from vessels whose original source of ballast
water came from outside the Great Lakes (US EPA, 2008). While there is considerable
uncertainty when it comes to quantifying invasion risk (NAS 2011), it is also quite clear that the
lower the propagule pressure, the lower the risk (NAS 2011). EPA limited the exchange plus
treatment requirement to focus on vessels whose voyage patterns are more likely to result in
ballast water discharges which may pose a higher risk of invasion (i.e., those vessels that have
recently taken on ballast from freshwater or brackish water bodies). Because of the current
uncertainty with quantifying the invasion risk associated with the IMO standard and the unique
vulnerabilities of the Great Lakes ecosystem as a large system of freshwater lakes that receives
significant quantities of ballast water discharges from other freshwater or brackish waters, EPA
is requiring exchange plus treatment as a way to enhance protection for these water bodies and
to ensure that ballast water discharges in the Great Lakes meet applicable water quality
standards, including designated uses. See Part 4.4.3.9 of the VGP fact sheet for discussion
regarding how EPA considered water quality standards for establishment of today's ballast
water WQBEL. EPA views the exchange plus treatment requirement as a way to further reduce
the risk from vessels whose voyage patterns pose high risks and of potentially high risk
organisms entering the Great Lakes. For additional discussion of WQBEL and their use in this
permit, please see Part 4.4.3.9 of the VGP fact sheet and sections 10, 10.1, and 10.1.1 of this
comment response document.
EPA believes that there is strong scientific basis to support the exchange plus treatment
requirement for the large, lentic waters of the Great Lakes. Researchers have found that ballast
water exchange results in significant mortality of living organisms in ballast water tanks,
particularly freshwater organisms (Briski et al, 2010; Bailey et al, 2011). After the
implementation of the BWE ballast water management regulations in 2006, these scientists
collected samples of sediment and water from both ballasted and NOBOB vessels entering the
Great Lakes. They compared results before and after implementation of mandatory BWE
(1993) and NOBOB flushing (2006) regulations. They found that numerous organisms are
significantly reduced by the high salinity water (defined as greater than 30 parts per thousand)
and by the actual flushing that occurs as a result of BWE. The treatment effect was particularly
pronounced for freshwater organisms. The scientists found that ballast tanks on NOBOB
vessels had more than a ten-fold decrease in invertebrate numbers following saltwater flushing
as compared to NOBOB vessels that did not perform saltwater flushing. Freshwater
invertebrates were also significantly reduced as a result of BWE when compared to vessels
which did not conduct BWE.
Several commenters pointed to research by scientists conducting experiments that looked at
large scale simulations of the impacts of exchange plus treatment. The research discussed by
commenters was a series of experiments designed to confirm that combining ballast water
treatment and BWE will lower the number of living organisms contained in ballast tanks. Large
scale experimental trials were conducted in 2010 at the Northeast-Midwest Institute's Great
Ships Initiative Land-Based Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation facility in Duluth-
Superior Harbor on Lake Superior. The experimental trials compared the biological efficacy of
ballast water exchange plus treatment against ballast water treatment alone. The researchers
simulated exchange by dosing some tanks with salt, bringing the salinity up to greater than 30
ppt. Hence, the experiment was only looking at the osmotic shock associated with the exchange
1162
-------
and was not examining the effects from dilution. The results of these trials showed that even
though ballast water treatment alone significantly reduced the abundance of all tested organism
groups, with the exception of total heterotrophic bacteria, combined exchange plus treatment
resulted in significantly lower abundances of most organism groups when compared to ballast
water treatment alone (Briski et al, 2013). For organisms larger than 50 um, the researchers
(Briski et al. (2013)) found that there was a 98.61 percent reduction in living organism density
when utilizing a ballast water treatment system alone, but that there was a 99.99 percent
reduction in living organism density when using ballast water exchange plus treatment. For
organisms between 10 and 50 um, there was a 91.69% reduction in living organism
concentration using a ballast water treatment system alone, but a 99.38% reduction when ballast
water exchange plus a treatment system were utilized. As discussed by NAS (2011), all things
being equal, a reduction in the concentration of living organisms that are discharged from
ballast water tanks would reduce propagule pressure. Hence, these studies confirm EPA's
conclusion at proposal that the exchange plus treatment requirement would most likely reduce
propagule pressure from discharged ballast water, and therefore, would further reduce the risk
of new invasions entering the Great Lakes.
Though the work is ongoing and results are not yet published, on May 16, 2012, Dr. Hugh
Maclssac discussed preliminary findings on a shipboard trial examining exchanged water
versus water exchanged and treated with chlorine in one of 12 meetings of a Canadian
Parliament's Fisheries and Oceans committee study titled: "Invasive Species that Pose A Threat
to the Great Lakes System." Dr. Maclsaac explained that they sampled multiple ballast water
tanks from the same vessel on the same voyage, two of which were chlorinated, three of which
had ballast water exchange, and three of which had ballast water exchange and chlorination. Dr.
Maclsaac reported that the preliminary results indicated that "the lowest abundances of
organisms are always in tanks that have both ballast water exchange and chlorination." These
results, though preliminary, lend further support to the strong theoretical basis for requiring
exchange plus treatment and the experimental results from the Briski et al. (2013) study.
In discussing a similar proposal brought to the IMO by the Canadian government to require
ballast water exchange plus treatment for vessels entering the Great Lakes from outside the
Exclusive Economic Zone, notable ballast water researcher David Reid (2012) stated: "There is
ample scientific evidence to support the conceptual principles presented in the Canadian BWE
+ Treatment proposal.". In section 10.1.2 of this comment response document, the Canadian
government concludes that "the combination approach [of exchange plus treatment] is expected
to provide significantly better environmental protection by decreasing both the probability that
non-native organisms will arrive, as well as the possibility that they will survive after
discharge." As discussed in § 4.4.3.9.4.2 of the fact sheet for today's permit, ballast water
exchange works via two mechanisms - osmotic shock for freshwater and some estuarine
species and flushing (i.e., physically flushing out the coastal organisms mid ocean while filling
the tanks with mid-ocean water; water which contains fewer organisms and organisms far less
likely to become aquatic nuisance species (ANS)). EPA has required exchange plus treatment to
ensure compliance with the water quality standards of the unique ecosystems of the Great Lakes
primarily due to the expected benefits delivered by osmotic shock. Reid (2012) discusses the
extensive studies examining the role of osmotic shock in ballast water exchange and the science
that proves it to be highly effective in the context of lowering risk for ballast water discharges
1163
-------
entering the Great Lakes. In imposing this requirement today, EPA was influenced greatly by
Reid's full analysis, discussing existing science that examines osmotic shock, included in the
docket for today's permit issuance.
Salinity shock resulting from BWE is an important control option for ANS, although it is not a
100% reliable barrier to all potential freshwater ANS that could be introduced into the Great
Lakes (Reid, 2012). Reid further observes that "freshwater stenohaline organisms subjected to
sudden salinity increase, such as mid-ocean BWE or tank flushing, would experience significant
osmotic stress and likely high mortality" and that "Estuarine organisms may be better equipped
to survive BWE because of osmoregulatory abilities, but most estuarine organisms are
stenohaline (Morrissey and Sumich, 2012) and not likely to survive across the full range of
salinity." Stenohaline estuarine organisms adapted to the lower salinity range would suffer
osmotic shock after BWE, whereas estuarine organisms adapted to the upper salinity range in
estuaries would suffer osmotic shock after discharge into the Great Lakes. Reid (2012) also
states that "estuarine organisms that are strongly euryhaline, such as Thalassiosira pseudonana
and Eurytemora affinis (USGS, 2012) could continue to pose a risk to the Great Lakes even
with BWE." The studies do conclude that, with strict enforcement, the most recent
comprehensive Great Lakes' ballast water management program (Government of Canada, 2006
and SLSDC, 2008) has markedly reduced the risk of ship-mediated aquatic ANS introductions.
As discussed below, this reduced risk has potentially translated to a reduced discovery rate (and
hence, invasions) of new invasive species in the Great Lakes. Nonetheless, even exchanged
ballast water can still contain some living organisms having the possibility of invading the
Great Lakes (Reid 2012).
The effectiveness of BWE and saltwater flushing of NOBOB vessels for protecting the Great
Lakes from additional invasions by ANS is further evident when comparing the current rates of
invasions with those prior to development of the current BWE and/or seawater flushing
regulations. According to Reid (2012) (discussing Bailey 2011) the annualized discovery rate of
new ANS in the Great Lakes as a result of shipping increased in the mid-1980s but then rapidly
decreased starting in the mid-to-late 1990s, which corresponded with U.S. implementation of
mandatory BWE. In addition, there have not been new documented ballast-associated ANS
introduced since 2006 when the Ballast Water Working Group (BWWG) was created to enforce
ballast water management rules for the Great Lakes (Reid 2012). The invasion rates of ANS
into the Great Lakes, determined by Bailey (2011), indicate that the policy changes in 2006 that
required NOBOB vessels to conduct seawater flushing may have been an important step in
preventing further invasions. As discussed in Reid (2012) and the fact sheet for today's permit,
EPA notes that due to lag effects, among other things, this does not mean that there have been
no new successful introductions of invasive species during this period. However, EPA takes this
to be a promising sign that the rate of invasion has, at minimum, substantially slowed with the
successful Canadian and St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation's initiatives
mandating exchange and flushing for all vessels entering the Great Lakes.
Unfortunately, the current understanding of how large an inoculation must be to achieve a
successful invasion remains coarse (Miller et al, 2011; NAS 2011); therefore, as discussed in
the reasonable potential analysis for today's permit (Fact Sheet section 4.4.3.9.3), it is unknown
whether the IMP D-2 standards alone are sufficient to prevent new invasions from occurring in
1164
-------
the Great Lakes. Though EPA believes that the use of ballast water treatment systems is
generally far preferable to the use of exchange or flushing as a management practice, utilization
of a ballast water treatment system alone for ballast water being hauled and discharged into the
Great Lakes to achieve the IMO D-2 standard (i.e., without BWE or saltwater flushing) would
no longer include an environmental salinity barrier. As discussed above, this barrier has been
shown to be effective in substantially reducing the risk of freshwater ANS from entering the
Great Lakes. Although the result of treatment without exchange is a significant reduction in the
number of living organisms, the remaining living organisms in a ship's ballast water discharge
coming from a ship carrying ballast water between freshwater ports would be more likely to be
well matched for survival in the recipient Great Lakes port (IMO, 2010). Therefore, EPA
believes that there is more than adequate science to support EPA's requirement that vessels,
having taken up ballast water from the most high risk ports in the previous month (freshwater
and brackish water ports in the previous 30 days), must conduct exchange plus flushing to
ensure protection of water quality standards. Please see additional discussion in section 9.1.2 of
this comment response document on why EPA only applied the requirement to vessels which
had taken on ballast water from a freshwater or saltwater port within the previous 30 days.
Finally, EPA's conclusion that ballast water exchange plus treatment is necessary to protect
water quality standards in the Great Lakes is further supported by the fact that the lakes
constitute an exceptionally large freshwater ecosystem, where once an ANS is established in
one part of the ecosystem, it is far more likely to either naturally migrate to other parts of it or
be spread by other anthropogenic vectors. In establishing the 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (GLWQA), both the United States and Canada "emphasized the need to strengthen
efforts to address new and continuing threats to the quality of the waters of the Great Lakes,
including aquatic invasive species, nutrients, chemical substances, discharge from vessels, the
climate change impacts, and the loss of habitats and species" (emphasis added). Annex 6 of that
agreement states that EPA and Canada "shall develop and implement programs and other
measures to eliminate new introductions of AIS through a bi-national prevention-based
approach, informed by risk assessments. This approach takes into account that new species may
pose a risk to the Great Lakes, even in the absence of scientific certainty." Annex 5(B) of the
GLWQA states that the U.S. and Canada "shall establish and implement programs and
measures that protect the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem from the discharge of Aquatic Invasive
Species in Ballast Water, taking into account Annex 6 of this Agreement." The Great Lakes are
a unique resource that is particularly susceptible to the negative impacts of invasions since the
Lakes are interconnected by natural and anthropogenic sources with few if any physical
impediments (e.g., locks, rapids, falls, dry land) between many of the Great Lakes waters that
may slow or eliminate the dispersal of invasive species among waters.
Some commenters, primarily some shipowner representatives, opposing the permit requirement,
raised practicability concerns, including safety concerns, for vessels conducting exchange plus
treatment. Although there are inherent risks involved in BWE, there have been no reported
issues for vessels coming from outside the EEZ (Salties) entering the Great Lakes. Nearly
10,000 vessel voyages per year enter the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence Seaway and
there is currently 100 percent compliance with Canada's and the St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation's BWE requirement. During the 2011 and 2012 year, only one tank
on one vessel was treated with brine as an alternative to ballast water exchange: all other vessels
1165
-------
either exchanged ballast water or held ballast water in their sealed tanks. Under existing
Canadian and U.S. requirements, these vessels entering the Great Lakes do not have a "Safety
Exemption" that allows vessels to not conduct BWE during heavy weather (unlike vessels
entering waters in the rest of the United States). Instead, vessel operators must utilize other
approaches, including sealing their ballast tanks, utilizing designated "alternative exchange
zones," or following an alternate measure such as brining. For the Great Lakes, Canada has
designated a deep water area in the Gulf of St. Lawrence as the alternative exchange zone. This
location is relatively sheltered compared to the open North Atlantic Ocean; therefore, this
minimizes the potential for weather related issues preventing ships that will enter the Great
Lakes from conducting BWE. EPA notes that Fednav Limited currently operates approximately
33 container/cargo vessels on the Great Lakes (representing the greatest number of Salties by
one company entering the Lakes), and all vessels are 100 percent compliant with Canada's
current BWE requirements prior to entering the Great Lakes.
Some commenters noted that typically ballast water treatment systems would be expected to
perform better when treating the exchanged mid-ocean euhaline waters having less organic
material, plankton, sediment and turbidity. Ballast water treatment systems using chlorine after
filtration to kill organisms will likely work better on euhaline ocean water than on harbor or
other near-shore waters since there is less organic carbon to react with the chlorine and that lack
of organic carbon leaves more chlorine available to react with the living organisms in the ballast
tank. Some commenters noted that ballast water exchange also would serve as an additional
protection in case of a failure of the treatment system to perform effectively. EPA notes these
potential auxiliary benefits of exchange as factors to consider for employing exchange to
provide an additional measure to ensure that the discharge limit is met for a vessel owner /
operator that is not currently required to conduct exchange in addition to treatment.
Some commenters noted that ballast water exchange can take a long time to conduct and many
ballast water treatment systems have a minimum hold time before they are considered effective;
these commenters argued that requiring exchange in addition to treatment could force vessels to
reduce their hold times to below the minimum, making treatment less effective. EPA
understands this concern and agrees that the requirement will narrow the window during which
vessels can conduct exchange. However, the closest major freshwater ports from which
originating vessels must conduct exchange plus treatment would be Amsterdam and Rotterdam
in Holland and Antwerp, Belgium. All are approximately a five day voyage to the Great Lakes.
Assuming a system has a 48 hour minimum holding time, this would allow vessel operators a
full day window to conduct exchange. If a system has a 24 hour holding time, the window
would be 3 days to conduct exchange. EPA further notes that other voyage patterns for vessel
entering U.S. waters from the Caribbean - Haiti for instance - must also meet numeric
treatment limits before discharging in U.S. ports. The typical voyage time directly from Haiti to
the closest U.S. ports is a fraction of the voyage time from the nearest freshwater port (to which
this requirement would apply) and the Great Lakes. Therefore, EPA expects that the minimum
holding times for most systems can be met. Nonetheless, EPA acknowledges that even if a
shorter holding time decreases treatment system-induced mortality in the ballast water tank (and
other mortality that naturally occurs in ballast tanks), the biocidal effect of the salinity shock
delivered by the exchange will more than offset the lower mortality from the shorter holding
time.
1166
-------
Some commenters noted that treatment systems were not designed to perform exchange and this
requirement will limit the available systems causing delays in the approval and installation of
treatment systems. EPA notes that vessels owners / operators may have more limited options of
treatment systems that can be installed to meet this requirement. Nonetheless, EPA believes that
there are systems available that can meet this requirement. With respect to any additional
timeframe for approvals necessary, EPA does not expect this to be a concern as it expects that
such approvals for these operational characteristics can be addressed in any approvals necessary
for BWTS installation and operation, and that vessels that currently are entering the Great
Lakes from outside the EEZ already or otherwise currently conduct exchange have operational
experience.
Some commenters expressed concern that the requirement is too burdensome. As discussed in
the economic analysis prepared for today's permit issuance, EPA found that the requirement has
the potential to increase operating costs for vessels subject to the requirement by increasing the
volume of water exchanged and treated. That analysis factored into the costs of both additional
treatment and additional costs for the extra pumping of water that would be required. In
addition, the exchange plus treatment requirement would necessitate more frequent use of
ballast water treatment equipment (when vessels on certain voyages enter the Great Lakes) and
in these limited circumstances, would cause more wear and tear on the equipment; these costs
are taken into account. Please see the economic analysis for additional discussion which
determined that implementation of this requirement would impose little burden on the regulated
community. EPA notes that one commenter stated that requiring ballast water exchange plus
treatment in the Great Lakes would result in increased energy usage and air emissions. EPA
agrees but notes that these are not factors in setting a WQBEL requirement. Additionally,
although not relevant to setting this limit, EPA nonetheless notes that it believes the water
quality benefit to the Great Lakes out way these impacts. EPA notes that one commenter stated
that expanding the requirement beyond the Great Lakes would significantly increase the
economic burden and EPA would need to cost these requirements for all vessels. EPA agrees to
the extent that were the Agency to nationalize this requirement in the final permit, the Agency
would need to cost those requirements beyond merely the subset of affected vessels entering the
Great Lakes.
One commenter requested clarification on the order of ballast water treatment and exchange.
This order is system-specific. EPA expects that some vessels would have to treat the exchanged
water - in other words, the ballast water treatment system would be used to treat the mid-ocean
euhaline water either as it is being loaded or by transferring water between tanks as the ship is
underway. This could, dependent on treatment system design, result in some vessels treating
water twice (once from the source water and once again during exchange). For systems which
treat on uptake (which includes most systems), EPA believes that such ships may likely use a
ballast water treatment system every time that ballast is loaded into the vessel in accordance
with regulation D-2 of the IMO BWM Convention. Vessel operators must also ensure that any
minimum holding times for ballast water treatment system efficacy and biocide residual decay
are met. On some vessel voyages, this means that the window for conducting the exchange plus
treatment may be limited. In summary, the VGP requires that discharges from a BWTS meet
the discharge limits, to achieve those limits it is expected that the vessel owner/operator will
1167
-------
treat the exchanged water. However, due to certain system design or other reasons, some
vessels will have to treat both the port source water and the mid ocean exchange water. EPA has
considered these costs as part of its economic analysis.
Several commenters noted that even if EPA were to require exchange plus treatment for certain
vessels entering the Great Lakes, it is not appropriate to require this for other ports in the United
States. EPA agrees. The greatest potential risk reduction for exchange plus treatment is with
freshwater adapted species (see previous discussion regarding osmotic shock and Reid (2012)).
As discussed above, ballast water exchange has been shown to be effective in reducing risk of
invasion, particularly with respect to discharges of ballast water to the Great Lakes; however,
that effect is much more prominent for reducing the risk posed by freshwater ANS. Ballast
water exchange works for two reasons: increased mortality from osmotic shock for most
freshwater and many brackish water organisms and the physical flushing process removing
potential ANS from ballast water tanks. For potential marine ANS, EPA believes that dilution
alone would not notably reduce the numbers of living marine organisms once that water has
been treated with a treatment system to justify its environmental risks, including risks to water
quality. The low levels of beneficial effect, if any, would be offset by environmental costs
including increased energy consumption and air emissions, and increased biocide byproduct and
residual discharge.
Conversely to the prior commenters, some commenters have noted that a lack of current Type
Approvals for BWTS or other demonstrations of effectiveness of treatment of ballast water
from freshwater or brackish environments and have suggested that the exchange plus treatment
requirement be expanded to include voyages from all such destination ports, regardless of the
destination port not just the Great Lakes. EPA disagrees. EPA notes that the vast majority of
major ports in the United States are marine or estuarine. There is little demonstrated advantage
to "salinity shock" due to mid-ocean exchange in reducing propagule pressure if the discharge
is into a marine or estuarine environment. There are very few ports, outside of the Great Lakes,
that are freshwater year round and which receive marine traffic from outside the Exclusive
Economic Zone, and such ports receive a relatively small fraction of U.S. shipping traffic every
year. Most of the few U.S. ports that may have freshwater conditions at some points during the
year tend to have salinities which fluctuate seasonally. The salinity intrusion would be expected
to pose an impediment to successful establishment of non-mobile ANS. In addition, the
changing conditions of lightly brackish estuarine and river conditions would pose more
challenges to successful establishment of truly freshwater species. The Great Lakes never have
these seasonal or periodic intrusions of higher salinity waters (which would inhibit certain
invasive species establishment). EPA believes that the effective protection offered to the Great
Lakes by exchange plus treatment are likely not effective for other U.S. ports (including those
freshwater most of the year) and, therefore, does not believe imposing the narrative WQBEL of
exchange plus treatment is necessary to protect water quality standards for those waters.
Additionally, EPA notes that the exchange plus treatment for these water has the same water
quality (e.g., increased biocide byproduct and residual discharge) impacts noted above. While
not a factor in setting a WQBEL, EPA notes that the non-water quality environmental impacts
discussed above (e.g., extra biocide discharge, extra energy consumption and increased air
emissions) also apply without the effective protection for discharges to these waters. Hence,
EPA disagrees with commenters who suggest that EPA should require this narrative WQBEL
1168
-------
nationally. Considering these among other factors, EPA determined that the narrative exchange
plus treatment WQBEL was needed to protect the water quality standards, including designated
uses, in the Great Lakes, but that this requirement is not necessary for other waters in the United
States.
Two commenters, New York State DEC and Michigan DEC, argued that EPA should require
exchange plus treatment for any vessels engaged in Atlantic nearshore voyages. The commenter
then cited the case of the Golden Mussel, a recent invader to the Amazon River, and was
concerned that vessels sailing along the Atlantic Coast could be a pathway for invasion. In
response, EPA notes that if such vessels were to enter the Great Lakes that that vessel would
likely be subject to the exchange plus treatment requirements in the Great Lakes as it would be
voyaging from outside the U.S. EEZ, travelled more than 200 nm from any shore, and taken on
water from a freshwater or brackish system. For vessels truly engaged in Atlantic nearshore
voyages (e.g., travelling along the Atlantic Seaboard, but not travelling 200 nm from shore or
crossing the U.S. EEZ), EPA believes the exchange plus treatment requirement for Atlantic
coastal voyages is inappropriate for the reasons described above applicable to non-Great Lakes
ports.
One commenter, an environmental group, argued that although the group believes the
requirement should be retained as the "combination approach should lower propagule pressure
of potentially harmful freshwater species [and] introduce an environmental barrier, ..." (please
see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0564-A2, excerpt 7), the exchange plus
treatment requirement should be imposed as an appropriate technology based effluent limit, not
a water quality based effluent limit. In support of its view, the commenter argues that the
requirement "does not assure compliance with water quality standards" and that for this to be an
effective WQBEL, the requirement must "prevent... the introduction and spread of harmful
new species, not just reduce... their risk." EPA disagrees. First, it is EPA's view that this issue
is largely academic; whether exchange plus treatment is imposed on a technology or water
quality basis has no effect on the existence or enforceability of the requirement. In either case, it
is an enforceable condition of the VGP (as desired by the commenter). In any event, the factors
the Agency used to develop this requirement were on a water quality basis, and the exchange
plus treatment requirement, in combination with the permit's TBELs and narrative WQBEL, is
protective of applicable water quality standards. Contrary to commenter's assertions, nothing in
the CWA or its implementing regulations states that any one permit condition alone must ensure
protection of water quality standards - it is the combination of the TBELs and all WQBELS
that must do so.
Further, EPA disagrees with the commenter that the Agency must "effectively eliminate the risk
of further harmful species invasions" to assure compliance with water quality standards. EPA
made a risk management decision to establish the narrative water based limit, based on the
qualitative risk assessments discussed in this essay, in order to protect water quality standards.
Irrespective of issues such as how one determines what is considered a "harmful" invasive
species, EPA has a long history of establishing water quality based limits, recommended water
quality criteria, and approving water quality standards on information that indicates risk is
sufficiently reduced as to protect aquatic ecosystems. EPA believes that the narrative water
quality based limits, when combined with the treatment provided by ballast water treatment
1169
-------
systems, will ensure the protection of healthy indigenous communities of organisms and assure
protective of water quality standards in the Great Lakes.
Finally, regarding additional research, EPA acknowledges the additional research referenced by
numerous commenters, and EPA has discussed the most relevant research of which it is aware
above.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
14
No
Comment: Even if treatment technologies that verifiably meet standards greater than IMO are
not immediately available, Canadian researchers are actively testing an emerging hypothesis that
ballast water treatment used in combination with ballast water exchange may improve the
performance of treatment systems in freshwater, by reducing the number of organisms that could
survive freshwater conditions after discharge.23
23
Report from the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative Meeting: Duluth (July 20-21, 2010), 48 (Aug. 13,
2010), available at http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/pdf/
Ballast_Collaborative_Report_and_WGReports_Duluth(Final).pdf.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Thomas Cmar, Midwest Program Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0446-A1
16
No
Comment: We are aware that EPA has established a panel within EPA's Science Advisory
Board ("SAB") to review the state of ballast water treatment technology and make
recommendations that will inform EPA's determination of BAT for the next VGP.27 We strongly
support the efforts of the SAB panel, but EPA has an independent obligation to ensure that
whatever it selects as BAT is at least as effective as the most effective technology achievable. In
making its selection, EPA should consider the full record before it, including information
developed by the California State Lands Commission and the report by the Great Lakes Ballast
Water Collaborative indicating that a combination of ballast water treatment and ballast water
exchange may be more effective than using a treatment system alone.
1170
-------
27
Ballast Water Advisory: EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB),
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86e/9e6c799df254393a852576
2c004e60ff!OpenDocument&TableRow=2.0#2 (last visited November 24, 2010).
Response: With respect to issues related to exchange plus treatment, please see the response
essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document. EPA notes that the SAB did not
address exchange plus treatment, but it did address issues related to the concept of Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) principles and development of voyage-based
risk assessments. This permit is consistent with this multi-risk reduction approach by having
ballast water management requirements applicable to all vessels found in Parts 2.2.3.1, 2.2.2.2,
and 2.2.2.3 of the permit, numeric treatment limits found in part 2.2.3.5 of the permit, and for
the higher risk vessels entering the Great Lakes, the exchange plus treatment requirements
found in Part 2.2.3.7 of the permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2
8
No
Comment: Continue to require ballast water exchange and flush now and into the future Canada
agrees with New York that combining BVVTS with ballast water exchange and flushing is
practical and a promising way to increase protection for the environment. When exchange and
flushing are combined with I MO standard BVVTS. the approach theoretically offers three
advantages over BVVTS alone:
1. As organisms from the open ocean are less tolerant of the lower salinity of coastal waters,
the risk of invasions will be reduced due to environmental mismatch. This mismatch is
especially protective for freshwater ports, such as those located in the Great Lakes.
2. Some BVVTS operate more effectively on open ocean water, which contains less debris
and organic matter than coastal port waters. As a result. BVVTS would be able to achieve
the IMO standard with more reliability.
3. Ballast water exchange and flushing would serve as a backup to treatment, should the
treatment system not be functioning correctly.
Canada is particularly encouraged by New York's desire to maintain exchange and flushing
because it is the only proposed approach that focuses on increasing environmental protection as
opposed to increasing numerical treatment standards. The combination approach is expected to
provide significantly better environmental protection by decreasing both the probability that non-
native organisms will arrive, as well as the probability that they will survive after discharge.
Preliminary testing in fresh water indicates that this approach will decrease the invasion risk by
one order of magnitude, when compared with I MO-standard BVVTS alone.
Because it makes use of available and approved I MO-standard BVVTS. the combination approach
also represents the fastest and most practical way to achieve above-IMO protection. For this
1171
-------
reason Canada is working to demonstrate the benefits of this approach in practice, and would
welcome New York's assistance in this regard.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Comment: 7. The current IMO discharge limit is equivalent to salt water exchange during
ocean voyage, a useful but limited management practice.
Ballast water exchange and BVVTS are not equivalent, being different management practices
with differing mechanisms and limitations. While a BVVTS increases protection by limiting the
number of organisms discharged, exchange increases protection by discharging lower-risk
oceanic organisms in place of higher-risk coastal ones. While exchanged ballast water contains
more organisms than treated water, the lower number of organisms discharged by BVVTS are as
risky as those in unmanaged ballast water. These distinct approaches to ballast water
management may, however, be complementary; as noted, Canada invites New York's
participation in demonstrating the benefits of a combined approach consisting of exchange plus
treatment.
Ballast water exchange, the centrepiece of compatible federal regulations established in both
Canada and the US, has been extremely effective on the Great Lakes. A peer-reviewed
evaluation of Canada's regulatory regime found a marked reduction in the risk of ship-mediated
introductions of non-native aquatic species.10 No new species attributable to ballast water has
been reported on the Great Lakes since 2006. Despite these promising results, exchanged ballast
water does not reliably meet the IMO performance standard. 10 Given that properties of ballast
water vary by location, by season and even by time of day, reliability across tests and a range of
environmental conditions is key to ensuring that any ballast water management practice
consistently provides the best protection.
In continuing to strengthen environmental protection, Canada is confident that the IMO
convention's requirements are both more stringent and more reliable than current approaches and
that the level of risk can be lowered beyond that already achieved over the last decade. Canada
agrees with the NRC that the IMO standard is one that "clearly reduces concentrations of coastal
organisms below current levels resulting from ballast water exchange," and that such standards
"will serve to reduce the likelihood of invasion in coastal ecosystems beyond that of the present
time."9
9
National Research Council (2011) Assessing the relationship between propagule pressure and invasion risk in
ballast water, p. 7.
Commenter Name:
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2
9
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
1172
-------
10 Bailey, SA.. Deneau. MG., Jean, 1... Wiley, CJ., Leung, B., Macisaac, IIJ. (2011) Evaluating efficacy of an
environmental policy to prevent biological invasions. Environmental Science and Technology, 45, 2554-2561.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
EPA acknowledges Canada's comments and the summary of the NRC's findings that treatment
is better than exchange alone, and EPA concurs with those comments. For reasons discussed in
the essay, EPA has finalized the exchange plus treatment requirement for the Great Lakes to
provide additional, appropriate protection for the unique water bodies of the Great Lakes.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tom Perlich, President, Ecochlor, Inc.
Ecochlor, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0480-A1
3
No
Comment: 2013 Draft VGP Part 2.2.3.7 - Vessels Entering the Great Lakes.
Vessels that utilize a BWTS and meet certain requirements in Part 2.2.3.7 are required to conduct
ballast water exchange or saltwater flushing in addition to treating their ballast water before
entering the Great Lakes. Ecochlor understands the scientific background provided in the 2013
VGP Fact Sheet: however, requiring vessels perform ballast water treatment and exchange is
burdensome. The safety issues of conducting exchange will still be present and the cost of a
BWTS will be difficult to justify for ship owners.
Should the EPA keep this dual ballast water management requirement in the final version of the
2013 VGP, Ecochlor would recommend some clarification. The proposed VGP is unclear about
the order of the ballast water management practices. For instance, if a vessel uses a BWTS at the
source harbor, then exchanges that water mid-ocean, is the vessel required to use the BW TS to
treat the mid-ocean water also? Or is the mid-ocean exchange water, without treatment by a
BW TS acceptable for discharge? The proposed VGP would benefit from clarification on what
water is ultimately allowed for discharge in the Great Lakes.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Late Comment? No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.7 addresses additional requirements (treatment plus exchange) for
vessels entering the Great Lakes and EPA requests comment on whether these additional
requirements are appropriate for application to other vessels enroute to other freshwater US
ports. CSA does not believe these additional requirements are appropriate for any vessel fitted
1173
-------
with an approved BWTS whether destined for a Great Lakes port or any other US port. Vessel
owners will be spending well over one million US dollars per BWTS including capital outlay,
retrofit, installation and system testing. It is difficult to find any scientific justification for
imposing both treatment system and ballast water exchange requirements on any vessel. In the
EPA fact sheet (page 127) it is stated that "EPA also recognizes that mid-ocean ballast water
exchange is most effective for minimizing risk of invasions for discharges into freshwater
ecosystems". We disagree. Certainly exchange was the most viable mitigation method before the
advent of ballast water treatment systems, but as BWTS are developed, we strongly suggest that
they (and not exchange) is now the most viable mitigation method and is far more effective than
ballast water exchange. Furthermore, requiring exchange in addition to treatment increases air
emissions and the safety risks encountered by crew during the at sea exchange. As stated above,
we don't believe requiring treatment and exchange is justified for any scenario, but note that the
economic analysis only focused on the Great Lakes and did not include data on costs associated
with expanding this requirement to other ports specifically as contained in Table 2.5 which
suggests that the economic analysis would have to be conducted for 8147 vessels (versus the "no
more than 188" counted as trading to Great Lake ports.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 40
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question 18. The requirement for vessels entering the Great Lakes from freshwater
and brackish ecosystems to conduct ballast water exchange or saltwater or saltwater flushing in
addition to treatment with a ballast water treatment system. Also, whether BWE should be
required for all vessels entering the Great Lakes that are subject to the numeric TBEL, regardless
of origin, whether this requirement should be considered for other freshwater destinations in US
waters, and/or whether this requirement should be considered for other destinations in US
waters, regardless of whether those vessels took on ballast water from saltwater or freshwater
ports. Please see our comments in the ballast water section. Again, why are we seeking one
million US dollar plus ballast water treatment systems if we are going to overlay additional
requirements on these systems with little scientific justification? The industry is keenly aware of
the shortfalls associated with ballast water exchange and looks forward to the day when BWTS
are installed and ready for use.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
1174
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1
15
No
Comment: VIII. EPA should require vessels entering the Great Lakes to conduct ballast water
exchange even after they are required to meet numeric effluent limitations for invasive species,
but cannot characterize this TBEL as a WQBEL.
We support EPA requiring in the VGP, as an additional TBEL, that vessels entering the Great
Lakes continue conducting ballast water exchange even after they also are required to meet
numeric TBELs for invasive species based on ballast water treatment. Ballast water exchange
should improve the performance of ballast water treatment systems being used in freshwater
environments, enhancing protection of the receiving waterbody. This combination approach
should reduce the overall number of non-indigenous freshwater species being released in the
Great Lakes, even if the absolute number of individuals released after treatment remains the
same.141 Moreover, requiring vessels to exchange their ballast water in the open ocean before
treating it would potentially allow some treatment systems to operate more effectively as open
ocean water contains less debris and plankton than coastal port waters. This combination of
ballast water exchange and treatment should be required for all oceangoing vessels that enter the
Great Lakes or otherwise operate in freshwater environments, regardless of their origin, as an
additional TBEL, consistent with the CWA's mandate that BAT represent "a commitment of the
maximum resources economically possible" to reducing or eliminating pollutants,142 including
invasive species in ballast water.
EPA errs, however, in characterizing these proposed requirements in the draft VGP as "WQBEL
requirements."143 As explained above, an effective WQBEL for invasive species in ballast water
discharges must assure compliance with water quality standards, including state narrative criteria
as well as existing and designated uses, which in the invasive species context means preventing
the introduction and spread of harmful new species, not just reducing their risk. EPA points to no
evidence that its proposal to require vessels entering the Great Lakes to combine ballast water
exchange with implementation of treatment will effectively eliminate the risk of further harmful
species invasions and thus ensure that state water quality standards are fully and meaningfully
protected. Rather, the best that EPA can claim for this approach is that it would "add another
measure of protection against invasive species."144 While that finding provides a strong rationale
for this requirement being adopted in the next VGP as a TBEL, the mere fact that such a
requirement represents another step in the right direction does not mean that this provision is
sufficient to assure compliance with water quality standards. Thus, EPA's inclusion in the draft
VGP of requirements that ballast water exchange be combined with ballast water treatment for
vessels entering the Great Lakes, while positive, does nothing to cure the draft VGP's legally
deficient approach to WQBELs.
141
Development of Guidelines and Other Documents for Uniform Implementation of the 2004 BWM Convention.
Submitted by Canada to the International Maritime Organization. December 10, 2010.
142 EPA v. Nat'l Crushed Stone Ass'n, 449 U.S. 64, 74 (1980).
143 Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 127.
144 Draft VGP Fact Sheet at 126.
1175
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0497-A1
11
No
Comment: 4. Ballast water exchange should be required nationally at all times, in addition to
any treatment systems that is ultimately required.
The VGP requires ballast water exchange and flushing for all coastal vessels traveling on the
west coast of the United States, and most vessels traveling into the Great Lakes. This
requirement terminates when technology is installed on those vessels to meet the IMO D2
standard, at which time only a limited number of vessels entering the Great Lakes will still be
required to exchange and flush ballast water. Ballast water exchange in addition to ship-board
treatment is far more environmentally protective than just a treatment system. Canada has
conducted a research study and proposed to the IMO Sub-committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases,
that a combination of a ballast water treatment system and exchange and flushing will lower the
AIS invasion risk by "at least 10 times" compared to using the ballast water treatment alone.
This research study indicates that some ballast water treatment systems operate more effectively
and reliably when coupled with mid-ocean ballast water exchange.9 DEC strongly recommends
that all vessels entering waters of the United States be required to conduct ballast water exchange
and flushing at 200 nautical miles from shore in addition to treatment. For all vessels, mid-ocean
exchange and flushing is known to reduce the number of live organisms in ballast tanks, thus
increasing the likelihood that treatment technologies will meet or exceed the discharge standards.
DEC is especially concerned that vessels operating along the east coast have the potential to
transport and introduce AIS, such as the golden mussel which has become established in South
America and has even greater potential for ecological and economic impacts than the zebra
mussel due to its larger size and ability to thrive in low calcium waters. Therefore, DEC requests
that all vessels operating along the east coast of the U.S. be required to conduct exchange and
flushing at least 50 nautical miles from shore in waters at least 200 meters in depth.
The Great Lakes account for a small fraction of global shipping yet they are closely connected to
all other ports, and the species in them, by the shipping network. Most global ports, and thus the
species in them, are separated from the Great Lakes by approximately two ship voyages.10 For
most vessels entering the Great Lakes from outside the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), there is
a significant benefit of exchange/flushing, in that it will provide stronger protection than the
IMO D2 standards when coupled with any standards that EPA ultimately adopts.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
1176
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Timothy D. Sullivan, Manager of Regulatory Affairs and
Environmental Compliance, Hornbeck Offshore Operators,
LLC
Hornbeck Offshore Services
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0502-A1
2
No
Comment: Section 2.2.3.7 of the Draft. A vessel entering the Great Lakes, under most
circumstances, will be required to conduct a ballast water exchange in addition to treating the
ballast water onboard. The value of ballast water exchange, a significant burden to the vessel
operator, in addition to onboard treatment is a duplicative and unnecessary requirement when the
vessel is equipped with treatment facilities specifically implemented to meet the criteria of
ballast water discharge. Additionally, Hornbeck is concerned that such overreaching
requirements may be imposed beyond the Great Lakes in other coastal regions of the country.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Berge, Vice President, Pacific Merchant Shipping
Association (PMSA)
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0508-A1
5
No
Comment: e) Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment.
The VGP fact sheet asks for comment as to whether ballast water exchange should be required in
addition to treatment. While gut instinct might suggest that exchanged water would pose a lighter
load for treatment in terms of the concentration of species, we are unaware of any substantive
science to support such a requirement.
It should be noted that some treatment systems depend on a minimum amount of time for ballast
water to be held in order for treatment to be completed. Exchange is often accomplished with the
3-times flow through method, which requires significant time to perform. This could negatively
impact the efficacy of systems by cutting back on the time available for effective treatment.
Also, ships expend significant energy in exchanging ballast water, with consequent emissions of
NOx, SOx, PM and GHGs. Barring compelling scientific support to the contrary, a requirement
for redundant ballast water exchange should not be adopted.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
1177
-------
Commenter Name:
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
11
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: 8. Ballast Water Exchange.
Canada recommends that the EPA specify the requirements for ballast water exchange in more
detail. For example, the salinity of exchanged ballast water should reach 30 parts per thousand or
as close to this as possible. Canada's experience is that this threshold is readily achievable, and
can be easily measured by vessel crews and inspectors using a simple refractometer. Moreover,
the permit should require a 95% volumetric exchange; this can be achieved either by emptying
and refilling the tanks or by pumping through a volume of water equal to three times the tank
volume.
Canada supports the EPA in proposing requirements that vessels entering the Great Lakes from
outside the exclusive economic zone adopt a strategy of combining ballast water exchange and
saltwater flushing with ballast water treatment. Canada has submitted a preliminary paper in
support of this strategy to the I MO under document number BLG 15/5/7. The EPA is referred to
this document for further information on the strategy, whose principal benefits should include: a
reduction in riskiness of taxa discharged (particularly into fresh water) due to purging of coastal
organisms from tanks, a reduction in propagule viability due to osmotic shock and a backup in
case of BWMS failure.
In fall 2010, scientists from our two countries undertook a preliminary study at the Great Ships
Initiative to collect data on the efficacy of this strategy. Results were consistent with a lOx
reduction in risk when exchange plus treatment was compared to treatment alone. Moreover, the
BWMS, which failed to perform adequately in fresh water, was able to treat exchanged ballast
water to the D-2 standard. A research plan has been developed to obtain additional data through
shipboard testing using a variety of BWMS to improve confidence: Canada plans to submit a
substantive document based on this new data to BLG 17.
Although Canada does not regard the benefits of this strategy as fully proven at present, it is very
promising. Canada believes that mandating this strategy poses little risk and so, with appropriate
safety precautions (see above), supports its application by the EPA in the 2013 VGP with a slight
modification, as follows. Despite the simplicity of taking salinity measurements from ballast
tanks, Canada notes that few vessels routinely do so. For this reason, as well as to create a simple
protocol that can be easily understood and enforced, Canada requests that the EPA require
exchange and/or flushing by all vessels entering the exclusive economic zone if bound for
freshwater or brackish water ports, or at least for such ports on the Great Lakes St. Lawrence
Seaway system. This would allow the currently successful bi-national ballast water enforcement
process to continue, ensuring maximum protection for the Great Lakes.
1178
-------
Canada would like to note an error in section 4.4.3.6.3 of the fact sheet As Canada's marine
safety agency, it is Transport Canada (as opposed to Environment Canada) that maintains
mandatory saltwater flushing requirements.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
EPA notes Canada's correction from Environment Canada to Transport Canada and has made
the change. Additionally, EPA appreciates the comment regarding clarifying the requirements
for ballast water exchange to be a requirement to achieve a salt concentration of 30 parts per
thousand. EPA notes that saltwater flushing in the VGP has a salinity requirement included in
the definition. EPA defines saltwater flushing to mean the addition of "mid-ocean" or "coastal
exchange zone" water to empty ballast water tanks; the mixing of the added water with residual
ballast water and sediment through the motion of the vessel; and the discharge of the mixed
water until loss of suction, such that the resulting residual water remaining in the tank has either
a salinity greater than or equal to 30 parts per thousand (ppt) or a salinity concentration equal
to the ambient salinity of the location where the uptake of the added water took place.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
19
No
Comment: While Canada believes the Convention's D-2 standard is appropriately protective in
general, it is currently engaged in scientific research exploring additional measures to
meaningfully reduce the risk of aquatic invasions in the specific case of fresh and brackish water.
The strategy under examination involves combining ballast water exchange/flushing with ballast
water treatment to the Convention's D-2 standard in an effort to reduce both the number of
propagules introduced with ballast water and the subsequent probability of survival. As an equal
partner with the U.S. under the Boundary Waters Treaty, and given the importance of respecting
exist GIWQA provisions for joint management of the Great Lakes by our two countries, we
invite the U.S. to partner with Canada in investigating this strategy.
Canada requests that all scientific committees formed to investigate ballast water issues that may
affect our navigable boundary waters be nominated jointly by Canada and the U.S. Bi-national
committees are better suited to the facilitation of compatible and ecosystem-based ballast water
management requirements.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
EPA notes this comment is outside the scope of the VGP EPA will respond to this invitation
outside the context of today's permit action.
Commenter Name: Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
1179
-------
Commenter Affiliation: Government of Canada, Embassy of Canada
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0511-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 20
Late Comment? No
Comment: 11. Areas for Scientific Co-operation.
Canada and the U.S. have long co-operated on scientific research relating to ballast water.
Research on exchange plus treatment is an excellent example of how our two countries continue
to work together to learn more about protecting the aquatic environment in our respective and
shared waters. This is not the only issue, however, that could benefit from continued co-
operation between our researchers.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
EPA values our partnerships with our Canadian neighbors and looks forward to continued
information generating collaboration in the future.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Director, Environment &
Sustainability, Maerks Line North America Liner
Operations
Maersk Line
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0513-A1
11
No
Comment: Similarly, if Ballast Water Exchange is retained in addition to ballast water
treatment, the added crew effort could conflict with the new STCW working hours rules.
Response: Commenter did not provide enough information on the cited potential conflict to
allow EPA to determine whether such a conflict exists and whether it is relevant to today's
determinations.
Commenter Name: Kate Frantz, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0521-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: Ballast Water Exchange and Ballast Water Flush Requirements.
The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation and St. Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation have enacted and successfully implemented ballast water exchange and ballast water
flush requirements for vessels entering the seaway. These protective measures, as implemented
by the seaway agencies, should be established in their entirety as best available technology
economically achievable in the VGP2. The practices should be required under the VGP2 unless
they are specifically demonstrated to substantially interfere with ballast treatment technologies.
1180
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
23
No
Comment: 2.2.3.7: Vessels Entering the Great Lakes.
Considering the all-encompassing implications of this section, we would have expected to see a
sound scientific rationale for the required provisions to have been included either in the VGP or
accompanying Fact Sheet. Although we are aware that such research is on-going as per
document BLG 15/5/7, no results that would support the inclusion of this new requirement in the
VGP are currently available. We would therefore suggest that the implementation of this
provision be delayed until research showing environmental benefits has been completed. As
well, such assessment should include information on its implications for the crews on-board the
ships which will need to implement this section' provisions, as these may conflict with the
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping requirements.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter did not provide enough information on the cited potential conflict to allow EPA to
determine whether such a conflict exists and whether it is relevant to today's determinations.
Commenter Name: Tim Eder, Executive Director, Great Lakes Commission
Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Commission
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0528-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: Maintain Required Best Management Practices: We note that the proposed rule
requires vessels operating in the Great Lakes to continue the best management practices (BMP)
of ballast water exchange and salt water flushing. The Commission strongly supports retaining
this BMP provision in addition to meeting the numeric ballast water treatment limits in the final
rule. However, we recommend that the rule be amended to apply this requirement to all ships
nationwide, not just those operating in the Great Lakes. This is important for two reasons. First,
it will help create a more level economic playing field across North America. Second, ballast
water exchange and salt water flushing are important means of improving the protectiveness and
effectiveness of the numeric standard. Results from a Canadian collaborative research project
demonstrate that during vessel operation, the combined BMP effects of physical purging and
salinity exposure can lower the risk of invasion by significantly reducing the probability for rare,
high density introduction events and nearly eliminating the introduction of high risk species.1
1181
-------
1 Bailey, S.A.; Deneau, M.G.; Jean, L.; Wiley, C.J., Leung, B.; Maclsaac, H.J. Evaluating efficacy of an
environmental policy to prevent biological invasions. Environmental Science and Technology. 2011.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
In addition, EPA does not understand how concerns regarding a "level economic playing field"
factor into its determination regarding appropriate effluent limits in an NDPES permit.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 50
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 127, Discussion of Extending the Requirement for Ballast Water Exchange in
Addition to Ballast Water Treatment. This "belt and suspenders" approach may have appeal from
the perspective that if each approach offers environmental protection than surely both must be
better, but EPA offers no demonstration of added benefit. The additional energy that must be
consumed to manage such an evolution as well as the additional wear and tear on the ballast
water treatment system (presumably even the mid-ocean exchange would have to be treated)
must be weighed against the undemonstrated benefit of such a requirement. Additionally, the
operational complexity (and related risks) of such exchange procedures is one of the reasons why
treatment is a preferred solution. CLIA members recommend this additional requirement not be
adopted.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Douglas B. Schneider, World Shipping Council (WSC)
Commenter Affiliation: World Shipping Council (WSC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: / '. Comments on the Concept of Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment.
The draft VGP fact sheet requests comments on whether ballast water exchange (BWE) should
be required in addition to ballast water treatment for destinations other than the Great Lakes. We
are not aware of a single scientific study that has investigated the question of whether performing
BWE in addition to treatment could yield a different result than treatment alone. Requiring BWE
in addition to treatment is not supported by the current record. There are several reasons why this
approach should not be adopted.
First, ballast water treatment systems have been designed to achieve or surpass the numeric
discharge standard by treating unexchanged ballast water that is brought on board the ship in a
variety of geographic locations. The benefit of a numeric discharge standard is that it sets a
1182
-------
measurable organism threshold that must be met regardless of the where the ballast water was
taken onboard and regardless of the treatment technology or process employed. For the reasons
discussed in the next paragraph, requiring exchange in addition to treatment could limit the
available treatment options and undermine the development of new treatment technologies.
Second, requiring BWE in addition to treatment changes the operational premises upon which
ballast water treatment systems have been designed for more than ten years. Current treatment
systems were not designed with the idea that they would be used in tandem with BWE. What
effect this could have on the efficiency and performance of a given treatment system is not
known and should not be assumed. For example, for many systems, the dwell time of the water
in the ballast tanks is an important aspect of treatment. Dwell time allows the active substances
or other treatment techniques adequate time to distribute through the water and kill the organisms
present in the tanks. Because conducting BWE in tandem with treatment would reduce the dwell
time, it is also possible that it could reduce, not improve, the efficacy of the treatment system.
Given the scheduling problems associated with the unresolved testing and approval issues
discussed in section l.D of these comments, changing the operational background against which
treatment systems are evaluated at this late date would very likely result in further delays in
approval and installation. That would be counterproductive.
Third, BWE has drawbacks that make its retention undesirable. For example, it is not possible,
for vessel and crew safety reasons, to conduct BWE in certain weather and sea surface conditions
or in some geographic locations. Furthermore, performing BWE requires a great deal of energy
to pump thousands of cubic meters of water overboard and then uptake new water. Because any
mid-ocean water brought into the tanks would also need to be treated using the installed
treatment system, requiring BWE would result in two treatment cycles for a given voyage
instead of one. Generating the energy to run the ship's ballasting pumps and treatment systems
would result, not only in significant increased fuel consumption and operating costs, but in
increased emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.
All of these factors must be carefully studied and weighed against any potential benefits - if
scientific studies determine that there are any - of performing BWE in addition to treatment.
Ballast water exchange (BWE) should not be required in addition to ballast water treatment.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
In addition, the Agency notes that the type of considerations raised by this commenter -
increased energy consumption, effect on other environmental media, cost issues - are generally
relevant to an analysis of appropriate technology-based effluent limits, not appropriate water
quality based effluent limits. Today's requirement is being imposed on a water quality basis.
That being said, the Agency did look at these issues in the context of its economic analysis and
found that, for the limited number of vessels affected entering the Great Lakes, the additional
cost was minimal. See the economic analysis for today's permit for additional discussion.
Commenter Name: Nick Schroeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes
Environmental Law Center
Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Environmental Law Center
1183
-------
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0535-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: Furthermore, legislative history also supports the need for numerical limitations
more restrictive than the IMO standard. In 2007, Rep. James L. Oberstar introduced the Coast
Guard Authorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 2830). The bill established a national goal to eliminate
invasive species from ballast water by the year 2015. To achieve this goal, the bill required all
ships entering U.S. waters to conduct ballast water exchange at least 200 miles off the Nation's
coastline. It also required ballast water treatment equipment to be installed on ships. However,
the key point in the bill was that it set the ballast water treatment standard at ten times higher
than the IMO standard. The bill passed through the House of Representatives, but failed to move
in the Senate. Though the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007 was not passed in the Senate,
it illustrates the need for a higher standard than provided by the IMO. Moreover, advancements
in technology since 2007 have demonstrated that higher standards than the IMO are achievable.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Please also see sections 9.1, 9.1.1, and 9.1.2 of this comment response document, and the VGP
fact sheet for why EPA established the technology-based numeric concentration based limit at
the IMO standard. EPA notes that the VGP implements section 402 of the Clean Water Act:
H.R. 2830 was not passed by the Senate and is not law.
Commenter Name: Nick Schroeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes
Environmental Law Center
Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Environmental Law Center
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0535-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Late Comment? No
Comment: As previously mentioned, the ballast water exchange ("BWE") and saltwater
flushing management practices were implemented with some success, as an interim measure.
The goal is to stop, or significantly decrease the spread of aquatic invasive species in our waters.
Though further research needs to be done on the treatment of ballast water, the interim measures
should not be stopped. The practices of ballast water exchange and saltwater flushing have
shown some benefits. Though studies vary on the exact percentage of the effectiveness of these
measures, the bottom line is that they do work to some extent. To stop ballast water exchange
completely would jeopardize the gradual improvements that have taken place towards the overall
goal of eliminating aquatic invasive species. Again, the emphasis should be placed on the
continuing research for more efficient ballast water treatment technology. This research is
needed to address the issues of saltwater-tolerant species that may survive BWE or saltwater
flushing. Treatment of ballast water is necessary to better assure that viable non-indigenous
species are not discharged.
Presently, one of the interim management measures is that all vessels that are equipped to carry
ballast water and enter the Great Lakes via the Saint Lawrence Seaway must conduct saltwater
1184
-------
flushing of ballast water tanks 200 nautical miles from any shore before entering either the U.S.
or Canadian waters of the Seaway System. Saltwater flushing management practices have shown
some success, but always with the understanding that this was an interim measure. More research
needs to be conducted in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of saltwater flushing. Some
saltwater-tolerant species may survive saltwater flushing. For example, zebra mussels are a well-
known example of an invasive species that was introduced to the Great Lakes through the ballast
water or a transoceanic ship.8 Purple loosestrife, an exotic perennial plant that inhabits the
wetlands of the Great Lakes, also was introduced to the region through the ballast of ships in the
early 1800s.9
g
Great Lakes Commission des Grand Lakes, Great Lakes Aquatic Invasions, Booklet (2007).
9 Id.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A2
6
No
Comment: 5. Ballast water exchange (BWE) and saltwater flushing (SF)for all vessels -
Section 2.2.3.7 of the draft VGP2 requires vessels that enter the Great Lakes via the Saint
Lawrence Seaway to conduct BWE and SF in addition to treating their ballast water. The
benefits of BWE/SF as an interim step towards mitigating the risk of AIS justifies making the
following changes in the draft VGP2, to ensure all covered vessels utilizing a BWMS are
required to also conduct BWE/SF:
A. Eliminate the second bullet in Part 2.2.3.7 (Vessels Entering the Great Lakes) that reads "The
vessel has taken on ballast water that has a salinity of less than 18 ppt from a coastal, estuarine,
or freshwater ecosystem within the previous month."
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
EPA limited the requirement to those vessels which have taken on ballast water in waters with
salinity of less than 18 ppt in the previous month (30 days) to target those voyages most likely
to carry higher risk organisms. Commenter does not explain why this limitation should be
removed.
Commenter Name: William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
1185
-------
Late Comment? No
Comment: B. Modify the language in Part 2.2.3.6 (Interim Requirements for Vessels Not
Meeting the Ballast Water Management Measures in Part 2.2.3.5) to require all vessels
(including vessels engaged in Atlantic nearshore voyages) to conduct BWE/SF until a BWTS,
proven through reliable efficacy testing to be capable of meeting the ballast water WQBELs of
0.1 organism/ml for live organisms >10 - <50 um and 0.1 organisms/m3 for live organisms >50
um), is installed and properly operated on the vessel.
C. Include language in Part 2.2.3.7 to waive the BWE/SF requirement for vessels entering the
Great Lakes that install and properly operate a BWTS proven through reliable testing to be
capable of achieving the ballast water WQBELs of 0.1 organism/ml for live organisms >10 - <50
um and 0.1 organisms/m3 for live organisms >50 um.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Please also see the VGP fact sheet, and other ballast water response to comments sections
discussing why EPA determined a numeric WQBEL was infeasible to calculate and why EPA
established the technology based limit generally equivalent to the IMO D-2 standard In
particular, EPA did not adopt commenter's approach as there is no concrete evidence to suggest
that either system is capable of meeting those effluent limits, nor the means to verify that
performance will become available within the permit term. (Should that happen, however, it
may be appropriate to reopen the permit to take comment on such an approach.)
Commenter Name: Beth Moore, General Permit Coordinator, Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0537-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.3 Ballast Water. DEQ's Comment: If there is sufficient concern about the
efficacy of ballast water treatment of fresh and brackish water, as has been suggested in research
supported by the Great Ships Initiative and Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, then all
vessels sourcing their ballast from a freshwater or brackish environment (<30ppt) should be
required to conduct a mid-ocean exchange, in addition to using ballast water treatment
technology to meet the proposed discharge standards, before discharging into U.S. waterways.
This Treatment plus Exchange' approach is also being considered as a component of the
International Maritime Organization Treaty on Ballast Water Management (IMO BLG 16). As
currently drafted, the new VGP requires this for vessels transiting to the Great Lakes (2.2.3.7),
but not for other freshwater ports that are equally susceptible to aquatic invasive species threats
and also worthy of comparable risk-reduction measures. Until shipboard treatment technology
can demonstrate efficacy performance greater than the currently proposed standard and for a
thorough range of environmental conditions, the current condition, providing special protection
levels for the Great Lakes, should be expanded to apply to all vessels that have sourced their
ballast from fresh or brackish water environments.
1186
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Steven A. Fisher, Executive Director, American Great
Lakes Ports Association
Commenter Affiliation: American Great Lakes Ports Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0545-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: Ballast Water Exchange. We support EPA's proposal to continue ballast water
exchange as a management practice (for vessels that operate outside the EEZ) in conjunction
with the installation of ballast water management systems. While there is no current research
quantifying the benefits of ballast exchange plus treatment, the two approaches combined may
lead to a discharge water quality that exceeds the IMO standard. A number of Great Lakes states
are understandably pushing for the most protective standard possible. Ballast water exchange
plus treatment may offer an approach that moves another step toward that goal. We urge the EPA
to commission additional research to quantify the benefits of ballast water exchange plus
treatment. Should such research fail to demonstrate a benefit from this management practice,
then it should be discontinued.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
League's Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
19
No
Comment: Another area of concern is that exchange of ballast water not be used in lieu of
treatment. Exchange and treatment together is more effective. In December 2010, the Canada's
delegation to the IMO's Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases submitted a proposal to use
utilize ballast water exchange in combination with ballast water treatment to achieve an
enhanced level of protection (proposal attached).
Exchange and treatment together have the best capacity to meet the New York (100 times IMO)
standards and would provide the best protection for the Great Lakes. We feel this is critical for
the highest protection of the Great Lakes and would support that nationally all ships should
continue to implement exchange and treatment until California standards can be met.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
1187
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Brian P. Smith, Program and Communications Director,
Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE)
Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0553-A1
5
No
Comment: CCE also recommends that EPA consider the following, regarding the adequacy of
the IMO D-2 discharge standard: For most vessels entering the Great Lakes from outside the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), there is a significant concern about the adequacy of the IMO
D-2 discharge standard relative to ballast water exchange and flushing. For such vessels,
exchange and flushing will provide stronger protection than the IMO standard. The reason for
this is that most vessels entering the Great Lakes from outside the EEZ are 'No Ballast on Board'
(NOBOB) vessels that have flushed their ballast tanks. Since these NOBOB vessels are carrying
only residual ballast water (e.g., only 1% to 2% of their ballast capacity), they will not discharge
to the Great Lakes unless and until they have re-ballasted with Great Lakes water. Thus, over and
above the benefits of flushing, the existing practice for these vessels is to further dilute their
flushed ballast water with Great Lakes water (e.g., by a factor of 50 to 100) prior to any
discharge to the Great Lakes. Since their existing discharge concentrations of nonnative
organisms into the Great Lakes are already about 50-fold to 100-fold lower than can be achieved
by mid-ocean flushing alone, their discharge concentrations are already below the IMO D-2
standard.
Stopping invasive species before they enter is critical to the health of the Great Lakes. We have
waited far too long for these basic, common sense protections.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tim Eder, Executive Director and Katherine Glassner-
Shwayder, Senior Project Manager, Great Lakes
Commission (GLC)
Great Lakes Commission (GLC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0562-A2
3
No
Comment: Recognizing the progress accomplished thus far under the 2008 VGP program
in regulating ballast water discharges from commercial vessels, the Commission offers
the following comments on the draft VGP for the 2013-2018 time period:
Maintain Required Best Management Practices: We note that the proposed rule requires
vessels operating in the Great Lakes to continue the best management practices (BMP) of ballast
water exchange and salt water flushing. The Commission strongly supports retaining this BMP
provision in addition to meeting the numeric ballast water treatment limits in the final rule.
1188
-------
However, we recommend that the rule be amended to apply this requirement to all
ships nationwide, not just those operating in the Great Lakes. This is important for two reasons.
First, it will help create a more level economic playing field across North America. Second,
ballast water exchange and salt water flushing are important means of improving the
protectiveness and effectiveness of the numeric standard. Results from a Canadian collaborative
research project demonstrate that during vessel operation, the combined BMP effects of physical
purging and salinity exposure can lower the risk of invasion by significantly reducing the
probability for rare, high density introduction events and nearly eliminating the introduction of
high risk species.1
1 Bailey, S.A.; Deneau, M.G.; Jean, L.; Wiley, C.J., Leung, B.; Maclsaac, H.J. Evaluating efficacy of an
environmental policy to prevent biological invasions. Environmental Science and Technology. 201.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
and the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0528-A2, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Alliance for the Great Lakes, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0564-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: Requiring ballast water exchange performed in conjunction with treatment and
technologies used in freshwater ecosystems, but only as the best available technology
economically achievable. While ballast water exchange, in combination with treatment
requirements, is not an acceptable water quality-based effluent limitation, ballast water exchange
should be performed in conjunction with treatment systems operating in freshwater environments
to enhance protection. This combination approach should lower propagule pressure of potentially
harmful freshwater species, introduce an environmental barrier, and potentially allow some
treatment systems to operate more effectively as open ocean water contains less debris and
plankton than coastal port waters. This combination approach should reduce the overall number
of non-indigenous freshwater species being released in the Great Lakes, even if the absolute
number of individuals released after treatment remains the same.10
However, as it pertains to ballast water discharge requirements in the Draft 2013 Vessel General
Permit, we strongly recommend that the following improvements be made:
10 Development of Guidelines and Other Documents for Uniform Implementation of the 2004 BWM Convention.
Submitted by Canada to the International Maritime Organization. December 10, 2010.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
EPA notes the last sentence of the comment introduces other concepts discussed elsewhere in
this response to comment document.
1189
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Robert C. North, President, North Star Maritime, Inc.
North Star Maritime, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0567-A2
3
No
Comment: VGP, Part 2.2.3.7: Additionally, vessels utilizing a ballast water treatment system
(see Part 2.2.3.5.1.1 of the permit) must also conduct ballast water exchange or saltwater
flushing (as applicable) in addition to treating their ballast water if they meet the following
requirements:
• The vessel operates outside the EEZ and more than 200 nm from any shore and then
enters the Great Lakes via the Saint Lawrence Seaway System, and
• The vessel has taken on ballast water that has a salinity of less than 18 ppt from a coastal,
estuarine, or freshwater ecosystem within the previous month.
In the Fact Sheet, EPA also asks for comment on whether this requirement should continue to be
considered for other freshwater destinations in U.S. waters as well as other destinations in the
U.S. waters regardless of whether the vessel took on ballast water from saltwater or freshwater
ports.
Comments: While there might be justification for this for vessels enroute the Great Lakes, ballast
water exchange should not be further considered for vessels enroute other U.S. waters. Ballast
water is typically treated at uptake as cargo is discharged and before proceeding to sea. So,
ballast water exchange following treatment would require that treated ballast be dumped at sea
and the treatment process repeated. This doubles crew workload time and fuel consumed for
ballast water treatment and any active substances consumed with increased air emissions and
increased cost. Ballast water exchange at sea also presents safety hazards to ships from both a
structural and stability perspective. Although existing and proposed amended Coast Guard
requirements in 33 CFR 151 for ballast water management provide for safety exemptions, it was
expected that the transition to ballast water treatment would eliminate the need for ballast
water exchange and the associated safety hazards.
While the Great Lakes are considered a unique and valuable resource and may warrant this
additional measure and EPA's Economic and Benefits Analysis addressed the cost concerns as
reflected in a number of vessels entering the Great Lakes estimated 188 vessels, expanding the
ballast water exchange requirement to potentially all vessels subject to ballast water requirements
would then include an estimated 8147 vessels according to Table 2-5 in the Economic and
Benefits Analysis. The benefit versus potential safety risk and economic issues for this larger
vessel population is not addressed. The Coast Guard's proposed rulemaking of 28 August 2009
concerning ballast water amends 33 CFR 151 by phasing in ballast water treatment and phasing
out ballast water exchange. It notes that treatment ".. .will considerably advance environmental
protection over the current exchange-based regime..." The Coast Guard then goes on to discuss a
Phase-two standard to potentially further improve ballast water treatment to reflect the future
state of technology.
1190
-------
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
EPA notes that the USCG ballast water discharge standard is established under the authorities in
NISA, while the VGP WQBELs are established under the requirements and regulations
resulting from the Clean Water Act. EPA notes that the Coast Guard did not finalize their Phase
II limit, and EPA is not adopting that limit today.
Commenter Name: Scott Strand, Executive Director, MN Center for
Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Commenter Affiliation: MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Late Comment? No
Comment: 2.2.3.7 Vessels entering the Great Lakes.
We strongly support the use of ballast water exchange. In review of the literature, ballast water
exchange has proven to reduce the risks of introducing AIS. This applies even more to the
freshwater Great Lakes.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Late Comment? No
Comment: 18. Comment on the requirement for vessels entering the Great Lakes from
freshwater ecosystems and brackish ecosystems to conduct ballast water exchange or saltwater
flushing prior to entry in addition to treatment with a system.
It is our recommendation that ballast water treatment systems verified to perform in Fresh Water
(as proven by testing at an ETV or High Value Data test facility) be exempted from this
requirement.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document..
EPA does not believe it is appropriate to exempt any vessel from this requirement no matter
which system it selects. Vessel operators must be cognizant of the unique operational
requirements that will be required to operate in the Great Lakes when undertaking voyages to
those waters.
Commenter Name: Dawn Kristof Champney, President, Water and Wastewater
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
1191
-------
Commenter Affiliation: Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (WWEMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0629-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Late Comment? No
Comment: 18. Comment on the requirement for vessels entering the Great Lakes from
freshwater ecosystems and brackish ecosystems to conduct ballast water exchange or saltwater
flushing prior to entry in addition to treatment with a system.
It is recommended that ballast water treatment systems verified to perform in Fresh Water (as
proven by testing at an ETV or High Value Data test facility) be exempted from this
requirement.
Response: Please see the response essay in section 10.1.2 of this comment response document.
Please also see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2, excerpt 17.
11. Vessel Class-Specific Requirements
No comments.
11.1 Large Cruise Ships
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marcie Keever, Oceans & Vessels Project Director, Friends
of the Earth
Friends of the Earth
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0494-A1
1
No
Comment: A. Cruise Industry Growth Equals an Increase in Pollution.
Cruise vessels carry millions of people through North American waters each year, and the United
States accounts for 70 percent of global cruise ship embarkations, according to the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy. In 2010, 112 cruise ships carried 10.6 million passengers on 4,208
North American cruises, according to the U.S. Maritime Administration. Cruise ship size and
capacity also continues to expand dramatically, with many ships now transporting 5,000
passengers and crew and newest ships carrying 8,000 passengers and crew.
While the cruise industry continues to claim it is an environmentally sound industry by touting
its voluntary environmental standards, such voluntary programs do little, if anything, to protect
U.S. waters from cruise ship dumping. A cruise ship has never been penalized by its corporate
owners or trade organizations for violating the self-imposed standards and there is no
independent or public auditing to determine whether the cruise lines in fact follow or enforce
them. As a result, the VGP is, in most U.S. waters, the only mandatory restriction on the
discharge of certain wastewater streams from passenger vessels.
1192
-------
B. Cruise Ships Discharge More Types and Significantly Higher Volumes of Waste than Other
Vessels.
Cruise ships - the largest of which carry more than 8,000 passengers and crew - are floating
cities that produce enormous volumes of waste. A large cruise ship on a one week voyage is
estimated to generate 210,000 gallons of human sewage, 1 million gallons of gray water (water
from sinks, baths, showers, laundry, and galleys), 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water, up to
11,550 gallons of sewage sludge, and more than 130 gallons of hazardous wastes.1 Much of this
waste is dumped directly into the ocean, some treated, some not. Cruise ships also spread
invasive species by dumping untreated ballast water in coastal zones, bays and lakes.
After years of requests for EPA to assess the significant environmental impacts of cruise ships
and regulate discharges from cruise ships, EPA issued this VGP covering commercial vessels
including cruise ships. While this is a step in the right direction and we appreciate EPA's efforts
to regulate vessel discharges, EPA should significantly strengthen the VGP to better regulate
discharges from cruise ships; EPA has the authority to do so under the NPDES permitting
program.
II. EPA Should Ban the Discharge of Graywater in Waters within EPA's NPDES Permitting
Jurisdiction
Cruise ship graywater (wastewater from sinks, showers, galleys and laundry) contains
contaminants such as detergents, cleaners, oil and grease, metals, pesticides, viruses, fecal
coliform, and medical and dental waste, as well as significant concentrations of priority
pollutants. EPA's Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report states that some cruise ships may
send any of the following to the graywater system on some cruise ships even though some of the
waste streams do not fall within the definition of wastewater: wastewater from bar and pantry
sinks, salon and day spa sinks and floor drains, interior deck drains, shop sinks and deck drains
in non-engine rooms (e.g., print shops, photo processing shops, dry cleaning areas, and chemical
storage areas); refrigerator and air conditioner condensate; wastewater from laundry floor drains
in passenger and crew laundries; dry cleaning condensate; wastewater from dishwashers, food
preparation, galley sinks, floor drains, and the food pulper; wastewater from garbage room floor
drains and from sinks in restaurants and cafes; wastewater from whirlpools; and wastewater from
medical facility sinks and medical floor drains.2
EPA's Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report also reported that sampling (by EPA and the
ADEC Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative) of untreated graywater found high levels of fecal coliform,
total and dissolved metals, volatile and semivolatile organics, and organics.3 Oil and grease were
found in 100 percent of EPA's samples and settleable and suspended solids were found to be
substantially higher than discharge standards for land-based treated sewage.4 Such discharges
make their way back towards the shore, impacting a variety of beneficial uses including shellfish
harvesting and recreation as well as the ecological uses of estuaries, shores, and bays which
frequently serve as nursery habitat for a wide range of marine, estuarine, and anadromous
species.
1193
-------
Even allowing for the discharge of treated graywater does little to resolve the contamination
problem. The VGP fails to address the fact that many pollutants (i.e., viruses, heavy metals and
toxic chemicals) cannot be removed from graywater using either Marine Sanitation Devices or
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems (AWTS). First, AWTS may not remove all viruses
from wastewater.5 Second AWTS do not remove all pollutants from wastewater, such as metals
and other toxic chemicals. Third, it is possible for AWTS to fail when discharging near sensitive
areas such as shellfish beds and coral reefs. If EPA is going to allow for the discharge of treated
graywater rather than prohibiting its discharge, it must set water quality based limits for the full
range of pollutants found in graywater.
Thankfully, EPA is proposing to extend the limits and treatment standards set out in the 2008
VGP for cruise ships out to 3 nautical miles in the draft 2013 VGP which Friends of the Earth
strongly supports. However, we request that in light of the fact that the treatment systems used
on cruise ships are still unable to adequately treat or rid graywater of some of the pollutants
listed, at a minimum, EPA should implement a complete ban on graywater discharges from large
cruise ships in waters covered by the 2013 VGP for those ships who can hold their discharges.
California has had a ban on graywater discharges in state waters out to 3 nautical miles since the
Clean Coast Act was passed in 2005,6 and the state just implemented the largest coastal No-
Discharge Zone for sewage in the country.7 California's graywater ban and sewage No-
Discharge Zone provide evidence that large cruise ships can hold their wastewater discharges
when operating close to shore in VGP covered waters. EPA should implement a full ban on
graywater discharges from large cruise ships in the final 2013 VGP.
1 Cruise Ship Pollution: Background, Laws and Regulations, and Key Issues RL32450, Congressional Research
Service, May 2, 2008, p. CR-2, http://cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Mar/RL32450.pdf and Cruise Ship Discharge
Assessment Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 29, 2008,
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/vwd/cruise_ship_disch_assess_report.cfm.
2 EPA Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report, p. 3-2 (emphasis added).
3 EPA Cruise Ship Report, p. 3-22 & 3-25 to 3-28.
4 Id.
5 Assessment of Potential Health Impacts of Virus Discharge from Cruise Ships to Shellfish Growing Areas in Puget
Sound, Washington Department of Health, November 2007, http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/sf/Pubs/cruise-ship-
report.pdf at 1.
6 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/npdes/docs/sb771/faq.pdf.
7 http://www.epa.gov/region9/mediacenter/nodischarge/index.html.
Response: EPA recognizes that discharges from cruise ships have the potential to negatively
impact the environment. EPA also concurs with the commenter regarding certain limitations of
voluntary environmental programs, though EPA generally appreciates the efforts of the Cruise
Ship industry to improve their environmental performance, and in some cases, has modeled
permit requirements based on these programs. Accordingly, the VGP contains specific
requirements applicable to cruise ships which will minimize that impact. Please see Part 5.1 and
5.2 of the VGP as well as Section 7.1 and 7.2 of the Fact Sheet.
In the 2013 VGP, as in the 2008 VGP, EPA includes several requirements which address some
of the commenter's concerns. First, the discharge of any photo processing effluent is not
eligible for permit coverage. See Part 1.2.3.5 of the VGP and Section 3.5.2.5 of the Fact Sheet.
In addition, effluent from any dry cleaning operations, including any spent or unused
1194
-------
tetrachloroethylene, is not eligible for permit coverage. See Part 1.2.3.6 of the VGP and Section
3.5.2.6 of the Fact Sheet. Tetrachloroethylene or Trichloroethylene (TCE) are not eligible for
permit coverage in any form, including TCE degreasers. See Part 1.2.3.9 of the VGP and
Section 3.5.2.9 of the Fact Sheet. Discharging refrigerator and air conditioner condensate is
allowed, but subject to the restrictions contained in Part 2.2.18 of the Permit. See also Section
4.4.18 of the Fact Sheet for more information on this discharge. Additionally, as a permit
condition, vessel owner/operators of large and medium cruise ships must prevent certain waste
streams (including several discussed by the commenter here) from entering their graywater
systems (see Parts 5.1.1.1.4 and 5.2.1.1.4 of the Permit).
EPA also notes that sewage is beyond the scope of this permit. EPA regulates sewage under
Section 312 of the Clean Water Act. Commingled discharge streams of sewage mixed with
graywater must meet the graywater requirements of the permit in addition to the Sewage
requirements found under CWA 312. Discharge requirements for bilgewater and ballast water
are provided at Parts 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of the Permit, respectively.
EPA has found that advanced wastewater treatment systems (AWTS) represent BAT for
graywater discharges within 3 nm of shore for most cruise ships and for graywater discharges
from large cruise ships into nutrient impaired waters. Please see discussion in Parts 4.1 and 4.2
in the Fact Sheet for how EPA determines BAT and discussion in Part 7.1 and 7.2 of the Fact
Sheet for discussion of cruise ship specific requirements.
The factors the commenters claim about the insufficiency of AWTS also apply to numerous
other wastewater treatment approaches. All systems may not remove all viruses, metals or toxic
chemicals, and may have upsets (short term system failures). The fact that AWTS may only
partially remove some pollutants does not mean they do not meet the BAT standard. EPA's
evaluation of AWTS performance on cruise ships in Alaska does indicate significant removals
of many pollutants, including through gross removal of solids.
At this time, EPA expects that the effluent limits for medium and large cruise ships are
adequate to prevent ships from causing or contributing to water quality standards violations. If
cruise ship owner/operators become or are made aware that they are violating water quality
standards, they are required to take corrective actions as required in Part 3 of the VGP and they
must also report the exceedance(s) to EPA as required in Parts 1.13 and 4.4.1 (see Part 2.3 of
the Permit). As is supported by this comment, EPA proposed to 2013 VGP to prohibit large
cruise ships and medium cruise ships built after December 19, 2008 from discharging untreated
graywater when a vessel is between 1 and 3 nm from shore (see Parts 7.1.1.2 and 7.2.2.2 of the
Fact Sheet).
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 32
Late Comment? No
1195
-------
Comment: P. 73, Part 5.1.2.3 Treated Pool and Spa Discharges - As the requirements of this
part are only applicable to discharges of pool and spa water discharged directly overboard (as
opposed to through the gray water system, per requirements in Part 5.1.1.2) the title to this Part
should be changed to "Treated Pool and Spa Discharges Discharged Directly Overboard."
Response: The commenter is incorrect regarding the applicability of the treated pool and spa
monitoring requirements at Part 5.1.2.3 of the Permit. All treated pool and spa discharges to
waters subject to the permit must meet these requirements regardless of whether these
wastewaters are discharged separately or commingled with graywater for treatment and
discharge.
Part 5.1.1.2 of the permit authorizes pool and spa discharges as either separate discharges or
discharges commingled with graywater for treatment and discharge. If discharged separately
without commingling, Part 5.1.1.2 provides numerical standards to demonstrate dechlorination
and/or debromination. If pool and spa waters discharges are commingled with other waste
streams entering a graywater treatment system, then the graywater treatment standards also
apply to the resulting graywater discharge (which include limits for total chlorine residual).
Part 5.1.2.3 requires monitoring of chlorine or bromine concentrations (as applicable) to verify
dechlorination/debromination. This part does not specify, or make any distinction between, pool
and spa discharges that are separate or that are commingled with graywater for treatment.
Therefore, cruise ships must monitor discharges of pool or spa water for chlorine or bromine (as
appropriate) regardless of whether the discharges are separate or commingled with graywater.
This is also in the vessel operators interest to ensure that high chlorine water is not being
applied to their graywater system, which in addition to resulting in an elevated discharge to U.S.
waters, could also do damage to advanced wastewater systems.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 42
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 71, second paragraph - in discussion of ballast water capacities, EPA correctly
notes that cruise ships have a representative ballast capacity of 3,000 m3. The operational
requirements of this vessel category, however, are such that cruise ships do not discharge large
amounts of ballast water - particularly in comparison to tankers or cargo ships. This is due to the
fact that the vessel loading is typically the same from voyage to voyage, whereas tankers and
freighters must compensate for loading and unloading of cargo on a port-by-port basis. In the
interests of informing the reader, this distinction should be made in this section of the fact sheet.
Response: The VGP Fact Sheet explains this distinction regarding ballast capacities on cruise
ships versus other large vessels. There are significant differences among vessel types and
1196
-------
among individual vessels regarding ongoing ballast operations and practices. Ballast capacities
are not necessarily a good representation of the volume and frequency of ballast water
discharges.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 54
Late Comment? No
Comment: c. 40 CFR Part 122.41 (l)(4)(ii) is the standard clause requiring reporting of
additional sampling. Since vessels will be sailing into and out of permitted waters, and may or
may not be discharging at the time of sampling, EPA must discuss the applicability of this
requirement to such samples. Samples taken for initial verification of the efficacy of the
treatment system presumably could or should be submitted, while samples taken outside permit
waters, or when not discharging, could not be used for discharge monitoring (for example, how
can a sample taken when not discharging be used to take enforcement on discharge limits?).
This has particular impact on certification of ballast water monitoring requirements of this permit
and the advanced wastewater treatment system requirements found in Part 5.1 EPA should also
comment on the acceptability of using foreign labs for analytical support.
1 The State of Alaska, in implementing its General Permit for Large Cruise ships, revised their draft to specify that
only samples drawn while the vessel was actually discharging into Alaskan waters were to be submitted and
incorporated into permit required reporting and/or calculations.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2, excerpt 10
regarding ballast water monitoring and comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2, excerpt
31 regarding graywater monitoring. Additionally, sampling may be conducted at a foreign lab,
provided methods specified in the permit are utilized. However, EPA reminds the commenter
that the permittee is responsible that information submitted is accurate and complete, per the
certification statement in Part 1.7 of the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michelle Bonnett, Director, Division of Water, Water
Quality Section, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0534- A2
9
No
Comment: 5.1.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.2.1 - Initial Monitoring (for graywater)
1197
-------
The Department recommends adding the following to the list of monitoring information required
to be recorded to ensure that representative samples are collected:
• Proportions of wastestreams being treated and sampled (such as mixed graywater, mixed
graywater and blackwater. and galley. If actual amounts are not available, the estimated
proportions should be provided. Sample port locations.
Response: EPA is incorporating some of the additional recordkeeping and/or reporting
suggested by the commenter because such information will likely be helpful to characterize the
discharge. EPA notes that monitoring data show whether the graywater discharge standards are
being achieved. Parts 5.1.2.2 and 5.2.2.2 of the Permit specify that samples must be collected
that are representative of the treated effluent to be discharged.
Commenter Name: Marc A. Ross, Executive Director, Rock the Earth
Commenter Affiliation: Rock the Earth
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0547-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: On behalf of over 2,000 members from throughout the United States, we are writing
to comment on the 2013 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel. As discussed below, we
address the VGP because RtE has been active in advocating increased cruise ship regulation by
EPA. Because of the connection between the music industry and the cruise ship industry
discussed below, RtE will focus its comments on the provisions of the VGP that apply to the
cruise ship industry.
II. The Relationship between the Music Industry and the Cruise Industry
There is a growing intersection of the cruise industry with the music industry. Music producers
and promoters of all different genres of music are now collaborating with some of the largest
cruise lines to create "once-in-a-lifetime" experiences for music fans of all kinds in which the
lines between the stage and the audience are blurred and fans get to mingle with their favorite
artists in a fun and relaxed setting. RtE commented on the Draft NPDES General Permit for
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel in 2008, when EPA was preparing to
issue the current VGP. At that time, there were well over two dozen music oriented cruises
departing American ports each year. The number of music oriented cruises has increased
slightly, despite the downturn in the economy as a whole.
When EPA announced in 2010 that a new VGP was being drafted, to be effective in 2013, Rock
the Earth filed comments on December 31, 2010, asking that EPA take a harder look at certain
discharges, that cruise ships be required to publish discharge monitoring reports, and that there
be greater transparency and education on the part of cruise lines vis-a-vis passengers and
customers. Now, as at the time of our comments in 2008 and 2010, these music oriented cruises
are usually genre-centered and include classical, opera, blues, jazz, rock, bluegrass, Christian and
country music themes. From the Rhythm & Blues Cruise to the Jazz Cruise, from the Barenaked
Ladies' "Ships & Dips" Cruise to the Rock Cruise, from Jam Cruise's jamband oriented cruise to
1198
-------
Tim McGraw and Faith Hill's country-oriented cruise, thousands of die-hard music fans are
taking cruises each year with little knowledge as to the incredible deleterious impact the ships
upon which they are sailing are having on the environment. Most recently, in January of 2012, a
cruise on its maiden voyage, "Holy Ship," catering to electronica fans, in addition to the
expected environmental impact, actually ran aground and damaged a reef in the Bahamas. The
2013 VGP should impose the most stringent restrictions practicable on cruise ships, and should
require cruise ship operators to engage and educate their passengers, with the goal of minimizing
the environmental impact of cruises.
III. Recommendations
RtE believes that its members and music fans in particular, and cruise ship passengers in general,
support the idea that the cruise ship industry needs to address its responsibility for environmental
degradation, and educate its customers about the current state of the environmental impact from
each ship as well as identifying the steps that the cruise line can and should take to reduce the
environmental impact from its ships. Further, the EPA should structure the VGP to require the
cruise ship industry to take additional steps to minimize its harmful impacts on the ecosystems
upon which its business depends.
Rock the Earth commends the EPA for the fact that with respect to graywater from cruise ships,
the draft 2013 permit also includes (Parts 5.1 and 5.2 of the permit) additional conditions to
reduce the impacts of graywater discharges to acceptable levels.
Response: EPA believes that the permit requirements for medium and large cruise ships
represent stringent levels of control that are adequate to prevent ships from causing or
contributing to most water quality standards violations. If cruise ship owner/operators become
or are made aware that discharges are causing or contributing to non-attainment of water quality
standards, they are required to take corrective actions as required in Part 3 of the VGP and they
must also report the exceedance(s) to EPA as required in Parts 1.13 and 4.4.1 of the Permit (see
Part 2.3 of the Permit for additional information on water quality-based effluent limits).
In the 2013 VGP, as in the 2008 VGP, EPA includes several requirements for cruise ship
operators to educate passengers about potential adverse environmental impacts and steps the
passengers can take to minimize these impacts. See Parts 5.1.3 and 5.2.3 of the Permit and
Section 7.1.3 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name: Marc A. Ross, Executive Director, Rock the Earth
Commenter Affiliation: Rock the Earth
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0547-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: In its January 2008 comments to EPA's Draft Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment
Report, Rock the Earth recommended that EPA and the Coast Guard should request authority to
institute an independent observer program to monitor and insure cruise ship compliance
environmental regulations.
1199
-------
RtE recommends that the 2013 VGP requires that cruise ship operators must allow an
independent observer program to monitor and insure cruise ship compliance environmental
regulations.
Response: The commenter does not explain why these additional requirements are necessary
or appropriate given the information already gathered for compliance and enforcement purposes
by the VGP through provisions for inspections, monitoring, recording and recordkeeping. Thus,
EPA has made no changes to the permit based on this comment.
Commenter Name: Marc A. Ross, Executive Director, Rock the Earth
Commenter Affiliation: Rock the Earth
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0547-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: In addition, rather than annual sampling and reporting requirements under the VGP,
it is our recommendation that since most, if not all, vessels now employ continuous discharge
monitoring (CDM) that those full CDM reports be submitted to EPA as part of the annual
reporting requirements so as to ensure full compliance with the VGP.
Response: EPA requires discharge sampling and reporting to show that the effluent standards
are being achieved. While many vessels use continuous discharge monitoring of certain
parameters to indicate ongoing system operation and performance, such monitoring seldom, if
ever, encompasses all of the regulated pollutants and additional pollutants of interest.
In prescribing the monitoring and reporting provisions of the VGP, EPA balanced the need for
obtaining relevant information from vessels about their discharges with the administrative
burdens associated with submitting and receiving information. Thus, EPA has made no changes
to the permit based on this comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent, V. Ships
Leisure
V. Ships Leisure
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2
11
No
Comment: Item No: 12
VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: 5.1.1.1.1 Large cruise ships -Graywater discharge location and
rate and Appendix A - definitions for "non-toxic (soaps and detergents)"
1200
-------
VGP 2013 or Factsheet text: 5.1.1.1.3 soaps and detergents (large cruise ships) must now be (in
addition to previously only phosphate free) also now non-toxic and biodegradable if they will be
discharged as part of any waste stream.
Comments: soaps and detergents (large cruise ships) must now be (in addition to previously only
phosphate free) also now non-toxic and biodegradable if they will be discharged as part of any
waste stream in permit waters - hence see comments under items No.l and No. 10 above.
Suggestion or Proposed text: See recommendations under items No.l and 10 above.
Item No: 13
VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: 5.1.1.1.2 and 5.2.1.1.2 Gray water Treatment Standards and
5.1.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.2.1 Initial Monitoring VGP 2013 or Factsheet text: 3. Concentrations of total
residual chlorine may not exceed 10.0 micrograms per liter (|ig/l).
Analytical results for total residual chlorine below the method detection limit shall be deemed
compliant with the effluent limits, provided the permittee uses a testing method with a detection
limit no higher than 10.0 (ig/L under ideal conditions. EPA recommends Method SM4500-CL G
(DPD Colorimetric Method) for these purposes as it is able to reach 10 (ag/L under ideal
conditions and so meets these requirements. SM4500-CI G is typically the method that
ADEC/U.S. Coast Guard uses for compliance monitoring.
Comments: From experience (initial monitoring for a passenger vessel) and having enquired with
an USCG accredited lab (Admiralty Environmental based in Juneau AK) the best practical
detection limit available for Total Residual Chlorine appear to be <0.1mg/l (mili) ie < 100ug/l
(micro) and not <10 ug/1 (micro).
Suggestion or Proposed text: Concentrations of total residual chlorine (TRC) may not exceed
10.0 (ig/L (micrograms per liter). Analytical results below the detection limit of the best practical
lab method for TRC shall be deemed compliant with the effluent limits.
Item No: 14
VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: 5.1.2.3 and 5.2.1.2 (Treated) Pool and Spa Discharges.
VGP 2013 or Factsheet text: For chlorine, analytical results below the method detection limit
shall be deemed compliant with the effluent limits, provided the permittee uses a testing method
with a detection limit no higher than 10.0 (ig/L under ideal conditions. EPA recommends
Method SM4500-CL G (DPD Colorimetric Method) for these purposes as it is able to reach 10
(ig/L under ideal conditions and so meets these requirements. SM4500-C1G is typically the
method that ADEC/USCG uses for compliance monitoring.
Comments: As above in item 13: From experience (initial monitoring for a passenger vessel) and
having enquired with an USCG accredited lab (Admiralty Environmental based in Juneau AK)
the best practical detection limit available for Total Residual Chlorine appear to be <0.1mg/l
(mili) ie < 100ug/l (micro) and not <10 ug/1 (micro).
1201
-------
Suggestion or Proposed text: As above in item 13: Concentrations of total residual chlorine
(TRC) may not exceed 10.0 (ag/L (micrograms per liter). Analytical results below the detection
limit of the best practical lab method for TRC shall be deemed compliant with the effluent limits.
Item No: 15
VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: 5.1.2.2.2 and 5.2.2.2.2 Maintenance Monitoring.
VGP 2013 or Factsheet text: After demonstrating the effectiveness of their system, vessel
owners/operators must collect and analyze one sample per quarter for each of the constituents
listed in Part 5.1.2.2.1 (5.2.2.2.1.) to demonstrate treatment equipment maintenance and
compliance with this permit.
Comments: Most passenger vessels discharge in permit waters only during the Alaska season.
Such vessels should not be required to keep monitoring/sampling if they do not discharge in
permit waters during other quarters.
Suggestion or Proposed text: After demonstrating the effectiveness of their system, you must
collect and analyze one sample per quarter only if the vessel discharges in waters subject to the
requirements of this permit during that quarter.
Response: With respect to commenter's Item No: 12, please see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2, excerpt 1.
Regarding commenter's Item No: 13, EPA disagrees with the commenter's recommendation to
substitute the vague phrase "best practical lab method for TRC" for EPA's current specific
requirements for TRC analytical methods at Parts 5.1.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.2.1 of the Permit, which
require use of a testing method with a detection limit no higher than 10.0 (ag/L under ideal
conditions. EPA is aware that certain TRC test methods approved at 40 CFR 136 have method
detection limits several orders of magnitude greater than the TRC graywater effluent standard
of 10.0 (ig/L. Use of such test methods for TRC testing would provide no assurance of whether
or not the TRC treatment standards are being achieved. EPA believes the current permit
requirements provide the necessary flexibility in demonstrating compliance with TRC standards
while also assuring that cruise ships are adequately controlling chlorine in their discharges. EPA
notes that graywater effluent testing results are commonly reported as <100 (ag/L when using
text methods with a detection limit no higher than 10.0 (ag/L under ideal conditions; such results
would be deemed compliant with the effluent limits.
Regarding commenter's Item No: 14, see the response to commenter's Item No: 13 above
(contained within this excerpt response).
With respect to commenter's Item No: 15, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141-0530-A2, excerpt 31 regarding maintenance monitoring.
Commenter Name: Mark Riggio, Product Manager, Hyde Marine
Commenter Affiliation: Hyde Marine
1202
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0612-A2
27
No
Comment: Section 5.1.1.1 Graywater Management:
It is our recommendation that EPA consider the co-mingling of ballast water and gray water for
the cruise market. As discharges not specifically covered by this permit are not permitted under
the VGP, co-mingled gray water and ballast water would not be allowed, however this is a
practice that may be allowed for international vessels. Certain ballast water treatment systems,
e.g. UV and filter systems, may be capable of treating gray water in a manner that is acceptable
for discharge, particularly when co-mingled with treated ballast water. In these instances, such
discharges should be allowed under the new permit.
Response: Contrary to the commenter's belief, the VGP does not prohibit commingling of
authorized discharges. In fact, EPA acknowledges use of graywater as ballast as a valid
technique for minimization of ballast water for those vessels that have interconnections between
their graywater systems and the ballast water system. Note, however, that the commingled
discharge must still meet the relevant requirements contained in the VGP for both discharges, as
well as all other applicable statutes and regulations. Please also see section 9.1.17 of this
comment response document for further discussion.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section
Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology (ECY)
Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECY)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0794- A2
4
Yes
Comment: General comment - There were some good changes from the last version including
banning untreated graywater in covered water by large and medium cruise ships and only
allowing treated graywater discharges by large cruise ships if they have AWTS.
Response: The commenter is correct that the 2013 permit no longer authorizes the discharge of
untreated graywater by large cruise ships in waters subject to the permit. See Part 5.1.2.1 of the
Permit. The commenter is also correct that discharges of treated graywater from large cruise
ships in waters subject to the permit are also prohibited unless the discharges comply with the
standards in Part 5.1.1.1.2 of the Permit (with some additional requirements when operating in
nutrient impaired waters - see Part 5.1.1.1.1 of the permit).
However, the commenter is incorrect regarding graywater discharges from certain medium
cruise ships. As discussed in Section 7.2.2 of the Fact Sheet, permit requirements for medium
cruise ships are generally similar to those for large cruise ships, with two notable exceptions.
First, in nutrient impaired waters such as estuaries, the permit allows for medium cruise ships
1203
-------
unable to retain graywater on board to discharge untreated graywater while moving at a speed
of at least 6 knots. Second, medium cruise ships in operation as of the effective date of the
permit (i.e., built before December 19, 2008) are not required to meet the graywater
requirements found in Part 5.2.1.1.1 if the ship is unable to voyage 3 nm from shore, unless the
ship undergoes a major conversion subsequent to the VGP effective date.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section
Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology (ECY)
Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECY)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0794- A2
14
Yes
Comment: 5.1 and 5.2 - How will high fecal coliform monitoring results for discharges near
shellfish harvest areas be communicated to the Washington Department of Health in a timely
fashion?
Response: Per Part 4.4.1 of the Permit, vessel owners/operators are required to submit an
Annual Report for each year that they have active permit coverage, by February 28 of the
following year. Relevant to this comment, such reports must list the vessels' primary
geographical regions of operation in U.S. waters, all analytical monitoring results, and all
instances of noncompliance. EPA plans to make such data available to the public in electronic
form provided resources are available.
11.2 Medium Cruise Ships
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Timothy J. Beebe, Vice President, American Cruise Lines,
Inc. (ACL)
American Cruise Lines, Inc. (ACL)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0477-A1
1
No
Comment: II. Summary of Comment. In the proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP 2.0),
the degree of graywater purification currently applicable to "medium cruise ships" is essentially
the same level of purification as is required of the category of ships qualifying as "large cruise
ships." Compare Part 5.2.1.1 (graywater management requirements for medium cruise ships)
with Part 5.1.1.1 (graywater management requirements for large cruise ships). But in most
important critical aspects "medium cruise ships," particularly those such as ACL's ships at the
lower size range of this category and which carry less than 150 passengers, are entirely unlike
"large cruise ships" which carry sometimes many thousands of passengers and for which the
graywater management standards are designed. ACL submits that Part 5.2.1.1 of VGP 2.0
1204
-------
unfairly discriminates against small entity U.S. flag coastwise trade overnight passenger cruise
ships such as ACL by unduly and unnecessarily burdening them with the same graywater
management requirements as pertain to large foreign flag cruise ships and which are
unachievable for small ships of ACL's size.
Part 5.2.1.1 of VGP 2.0 is therefore seriously flawed in several respects. As the EPA
acknowledges in its Fact Sheet comments, at least for small U.S. flag coastwise trade cruise ships
in the 100 - 249 passenger/crew capacity size range, the proposed requirements present an
unachievable standard and a serious barrier to commerce. Also, the EPA has failed to comply
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RFA" by performing the required economic analysis of the
impact of the Part 5.2.1.1 graywater requirements on cruise ships in 100-249 passenger/crew
capacity size range. See, Economic and Benefits Analysis of the Proposed 2013 Vessel General
Permit ("Economic Analysis"), at 104 n. 49.
The Part 5.2.1.1 graywater management requirements can only be met by installing equipment so
large and heavy that it cannot be retrofitted onto a small cruise ship (one with 100 - 249
passenger/crew capacity). Although the EPA's Fact Sheet comments indicate that many large
foreign flag cruise ships have already met the graywater requirements by simply installing the
required equipment, the same is not true of the small U.S. flag coastwise trade segment of the
cruise ship industry, the industry segment which includes ACL and which the EPA has omitted
from its Economic Analysis. Further, imposing such extreme graywater management
requirements on small cruise ships with only 100 - 249 passenger/crew capacity is not necessary
for achieving the goals of the VGP, especially considering the fact that these small cruise ships
do not carry the thousands of passengers, and typically do not provide the more extravagant
features contributing to excessive or toxic graywater discharge such as swimming pools and
photo labs, commonly found on large cruise ships.
We submit that small cruise ships (including all those with 100 - 249 passenger/crew capacity)
should be required to meet only the more reasonable "best practices" standards. Specifically, to
comply with the RFA the EPA must conduct an economic analysis for the effect of graywater
management requirements on cruise ships with 100 - 249 passenger/crew capacity. The
graywater management requirements of proposed VGP 2.0 should be modified so as to be
realistically achievable for this category of small cruise ships. We submit that a regulatory
flexibility analysis of this industry segment will prove the "best practices" standard to be
appropriate. Detailed guidance should be provided in the final 2013 VGP as to how cruise ships
of this size can feasibly achieve the graywater management requirements.
Lastly, ACL submits that in Part 5.2.1.1 of VGP 2.0, the date that is referred to as the date on and
after which construction of medium cruise ships must comply with the requirements stated
therein should be December 29, 2008, which is the date the Notice of the issuance of the 2008
VGP (VGP 1.0) was first published in the Federal Register.
1 Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet ("Fact Sheet") § 7.2.1.2 at 174-75.
2 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857,
amending Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164 (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.).
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the permit requirements for medium cruise
1205
-------
ships are generally similar to those for large cruise ships with few exceptions. For example, the
graywater treatment standards for large and medium cruise ships provided in Parts 5.1.1.1.2 and
5.2.1.1.2 of the permit are identical. However, EPA disagrees that the graywater management
requirements are unachievable for medium cruise ships. For waste streams that do not exist on
medium-sized cruise ships, like swimming pools and photo labs identified in the comment, the
permit would not require the sampling of graywater for the additional pollutant parameters
included in the VGP for those waste streams.
The commenter states that in their experience coastwise cruise ships in the 100-249 capacity
size range cannot be designed and built, much less retrofitted, with advanced wastewater
treatment systems (AWTs) equipment designed for large cruise ships. According to the
commenter, AWTs are large and heavy, much larger and much heavier than standard marine
sanitation devices ("MSDs") used to control sewage discharges, and thus, the substantial weight
of AWTs would have significant impact on a small cruise ship's draft and, potentially, on its
stability. In addition, the commenter states that if medium cruise ships are built larger to
accommodate AWTs with sufficient capacity for the number of passengers to be carried, the
ships would then not be able to access the small harbors and ports for the cultural and historic
attractions medium size cruise vessel passengers seek.
In response to this comment, EPA reviewed existing information in the docket for the proposed
permit, including EPA's cruise ship analyses (US EPA, Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment
Report, EPA-842-R-07-005, 2008) and a technical development document exploring treatment
options for graywater (US EPA, Graywater Discharges from Vessels, EPA-800-R-11-
001, 2011). Using this information and information in EPA's NOI database for the 2008 VGP,
EPA conducted additional evaluations of the graywater management practices for U.S.-flagged
vessels that identified "medium cruise ship" as their primary or secondary vessel type in their
NOI submissions on the 2008 VGP. These included a total of 26 vessels. EPA eliminated from
the evaluation 10 vessels that reported berthing (overnight accommodation) for zero passengers
because these vessels would not meet the VGP definition of medium cruise ship (i.e., that
definition states a medium cruise ship provides overnight accommodations). Of the remaining
16 vessels (see Figure 1 below), EPA determined that 5 (31%) treat mixed graywater and
sewage using AWTs identical in design and operation as those operated by large cruise ships
that meet the graywater numeric effluent limits, including ROCHEM Bio-Filt®, Hamworthy
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR), and Scanship. See Section 7.1.1 of the VGP Fact Sheet for a
discussion of the performance of AWTs onboard large cruise ships. Of the remaining 9 vessels
(69%), 8 reported discharge of graywater without treatment, and 1 reported treating mixed
sewage and graywater using a traditional Type II marine sanitation device (MSD). See Sections
3.3 and 2.3.1 of EPA's Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report for a discussion of the
characteristics of untreated graywater and of the performance of traditional MSDs, respectively.
EPA notes that some medium cruise ships were not required to meet the effluent limits which
would require an AWTS unless they were a new build vessel built after December 18, 2008,
(the issuance date of the 2008 VGP; however, note that EPA is interpreting the applicability
date to be December 19, 2008). Hence, EPA does not expect all medium cruise ships covered
by the 2008 VGP to have AWTs installed.
1206
-------
500
450
jj 400
| 350
»S 300
*
^ 250
| 200
S 150
ra
2 joo
350
~ ^
-~ •
• ~ ~
• -Operate* AWT
~ - Does Not Operate AWT
50
0
Vessel
Figure 1. Gray water Management Practices for U.S.-Flagged Medium Cruise Ships
NOTE: Three vessels did not report maximum passenger capacity in their NOI.
The AWTs operated by the five medium cruise ships in the NOI database include both new
build and retrofit systems installed and operated on vessels carrying numbers of passengers
ranging from 212 to 462 (294 to 800 passengers and crew). The commenter has raised concerns
regarding medium cruise ships in the 100-250 passenger range. EPA notes that one of these
vessels falls within that range, while the other four represent the larger-sized medium cruise
ships that are not the commenter's concern.
While EPA is not aware of any other smaller U.S.-flagged medium cruise ships that have
installed AWTs, EPA contacted several AWT vendors with AWT systems demonstrated to
achieve the Part 5.1 and 5.2 discharge standards to discuss their system capabilities. Although
some vendors stated that their AWTs were too large to place on vessels other than large cruise
ships, two vendors stated their AWTs are rated for use on vessels with fewer passengers and
crew such as smaller-sized medium cruise ships. Specifically, the Scanship vendor stated their
system can treat mixed graywater and sewage on vessels ranging from large cruise ship to
vessels carrying as few as 100 passengers and crew. The ROCHEM Bio-Filt® vendor stated
that their MBR is used to treat mixed graywater and sewage on all sizes of vessels, ranging
from large cruise ships to vessels as small as mega yachts. Finally, while EPA did not contact
the Hamworthy MBR vendor, their MBR reference list published on their website includes a
system installed onboard a new build mega yacht with 120 passengers and crew. These contacts
and additional information demonstrate that AWTs are available for use on smaller-sized
medium cruise ships of concern to the commenter.
Additionally, EPA identified three type-approved AWTs designed for much lower hydraulic
and organic loadings capacities (i.e., much fewer passengers and crew) than those operated
onboard large cruise ships. One vendor states their membrane bioreactor can be installed on
vessels with as few as 25 crew/passengers for treatment of either mixed sewage and graywater
or sewage only; a second states their biological treatment system with dissolved air flotation
1207
-------
and UV disinfection can be installed on vessels with as few as 10 passengers and crew for
treatment of either mixed sewage and graywater or sewage only; and a third vendor states their
biological treatment system with dissolved air flotation and UV disinfection can be installed on
vessels with as few as 30 passengers and crew for treatment of mixed sewage and graywater.
EPA notes that these systems can be installed onboard vessels smaller than the medium cruise
ships in the size range of 100-249 passengers that the commenter has concerns regarding. EPA
has not researched whether these three systems are scalable to the larger sizes that would be
needed for medium cruise ships. However, as noted above, there are at least two AWTs
technologies on the market that are available that address the commenter's concern, and that
there are technologies that could serve even smaller vessels, such that there may yet be
theoretical possibilities that such technologies could be scaled up to increase the number of
available technologies for this vessel size range.
While AWTs used onboard medium cruise ships are identical in design and operation as those
installed onboard large cruise ships, they are smaller in size and weight because they are scaled
to treat the significantly lower volumes of graywater and sewage generated onboard medium
cruise ships. For example, EPA compared the size (footprint) and wet weight of AWTs treating
mixed sewage and graywater to traditional Type II marine sanitation devices (MSDs) treating
sewage only. Specifically, EPA compared the Scanship AWP, sized to treat mixed sewage and
graywater generated by 120 passengers and crew to the Hamworthy ST-C Series Super Trident
Sewage Treatment Unit, sized to treat sewage only from 169 passengers and crew (a traditional
Type II MSD reported in the NOI database as used onboard one of the smaller-sized medium
cruise ships). EPA found that the weight and footprint of the Scanship AWP was 1.3 times
heavier and 1.8 times larger on a per person basis than the traditional Type II MSD. For a vessel
with 120 passengers and crew, this incremental increase in weight and size is approximately
1,900 kg (the equivalent weight of 500 gallons of water—the amount of water used and
subsequently the amount of sewage and graywater generated by fewer than 7 persons in a day1)
and 40 ft2 (a fraction of the size of a 200 to 600 ft2 stateroom on a small-sized medium cruise
ship). The ROCHEM Bio-Filt® vendor stated that their retrofit systems have a smaller footprint
than biological Type II MSDs (such as the Hamworthy ST-C Series Super Trident Sewage
Treatment Unit) and typically can be substituted for these systems. As an additional means of
comparison, according to the NOI database, the ballast capacities of the smaller-sized medium
cruise ships operated by the commenter range from 9,437 to 20,689 gallons. This analysis,
coupled with the demonstrated use and applicability of AWTs on vessels smaller than large
cruise ships (including one with 120 passengers and one with 212 passengers), indicates that
installation of AWTs would not have a significant effect on a small cruise ship's draft or
stability and would not restrict access to desired cruise locations. Hence, since systems are
available and in use today on the same size vessels discussed by the commenter (100-249
passengers), at least one permittee in this size class has installed a system to meet the numeric
discharge graywater standards, and that AWTs systems are available for vessels even smaller
than medium cruise ships (those in the 100-249 passenger category, including those referenced
by the commenter in this comment), contradicts the claim by the commenter that systems are
not available for new build smaller medium cruise ships (those with between 100-249
passengers built after issuance of the first VGP).
EPA also disagrees with the commenter's statements that graywater management requirements
1208
-------
for medium cruise ships are not necessary for achieving the goals of the VGP and that "best
practices" standards are sufficient. Multiple studies (e.g., EPA's Cruise Ship Discharge
Assessment Report, EPA's Report to Congress: Study of Discharges Incidental to Normal
Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non-Recreational Vessels Less than 79
Feet, Alaska's Cruise Ship Initiative, and ADEC's Commercial Passenger Vessel Compliance
Program) have shown that vessel graywater is a high strength wastewater containing
concentrations of key parameters (e.g., biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids)
similar to those found in untreated domestic wastewater. Although medium cruise ships carry
fewer passengers and crew than large cruise ships, the amount of graywater generated by
medium cruise ships is still many times greater than what is generated by other vessel types of
similar size (EPA 201 Id). Untreated graywater in such large quantities could reasonably be
expected to adversely impact aquatic ecosystems in inland, estuarine, and coastal waters. The
graywater generated by medium cruise ships may also contain high levels of nutrients,
pathogens, residual levels of organic material, and cleaning chemicals.
Contrary to the commenter's claims, the standards that EPA has included for medium cruise
ships are also economically practicable and achievable. EPA estimates that the annual cost of
purchasing, installing, and operating and maintaining a graywater treatment system (which
treats graywater commingled with sewage) is $118.34 per passenger (including crew) berth. See
the Economic Analysis for the VGP for more information regarding EPA's economic analyses
for medium cruise ships. As discussed in that analysis, EPA performed a firm level analysis for
both the issuance of the 2013 VGP and the issuance of the 2008 VGP. As further discussed in
that analysis, to evaluate the potential impact of the VGP on small entities, EPA used a cost-to-
revenue test to evaluate the potential severity of economic impact on vessels owned by small
entities. The test calculates annualized pre-tax compliance cost as a percentage of total revenues
and uses thresholds of 1 and 3 percent to identify entities that would be significantly impacted
as a result of this Permit. As a result of that analysis, EPA concluded that there would not be a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities (NO SISNOSE). To ensure that the
Agency properly accounted for impacts to medium cruise ships, EPA assumed that 1 to 2
additional medium cruise ships per year could need to treat their graywater as a result of the
change from 1 nm to 3 nm (in addition to the 2 cruise ships EPA previously estimated would
have to install treatment per year). Hence, though the costs to install treatment on medium
cruise ships were directly considered, they did not change EPA's overall NO SISNOSE
conclusion. Please also see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0477-
Al, excerpt 2 regarding EPA's evaluation consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Though EPA found that systems which meet the numeric graywater treatment limits in the VGP
are available and their use is economically achievable for new build vessels (those built after
the issuance of the first VGP), EPA did not have sufficient information to determine that
retrofitting medium cruise ships with equipment capable of meeting these standards was
economically achievable in the 2008 VGP (i.e., use of these systems on existing vessels may
not be BAT). Based on this analysis, the Agency continues to believe that available vessel-
specific data and information are insufficient to demonstrate the capability of all existing
medium cruise ships to install retrofit AWTs if they were built before December 19, 2008. For
example, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation commented that some cruise
ships with fewer than 250 passengers have multiple graywater direct discharge ports, and that
1209
-------
sometimes graywater is not mixed onboard. Thus, retrofitting such systems to install AWTs
may not be economically feasible for an individual vessel operator if their vessel was built
before December 19, 2008. Accordingly, EPA has retained the December 19, 2008 build
applicability date from the 2008 VGP for those medium cruise ships unable to voyage more
than 1 nm from shore and constructed before December 19, 2008; see section 7.2.2 for
additional discussion.
EPA notes that vessels newly built after December 19, 2008 were required to use graywater
treatment under the 2008 VGP, and hence, the 2013 VGP is not finalizing retrofitting
requirements for vessels built within the 2008-2013 time period. Instead, EPA is keeping the
date which defines what constitutes a new build vessel for purposes of the medium cruise ship
requirement the same as in the 2008 VGP. EPA notes that the issuance date for the 2008 VGP is
December 18, 2008 and not, as the commenter claims, December 29, 2008. Please see Page 1 of
the 2008 VGP, which where each authorized regional official applies their signature under
"Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008." Though EPA could reasonably change
the new build effective date for purposes of medium cruise ships to December 18, 2008, in
order to maintain consistency with the 2013 proposal, EPA is finalizing the permit with a the
new build date of December 19, 2008 applicable to medium cruise ships.
1 US EPA, Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report, EPA-842-R-07-005, 2008.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Timothy J. Beebe, Vice President, American Cruise Lines,
Inc. (ACL)
American Cruise Lines, Inc. (ACL)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0477-A1
3
No
Comment: 2. Part 5.2.1.1 Would Have a Direct, Significant Adverse Economic Impact on the
Industry Segment Consisting of Cruise Ships with 100-249 Passenger/Crew Capacity
Part 5.2.1.1 of the proposed VGP would have a direct, significant adverse economic impact on
essentially every member of the U.S. flag coastwise trade small cruise ship industry segment.
Despite the significant difference in size between medium cruise ships, particularly those at the
smaller end of the "medium cruise ship" category, and "large cruise ships," by requiring the same
level of graywater purification for both categories of ships, VGP 2.0 effectively requires that all
ships in the entire "medium cruise ships" category must carry the very same graywater
purification equipment as is required of ships in the "large cruise ships" category, namely an
advanced wastewater treatment system ("A WTS") facility. Carriage of the AWTS is an
insurmountable obstacle which will prevent small cruise ships in the 100-249 passenger/crew
capacity size from being able to achieve Part 5.2.1.1 requirements.
Physically, ACL's experience is that ACL's small cruise ships cannot be designed and built,
much less retrofitted, with A WTS equipment designed for large cruise ships. AWTS equipment
is large and heavy, much larger and much heavier than standard marine sanitation devices
1210
-------
("MSDs") used to control blackwater discharges. By ignoring the critical impact of the large size
and heavy weight of AWTS equipment on small cruise ships, the EPA has imposed an
unachievable requirement on cruise ships in the 100-249 passenger/crew capacity size range.
Size is obviously important in a smaller ship not just because space is at a premium. It is
recognized by design professionals that the degree of difficulty of the nautical design problem
increases exponentially, not simply in a linear fashion, as the size of the ship decreases. Even if
some means were found to overcome the size problem, a further design difficulty is presented by
the substantial weight of AWTS equipment. Because it is so heavy, AWTS equipment would
have significant impact on a small cruise ship's draft and, potentially, on its stability.
If ACL builds bigger ships, the ships then might be able to accommodate AWTS equipment with
sufficient capacity for the number of passengers to be carried, but the ships would then not be
able to access the small harbors and ports for the cultural and historic attractions ACL's
passengers seek. Indeed, as these larger ships would likely have to be built to comply with
Subchapter H standards, not Subchapter K or T, new building for this market would likely
continue not to be economically feasible at all. As a difficult working alternative, ACL
considered pumping graywater through the smaller, lighter, onboard MSDs for purification, but
then learned this would not be sufficient to meet the requirements of Part 5.2.1.1. ACL even
considered the absurd possibility of installing AWTS equipment aboard a small barge to be
towed behind the cruise ship. Simply put, ACL sees no viable solution available in today's
market for the AWTS equipment design problem for small (150 passenger) cruise ships. The
EPA must give further study and guidance on how cruise ships in the 100-249 passenger/crew
capacity size range are to meet the EPA's graywater discharge requirements.
We note that the EPA has correctly acknowledged the practically insurmountable challenge that
installation of heavy AWTS equipment on ships in the 100-249 passenger/crew size range would
present. In the EPA's Fact Sheet, on pages 174-175, Section 7.2.1.2 discusses costs of the
requirements for existing medium cruise ships built before December 19, 2008 unable to voyage
more than 1 nm from shore. On page 175, the Fact Sheet states, in part: EPA determines that it is
not economically practicable or achievable to require all existing medium cruise ships which are
unable to travel outside 3 nm to meet the requirements of Part 5.2.1.1.1 [graywater discharge
location and rate] at this time.
In connection with graywater generally, Section 4.4.15 on page 138 of the Fact Sheet likewise
states, in part: EPA does not expect existing vessel owner/operators to install graywater
treatment storage capacity.
In view of these acknowledgements by the EPA of the adverse economic effect of Part 5.2.1.1 on
cruise ships in the 100-249 passenger/crew capacity size range, which are correct as a matter of
fact according to ACL's experience, the final version of VGP 2.0 should not impose the
graywater effluent requirements of Part 5.2.1.1.1 on ships of this small size.
ACL submits that the current permitting structure as to graywater discharge imposed on the
overly broad defined category of "medium cruise ships" is unduly burdensome on the industry
segment in the 100-249 passenger/crew capacity size range. The VGP places enormous adverse
1211
-------
pressure on the viability of the U.S. flag coastwise trade small ship cruising industry segment
and thereby gives an unfair advantage to large, foreign flag cruise lines. The extension of the
stringent VGP graywater purification standards to small cruising vessels creates a barrier to entry
in an economically distinct industry segment in which U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, U.S.operated
cruise operators could otherwise compete. This discrimination is not justified by the actual
environmental impacts of small cruise ship graywater discharge and imposes a "significant
economic impact" on "a substantial number of small entities," in violation of the RFA.
Response: In regards to the availability and size of systems to meet the graywater numeric
discharge limits for medium cruise ships, including medium cruise ships in the 100-249
passenger range, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0477-A1,
excerpt 1. Additionally, EPA notes that existing medium cruise ships refers to vessels
constructed before December 19, 2008. The conclusions cited by the commenter regarding
economic achievability do not apply to new build vessels since new build medium cruise ships
built after the issuance of the first VGP would not have to undergo major retrofits (unless they
ignored the treatment requirements for new build vessels in the first VGP). However, EPA
reminds the commenter that if they have an individual vessel for which they believe these
requirements are unachievable, they may petition EPA for an individual permit, consistent with
Part 1.8 of the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Timothy J. Beebe, Vice President, American Cruise Lines,
Inc. (ACL)
American Cruise Lines, Inc. (ACL)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0477-A1
4
No
Comment: B. Promulgate a "Best Practices" Standard for Cruise Ships in the 100-249
Passenger/Crew Capacity Size Range. The only correct alternative is for the EPA to consider
and promulgate less burdensome graywater management requirements for ships in the industry
segment consisting of ships in the 100-249 passenger/crew size range. ACL submits that
promulgation of a "best practices" standard would both meet the goals of the EPA under the
Clean Water Act and would provide an economically and physically feasible alternative with
which the industry segment could comply.
A lesser standard of graywater treatment for cruise ships with 100-249 passenger/crew capacity
in which best practices are undertaken to minimize harmful discharge, consistent with the
smaller size of these ships and their inability to carry the required A WTS equipment, is well
justified. This is particularly true for ships such as those of ACL which do not have swimming
pools, photo labs, or other sources of the most toxic forms of graywater. Subjecting these small
cruise ships to potentially prohibitive regulation, especially when the total amount of graywater
discharged by this category of ships is de minimus in comparison to that of the far larger ships
which constitute the large majority of cruise ships currently operating in U.S. waters, cannot be
justified. The less burdensome "best practices" alternative for this category of ships should be
considered, analyzed, and implemented.
1212
-------
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0477-A1, excerpt 1.
As discussed in that comment, graywater in the volumes generated by medium cruise ships,
including those in the 100-249 passenger range, is expected to generate high levels of numerous
pollutants. As further discussed in that comment and the economic analysis for today's permit,
technology is available to reduce the discharge of these pollutants into waters subject to this
permit, and its use is economically achievable. Though commenter suggests less a burdensome
alternative for this category of vessels should be adopted, as discussed throughout this response
to comments document, EPA found that meeting the numeric limits for medium cruise ships
(including those in the 100-249 passenger range) reflected BAT. See Part 4.1 and 4.2 of the
VGP fact sheet for discussion of how EPA establishes permit technology-based permit limits.
EPA also found that inclusion of these requirements did not affect its determination that the
VGP will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or
other businesses. Finally, as discussed elsewhere in this response to comments document, based
on public comments received, EPA incorporated changes in the final permit that reduced burden
and/or improved administrative efficiency for permittees, including small businesses and
medium cruise ship operators.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Timothy J. Beebe, Vice President, American Cruise Lines,
Inc. (ACL)
American Cruise Lines, Inc. (ACL)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0477-A1
5
No
Comment: c. The Term "Issuance Date" as Used in Part 5.2.1.1.1 of VGP 1.0 Should Be
Replaced with "December 29, 2008" in Part 5.2.1.1 of VGP 2.0, i.e., the Date of Public
Announcement.
The discussion in Sections A and B above is directed to the proposed VGP 2.0 to take effect on
December 19, 2013. Although VGP 1.0 (the 2008 VGP) was given effect on an urgent basis in
view of litigation matters discussed at 73 Fed. Reg. 79474 (Dec. 29, 2008), the comments
discussed in Sections A and B above apply equally to it as well as to VGP 2.0.
VGP 1.0 noted that "vessels unable to voyage I nm from shore must meet the requirements of
Part 5.2.1.1.1 if they were constructed on or after the issuance date of this permit [VGP 1.0]."
The effect was to exempt certain vessels from the graywater discharge location and rate
requirements of VGP 1.0.
Part 5.2.1.1 of proposed VGP 2.0 now would replace the term "issuance date" as used in Part
5.2.1.1.1 of VGP 1.0 with the date of December 19, 2008. This is contrary to logic and case law
authority.
VGP 1.0 was first published and thereby made available to the public on December 29, 2008. 73
Fed. Reg. 79474 (Dec. 29, 2008). Because the general public could not have acted to comply
1213
-------
with VGP 1.0 prior to December 29, 2008, ACL submits that in Part 5.2.1.1 of VGP 2.0, the date
on and after which construction of medium cruise ships must comply with the requirements
stated therein should be December 29,2008, which is the date on which the Notice of the
issuance of the VGP was first published in the Federal Register.
Using December 29, 2008 as the issuance date is in accordance with court decisions in which the
determination of the "issuance date" was at issue. Courts have stated that the verb "issue" clearly
refers to an act of public announcement and not to the act of arriving at a private decision within
the agency. Florida Manufactured Housing Association, Inc. v. Cisneros, 53 F.3d 1565 (11th Cir.
1995); see Avia Dynamics, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration, 641 F.3d 515 (D.C. Cir.
2011) (holding that the 60 day deadline began to run on the date the order was officially made
public); Public Citizen Inc. v. Mineta, 343 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that a regulation is
"issued" on the date that the regulation is made available for public inspection).
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0477-A1, excerpt 1.
As discussed in that answer, the issuance date for the 2008 VGP was December 18, 2008.
Please see Page 1 of the 2008 VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Timothy J. Beebe, Vice President, American Cruise Lines,
Inc. (ACL)
American Cruise Lines, Inc. (ACL)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0477-A1
6
No
Comment: ACL submits that the EPA must address the serious issues with the proposed VGP
2.0 with active acknowledgement that correction is needed. At least for small U.S. flag coastwise
trade cruise ships in the 100-249 passenger/crew capacity, the proposed graywater management
requirements present an unachievable standard and a serious barrier to commerce. Because the
proposed VGP 2.0 is likely to have a "significant economic impact" on "a substantial number of
small entities" in coastwise trade with small U.S. flag ships of this size, the EPA must perform
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and consider alternatives that will achieve the goals of the
Clean Water Act while minimizing the burden on small entities.
ACL submits that in lieu of applying the exacting standards of Part 5.2.1.1 to cruise ships with
100-249 passenger/crew capacity, the less burdensome "best practices" alternative for this
category of ships should be considered, analyzed, and implemented. ACL would be happy to
work with the EPA in developing VGP 2.0 in a manner that adequately balances the business
concerns of small cruise ship operators with the important public goals of environmental
protection.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0477-A1, excerpt 1.
Additionally, EPA notes the agency did conduct an analysis consistent with the RFA even
though not required to do so, since today's action is a permit, not a regulation. EPA notes the
commenter is incorrect in asserting that the permit is likely to have a significant impact on a
1214
-------
substantial number of small entities. In contrast, as a direct result of the screening analysis
conducted by the Agency, EPA concluded that the permit is not likely to have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities (e.g., see the proposed VGP federal register
notice which stated that "EPA concludes that this permit will not, if issued result in a significant
economic impact on any businesses, and in particular, small businesses" (76 FR 76724). See the
economic analysis issued for today's permit and Part 2.8 of the VGP fact sheet for underlying
discussion, and the FR notice for the proposed and today's Final VGP for further discussion.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 30
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 70, Part 5.1.1.1.2 Gray water Treatment Standards. The third bullet should
read:
Concentrations of total residual chlorine may not exceed 10.0 j_ig/L (micrograms per liter).
Analytical results below the method detection limit shall be deemed compliant with the
effluent limits. Testing and reporting for total residual chlorine is not required if chlorine is
not used as disinfectant in the wastewater treatment works process.
The same language should be amended to Part 5.2.1.1.2 on page 75 as applicable to medium
cruise ships.
Response: The text that the commenter seeks is provided at Parts 5.1.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.2.1 for
large and medium cruise ships, respectively.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 33
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 74 Part 5.2.1.1.5 - Medium Cruise Ships - Graywater Discharge Location.
Here the phrase,".. .you do not have the capacity to treat graywater..." should be revised to read,
".. .the holding capacity of graywater is exceeded..." to be consistent with similar formulations
elsewhere in the permit, such as Part 5.2.1.1.1.
P. 77, Part 5.2.2.2 Treated Graywater - This part establishes gray water monitoring
requirements for medium sized cruise ships but does not include the caveat for medium cruise
ships built before December 19, 2008 and unable to voyage greater than 1NM from shore found
1215
-------
in Part 5.2.1.1. This omission makes it unclear that the permit authorizes discharges of untreated
gray water from such vessels. We recommend the following language:
5.2.2.2 Treated Graywater. - Prior to entering waters of the United States, vessel operators
must demonstrate that they have an effective treatment system that complies with the standards
in Part 5.2.1.1.2 if they will discharge gray water within 3 nm of shore; unless they are a vessel
unable to voyage more than 1 nmfrom shore and were constructed before December 19, 2008.
Response: Regarding Part 5.2.1.1.5 of the permit, EPA disagrees with the commenter. The
intent of this section of the permit is to prohibit untreated graywater discharges by medium
cruise ships while pierside. When pierside, medium cruise ships must either treat or offload
graywater or hold graywater until the vessel is underway and sailing at a speed of 6 knots or
greater; medium cruise ships are not permitted to discharge graywater that excess of their
holding tank capacity while pierside. When graywater holding tanks are full, the vessel must
either pump graywater to shoreside facilities, or treat graywater to achieve the discharge
standards outlined in 5.2.1.1.1. If shoreside facilities are not available, and the vessel elects not
to install the capacity to treat graywater to meet the standards in Part 5.2.1.1.2, then the vessel
must either install additional required graywater holding capacity or must implement measures
to minimize production of graywater such that the capacity of graywater holding tanks are not
exceeded before the graywater tanks can be emptied when the vessel is sailing at a speed of at
least 6 knots in waters that are not listed in Appendix G.
Regarding Part 5.2.2.2 of the permit, EPA also disagrees with the commenter. Part 5.2.1.1 states
that "medium cruise ships unable to voyage 3 nm from shore and constructed before December
19, 2008 must meet the requirements in Parts 5.2.1.1.3, 5.2.1.1.4, 5.2.1.1.5, 5.2.1.2, 5.2.2.1,
5.2.2.3, and 5.2.3." Accordingly, Part 5.2.2.2 of the permit is not applicable to these medium
cruise ships, and additional exclusion of these vessels from this part is not necessary.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michelle Bonnett, Director, Division of Water, Water
Quality Section, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0534- A2
10
No
Comment: 5.2 - Medium Cruise Ships. The Department is concerned that some medium cruise
ships do not have the graywater holding capacity while they are in port, and achieving the
graywater discharge limits will be difficult for them. The Department also notes that some cruise
ships with fewer than 250 passengers have multiple graywater direct discharge ports, and that
sometimes graywater is not mixed onboard.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0477-A1, excerpt 1
and the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2, excerpt 33.
1216
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marc A. Ross, Executive Director, Rock the Earth
Rock the Earth
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0547-A2
4
No
Comment: Section 5.2.3 of the current VGP requires in relevant part that "[t]he ship's crew
members who actively take part in the management of the discharge or who may affect the
discharge must receive training regarding shipboard environmental procedures and must be able
to demonstrate proficiency in implementing these procedures." It also requires that "advanced
training in shipboard environmental management procedures must be provided for those directly
involved in managing specific discharge types or areas of the ship and these crew members must
be able to demonstrate proficiency in implementing these procedures." Since this section further
provides that "[cjruise ships must also educate passengers on their potential environmental
impacts," RtE recommends that the 2013 VGP require that the crew members receiving this
advanced training also participate in passenger education required by the VGP.
The "education efforts" required in the draft 2013 VGP "should include preventing trash from
entering any waste stream, eliminating the addition of unused soaps, detergents, and
pharmaceuticals to the graywater or blackwater systems, and minimizing production of
graywater.
This can be accomplished in a variety of ways including, but not limited to posting signage and
informational material in guestrooms and common areas, incorporating environmental
information passenger orientation presentations or packages at the start of cruises, incorporating
this information into additional lectures and seminars, or broadcasting information via
loudspeakers." RtE believes, as it recommended in 2008, and again in 2010, that these
educational and reporting requirements for the cruise ship industry need to be enhanced
and strengthened.
The draft 2013 VGP allows flexibility in how these goals are accomplished, and allows the
passenger education to take place Cruise ships must also educate passengers on their potential
environmental impacts. The goals of these education efforts must include preventing trash from
entering any waste stream, eliminating the addition of unused soaps, detergents, and
pharmaceuticals to the graywater or blackwater systems, and minimizing production of
graywater.
This can be accomplished in a variety of ways including, but not limited to, posting signage and
informational material in guestrooms and common areas, incorporating environmental
information passenger orientation presentations or packages at the start of cruises, incorporating
this information into additional lectures and seminars, or broadcasting information via
loudspeakers, "via posting or distribution of signage, flyers, or other handouts, incorporating
environmental information into passenger orientation presentations, holding lectures or seminars,
or making announcements over the ship's public address system." VGP 5.2.3 [emphasis added]
1217
-------
This is insufficient, in RtE's view.
A regime similar to the required labeling of tobacco products, and tobacco product advertising,
should be applied to the cruise ship industry. Cruise ship passengers should be made aware of the
importance of the information that is to be provided to them "in a variety of ways" according to
the current permit. Specific, effective methods of dissemination of this information, including
minimum requirements for the location, size and number of the information in passenger
"welcome packages" and informational signage, as well as the number of informational
presentations, should be required in the new VGP.
Response: Part 5.2.3 of the permit requires that "ship's crew members...who may affect the
discharge must receive training regarding shipboard environmental procedures and must be able
to demonstrate proficiency in implementing these procedures." Accordingly, EPA considers the
commenter's recommendation that crew members also participate in passenger education
required by the VGP to be duplicative and unnecessary.
The commenter did not specify where and how "a regime similar to the required labeling of
tobacco products, and tobacco product advertising" would be applied to cruise ship education
and training requirements, or indicate how such an approach would achieve the stated goals of
the education efforts including preventing trash from entering any waste stream, eliminating the
addition of unused soaps, detergents, and pharmaceuticals to the graywater or blackwater
systems, and minimizing production of graywater. EPA thus did not make changes in response
to this comment. EPA also notes that product packaging and advertising are beyond the scope
of the VGP
In the 2013 VGP, as in the 2008 VGP, EPA includes several requirements for cruise ship
operators to educate passengers about potential environmental impacts and steps the passengers
can take to minimize these impacts. EPA has not been specific with location, size, and number
of signage, informational material, and orientation presentations/packages, etc. because of
variability among vessels. The Agency wants to give these vessel owner/operators the
maximum flexibility to best implement these requirements to accomplish the stated goals of the
passenger training programs. While EPA does not think it is appropriate to establish
prescriptive requirements, we do expect owners/operators to take all practicable and achievable
steps to meet the goals of the permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent, V. Ships
Leisure
V. Ships Leisure
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2
12
No
Comment: Item No: 16A. VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: 5.2 .1.1 Medium cruise ships -
Gray water Management VGP 2013 or Factsheet text: All medium cruise ships must meet all
1218
-------
requirements of this part, including the requirements of Parts 5.2.1.1.1, unless they are a vessel
unable to voyage more than 1 nm from shore AND were constructed before December 19, 2008.
Medium cruise ships unable to voyage 1 nm from shore AND constructed before December 19,
2008 must meet the requirements in Parts 5.2.1.1.3, 5.2.1.1.4, 5.2.1.1.5, 5.2.1.2, 5.2.2.1, 5.2.2.3,
and 5.2.3.
Comments: The previously 2008 VGP permitted discharge between lnm and 3 nm from shore at
speed of at least 6 knots appears no longer allowed unless treated by an AWWTS to meet
effluent limits for new vessels built after Dec 2008 AND (both conditions?) able to voyage more
than one mile (or 3 (three) miles ? - see Factsheet 7.2 and 7.2.1)?
Suggestion or Proposed text: 5.2.1.1 All medium cruise ships must meet all requirements of this
part, including the requirements of Parts 5.2.1.1.1, unless they are a vessel unable to voyage
more than 3 (three) nm from shore and were constructed before December 19, 2008.
Medium cruise ships unable to voyage 3 nm from shore and constructed before December 19,
2008 must meet the requirements in Parts 5.2.1.1.3, 5.2.1.1.4, 5.2.1.1.5, 5.2.1.2, 5.2.2.1, 5.2.2.3,
and 5.2.3
Item No: 16B. VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: 5.2 .1.1.1. Medium cruise ships - Gray water
Management VGP 2013 or Factsheet text: 5.2.1.1.1 Limits Applicable to Operation in Nutrient
Impaired Waters - If you operate in nutrient-impaired waters including, but not limited to, the
Chesapeake Bay or the territorial sea surrounding the mouth of the Mississippi River in the Gulf
of Mexico, you must:.... Discharge the graywater while the cruise ship is sailing at a speed of at
least 6 knots.
Comments: The option to discharge untreated grey water appears to remain possibly in Nutrient
impaired waters (5.2.1.1.1 - 5th bullet) even for new passenger ships built after Dec 2008 and
those able to voyage more than one (or three) mile(s) from shore ?
Suggestion or Proposed text: 5th Bullet: Discharge the graywater while the cruise ship is sailing
at a speed of at least 6 knots (for vessels built before Dec 19, 2008 or unable to voyage more
than 3 (three) miles from shore)
Item No: 16C. VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: 5.2 .1.1.5 Medium cruise ships - Gray water
Management VGP 2013 or Factsheet text: 5.2.1.1.5 Graywater Discharge Location and Rate for
Vessels Built before December 19, 2008: .... If such facilities are not available and you do not
have the capacity to treat graywater to meet the standards in Part 5.2.1.1.2, you must hold the
graywater unless the vessel is underway and sailing at a speed of at least 6 knots in a water that is
not listed in Appendix G.
Comments: It is unclear if this refers only to vessels built before Dec 19, 2008 AND/OR also for
vessels unable to voyage more than 1 nm (or 3 three nm) from shore regardless of year of built
(as stated in 5.2.1.1.1.)
1219
-------
Suggestion or Proposed text: 5.2.1.1.5 "Graywater Discharge Location and Rate for Vessels
Built before December 19, 2008": .... If such facilities are not available and you do not have the
capacity to store graywater onboard or capacity to treat it to meet the standards in Part 5.2.1.1.2,
you must hold the graywater unless the vessel is underway and sailing at a speed of at least 6
knots in a water that is not a water listed in Appendix G.
Response: In response to the commenter's Item No. 16A, EPA has revised Part 5.2.1.1 of the
permit to replace instances of 1 nm with 3 nm as requested by the commenter. EPA made this
change, in the unlikely event there would be any medium cruise ships built before December
19, 2008 (the issuance date of the first VGP) that could voyage more than one nm from shore,
but not voyage three nm from shore. This change has been incorporated for clarity and not
inadvertently require an older vessel (built prior to the issuance of the first VGP) to retrofit to a
graywater treatment system if they had no other management options.
In response to the commenter's Item No. 16B, EPA has revised Part 5.2.1.1.1 to delete the 5th
bullet. This revision eliminated the unintended possibility for medium cruise ships other than
medium cruise ships unable to voyage 3 nm from shore and constructed before December 19,
2008, to discharge graywater in nutrient impaired waters. For medium cruise ships built before
December 19, 2008 and unable to voyage 3 nm from shore, EPA has also revised Part 5.2.1.1.5
to prohibit discharging in nutrient impaired waters unless the length of the voyage in those
waters exceeds the vessel's holding capacity for graywater.
Finally, in response to the commenter's Item No. 16C, EPA has clarified that Part 5.2.1.1.5
applies only to those medium cruise ships built before December 19, 2008 that are unable to
voyage 3 nm from shore.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent, V. Ships
Leisure
V. Ships Leisure
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2
13
No
Comment: Item No: 17. VGP 2013 or Factsheet reference: 5.2 Medium cruise ships - Gray
water Management Factsheet 7.2 MEDIUM CRUISE SHIPS [PART 5.2] and Appendix A for
the Definition for "vessels unable to voyage more than 1 mile from shore" 5.3.1.2 Greywater
Management (Large Ferries)
VGP 2013 or Factsheet text: VGP 5.2.1.1.1 - 5 (as above) and Factsheet 7.2: "EPA has made
changes in the 2013 VGP requirements for medium cruise ships that correspond to the changes
made for large cruise ships. The rationale for the extension of the prohibition of the discharge of
gray water to 3nm laid out in Section 7.1 above for large cruise ships is also to medium cruise
ships" and "7.2.1 Differences between the Requirements for Large Cruise Ships and Medium
Cruise Ships: The permit requirements for medium cruise ships are identical to those for large
cruise ships, with two exceptions. These are:
1220
-------
• An additional option for discharging while operating in Nutrient Impaired Estuaries.
• Differences for existing medium cruise ships unable to voyage more than 3 nm from
shore.
Comments: The above three items (referenced as 16A, 16B, 16C) appear not to be fully
consistent and are somewhat confusing when the VGP is read together with the Factsheet with
regards to the references for unable to voyage more than 1 nm (or 3 nm) and exactly which
references are valid for vessels built before/after Dec 19, 2008 especially with regards to nutrient
impaired waters.
Suggestion or Proposed Text: See the proposed text above for each for these items.
Additionally the definition in Appendix A for "Vessels unable to voyage more than X mile(s)
from shore" should refer to 3 (three) miles and not 1 (on)e mile.
Suggest to implement simplified wording for the greywater limits for medium cruise ships built
before Dec 19, 2008 (and unable to voyage more than 3 nm from shore?) to the text for large
ferries for pierside and operational limits in VGP 5.3.1.2.
Response: With respect to commenter's Items Nos. 16A, 16B, and 16C, please see the response
to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0561-A2, excerpt 12.
In response to this comment, EPA has revised Section 7.2 of the VGP Fact Sheet and the
Appendix A definitions for "Vessels Unable to Voyage More than 1 Mile from Shore" and
"Vessels Vessels Unable to Voyage More than 3 Mile from Shore" to eliminate the
inconsistencies identified by the commenter.
However, EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to revise the graywater management
requirements for medium cruise ships built before December 19, 2008 to match the
requirements for large ferries for pierside and operational limits. These medium cruise ships
have increased capabilities as compared to large ferries to either treat graywater or hold
graywater until the vessel is underway. Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-
2011-0141-0530, excerpt 33.
11.3 Large Ferries
Commenter Name: Comment Collected from Alliance for the Great Lakes
from the January 23, 2012 Public Meeting
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0468
1
No
1221
-------
Comment: We are writing to you in regards to the Vessel General Permit (VGP) under the
Clean Water Act (CWA) for the Lake Michigan Carferry Service's (LMC) operation of its S.S.
Badger ferry. The permit allows LMC to operate its coal burning ferry and discharge coal ash
waste into Lake Michigan until December 2012. The permit came into effect on December 19,
2008, based on the premise that in the following five years, LMC would find a solution to
operate without discharging coal ash waste. Recent news articles and announcements indicate
that LMC has not found a way to operate without the polluting discharges, and will instead seek
a five-year extension of its ability to discharge the coal ash waste.1 We understand that EPA is
planning to propose a new VGP by November 30, 2011, and take final action on the new VGP
by November 30, 2012, a full year before the expiration of the existing VGP. We write today to
address and refute LMC's various justifications for the extension of the special exemption in the
VGP to allow its waste to pollute Lake Michigan for another five years.
The Alliance for the Great Lakes is a nonprofit environmental organization that works to
conserve and restore the world's largest freshwater resource through policy, education, and local
efforts, ensuring that our Great Lakes are preserved for generations of people and wildlife. The
health of the Great Lakes is squarely within our purview, and therefore so are LMC's operation
of the S.S. Badger and the pollution allowed in Lake Michigan by the VGP. Though technology
has existed for decades to convert the S.S. Badger, it is the only Lake Michigan car ferry that
continues to burn coal for fuel. Other Lake Michigan car ferries from that era were either retired
or converted from coal in the 1960s to comply with pollution standards. The S.S. Badger,
however, benefits from terms of the VGP that allows it to continue dumping coal ash and other
coal combustion waste products into Lake Michigan's waters until December 2012.
False Claim 1: The extension is necessary because the technology to prevent the discharge of
coal ash into the lake needs time for engineering and development. In their comments submitted
to the EPA in 2008 regarding the VGP, LMC repeatedly assured the EPA that it could feasibly
develop a solution to the coal ash discharge by 2012. Barry Hartman, Counsel for LMC,
commented, "[ojwners of the Badger believe the full process of developing, constructing and
testing the containment system should be completed in time for the vessel to operate with no
discharges by the opening of the Badger's season in the spring of 2012.2 Nearly two years since
issuance of the permit, LMC is nowhere near completion of a containment system. LMC is
instead now reportedly considering retrofitting the ferry with a natural gas propulsion system
which would require additional years of research and development. However, given that they are
only "exploring" the possibility of this type of a system, there is no guarantee that LMC will
cease its coal ash discharges by 2017. LMC should not be rewarded for its failure to act despite
ample time to do so, especially in light of the fact that no other coal-burning ferry now operates
in the United States.
False Claim 2: The coal ash is not "hazardous" and therefore continuing the dump the ash will
not be harmful to the health of the lake. LMC reasons that because the coal ash is not creating an
"imminent danger," it should be allowed to continue dumping waste into the lake. This line of
reasoning may prove more detrimental to the lake's health than the coal ash itself: we should not
have to wait until pollutants create an "imminent danger" to the public health before we decide to
regulate. Regardless, EPA has previously said it is not convinced that laboratory tests completed
on the S.S. Badger's waste were appropriate for discharges into waters, nor that they had
1222
-------
detection levels which were sufficiently sensitive. Coal ash contains dangerous metals and
elements such as arsenic, lead and mercury, which are known to be cancer causing when
consumed in drinking water, which Lake Michigan supplies. While those that drink Lake
Michigan water may be in no "imminent danger" of cancer or illness, continued exposure to
these toxins is known to cause cancer. Coal waste also pollutes the water with suspended solids.
LMC has had sufficient time to implement the changes to bring the S.S. Badger in compliance
with the Clean Water Act. Another extension would allow the pollution of Lake Michigan to
continue and unfairly advantage LMC, especially considering that all other vessels in this
country have already invested in more modern technology. If additional information is needed
concerning this letter, please contact me at 312-939-0838 ext. 230 or via email at
Iwelch@greatlakes.org. Thank you for your time and consideration.
1 Charlie Mathews, Port Cities Marshal Support for S.S. Badger, Herald Times reporter, Aug. 2, 2011 and Michael
Hawthorne, On Lake Michigan, a coal-burning steamship gets a pass," 'Chicago Tribune reporter, Oct. 1, 2011.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed VGP: EPA's Response to Public Comments, p. 6-554-55, Dec.
19, 2008.
Response: Unlike the 2008 VGP, the 2013 Permit does not authorize the discharge of coal ash
slurry from coal fired propulsion systems on ferries. Authorization for coal ash slurry
discharges in the 2008 VGP expired in December 2012. Therefore, the comments are outside
the scope of EPA's action in the re-issuance of the VGP in 2013.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michelle Bonnett, Director, Division of Water, Water
Quality Section, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0534- A2
11
No
Comment: 5.3.1 .1 - Deck Water. Ferries built before 1990 may have difficulty complying with
the deck water provisions. Oily discharge is a serious concern, but these ships may not have been
designed to collect and treat deck water from vehicle decks. ADEC recommends EPA contact
Alaska ferry operators for information on this situation.
Response: Like the 2008 permit, Part 5.3.1.1 of the 2013 permit prohibits the discharge of
untreated below deck water (emphasis added) from parking areas or other storage areas for
motor vehicles or other motorized equipment into waters subject to this permit without first
treating the effluent with an oily water separator or other appropriate wastewater treatment
system. Furthermore, EPA expects that below deck water is generated infrequently and at much
lower volumes than deck water, thus facilitating the collection and treatment and/or disposal of
oil.
EPA does not intend for existing ferries (e.g., those built before 1990) to retrofit their vessels,
1223
-------
and the permit requirement presumes that these vessels have been controlling their decks for
some time to prevent the discharge of oil that causes a sheen. These approaches, dependent on
the design of the vessel, could include use of absorbant materials, frequently cleaning (and
removing oil) from the deck before discharge, or limiting discharge points to only allow
wastewater to pass through filters or socks. In the context of this permit requirement for existing
vessels, EPA would consider such an oily discharge prevention approach to be an appropriate
wastewater treatment system which would meet the terms of Part 5.3 of the permit, provided
such an approach prevents the discharge of any oil in quantities that may be harmful (including
causing a visible sheen).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section
Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology (ECY)
Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECY)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0794- A2
5
Yes
Comment: General Comment - This draft of the VGP as written is not likely to change any
existing practices already implemented to meet the VGP requirements for Washington State
Ferries (WSF) vessels. Consistency with the previous VGP is appreciated considering our large
fleet and the expense of making changes.
Response: The comment supports and confirms the reasonableness of the provisions of the re-
issued VGP applicable to large ferries.
12. 401 Certification, CZMA and State Requirements
Commenter Name: January 11, 2012 Public Hearing Oral Comments by PVA's
Jennifer Wilk and Ed Welch
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: The failure to ensure a single national standard for discharges is a serious flaw in
the VGP and SVGP. Vessels commonly move from state to state. In this respect, they are like
commercial airliners. Our nation has a policy that the regulation of the interstate airline industry
(including environmental regulation) should be done at the federal level, not by the states.
Imagine the chaos that would ensue if states could impose their own policy choices, including
with regard to environmental measures, on interstate air conveyances.
1224
-------
Why is there a different approach to interstate traffic by the commercial maritime industry? PVA
acknowledges that EPA has no legal authority to prevent individual states from "adding on"
conditions to the proposed revised VGP and the draft SVGP. The Clean Water Act in its current
form allows such "add-ons." Congress needs to act to ensure that there is a single national
standard for various discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. In fact, the House
of Representatives has voted in favor of such a bill. EPA and the Administration need to speak,
out to Congress to advocate enactment of a single national standard or wastewater discharges
from vessels in interstate commerce.
Response: EPA acknowledges commenters support for uniform standards and concerns
regarding the possibility that there may be times when vessels will pass through multiple states
during a single voyage, and could be subject to differing state requirements. However, under the
NPDES program, it is not possible to have a "single nationwide system" that does not
accommodate the states ability to include state-specific requirements to implement their own
water quality standards and requirements. CWA § 510 expressly preserves State authority to
issue more stringent requirements than the Federal government and, under CWA § 401,
federally issued-NPDES permits are subject to certification by the states as to compliance with
state water quality standards and other requirements of state law. Therefore VGP Part 6
includes conditions provided by the states in accordance with the CWA § 401 certification
process. Legislation is outside of the scope of today's action.
Commenter Name: Public Hearing Oral Comments by AWO's Jennifer
Carpenter. January 11, 2012
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: Finally, AWO urges EPA to affirmatively manage the state 401 certification process
to ensure that vessel operators are not faced with inconsistent and unnecessarily burdensome
state requirements as they travel through the waters of multiple states. To avoid this unacceptable
result, AWO urges EPA to work with the states to make the 401 certification process as
transparent and accessible to stakeholders as possible. EPA should facilitate stakeholders'
engagement with the states by providing information on state notice and comment periods and
any other opportunities for public engagement in their certification processes, and publishing
these announcements on the EPA Web site. EPA should also play a leadership role in helping
states that share a waterway or coastline to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies among their
proposed conditions before certifying the permit.
Response: EPA has worked with the states to make the 401 certification process as transparent
and accessible to stakeholders as possible, and has played a leadership role in helping states that
share a waterway or coastline to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies among their proposed
conditions before certifying the permit With respect to requesting 401 certification from States,
Tribes, and Territories, EPA acted in accordance with Section 401 and its implementing
regulations when prescribing timeframes for responses to requests for certification. EPA
1225
-------
provided States with more than 9 months to grant, grant with condition, deny or waive
certification of the Draft Next VGP under CWA section 401. EPA explained each state's
obligations under Clean Water Act section 401 and 40 C.F.R. §124.53(e) in EPA's written
requests for section 401 certification. In January 2012, EPA facilitated a meeting and webinar in
EPA Region V's office with the Great Lakes states to provide them opportunity to share
information with each other and to discuss appropriate interstate coordination of their section
401 certifications. In addition, to encourage consistency between states' 401 certification
requirements, EPA arranged for at least one conference call or meeting between the states at the
regional level during the period that the states were given to grant, grant with condition, deny or
waive certification of the Draft Next VGP. Finally, EPA posted all certifications received in the
docket for this permit, which has provided various stakeholder groups the opportunity to review
those certifications prior to permit finalization.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Whitney Leake, on behalf of Patriot Maritime Compliance,
LLC
Patriot Maritime Compliance, LLC
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0447
3
No
Comment: We also urge the EPA to stick with a standard consistent to the IMO D2 standard for
treating ballast water. Proposed ballast water standards by states that far exceed this level are
currently non-achievable and will most likely be for the duration of this permit. State insistence
on an unrealistic standard is counter-productive and lead to economic hardship in these areas as
vessels divert to ports where the IMO D2 standard is in effect.
Response: Today's VGP contains numeric limits for ballast water that are consistent with the
IMO D-2 standard. EPA notes that state 401 certifications did not include ballast water limits
that exceed the IMO D-2 standard for the largest size class of organisms (those greater than 50
|im). California's 401 certification does contain an effluent limit of "no detectable living
organisms" for the largest size class of organisms in ballast water discharges. See Section
4.4.3.5.1 of the VGP Fact Sheet, which discusses "EPA's Consideration of Conclusions Found
in the California State Lands Commission Ballast Water Treatment Report," and states "that, in
practice, the "no detectable living organism standard" proposed by California is no more
stringent than the IMO standard at this time. This conclusion is supported by a recent NAS
report, which states that the zero-detectable organism standard 'is functionally defined by the
ability to characterize concentrations of organisms at low densities' and that the exact
California discharge standard "is largely undefined and contingent on sampling protocols"
(NAS, 118)." Please see section 9.1.9 of this comment response document for additional
discussion of the California Standards. A single State, California, has included standards more
stringent than IMO for smaller size classes of organisms to be consistent with their independent
State law and regulatory program. CWA § 510 expressly preserves State authority to issue more
stringent requirements than contained in the federal permit.
1226
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, New York Department
of Environmental Conservation
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0449-A1
1
No
Comment: As you may know, New York has issued a section 401 water quality certification
that operates to add conditions to EPA's existing VGP. New York's requirements, some of which
are set to become binding in August of 2013, involve a series of ballast water disinfection and
sanitation discharge limits that are commonly referred to by the short-hand term of "100 times
IMO"(International Maritime Organization). After careful review, New York has identified at
least one existing technology that meets our 100 times IMO requirement. Scientists on my staff
have also been favorably impressed by the annual ballast water technology evaluations
conducted by the California State Land Commission. In the "2011 Update: Ballast Water
Treatment Systems For Use in California Water" (enclosed) the Commission evaluated 60
treatment technologies and found that 10 treatment systems have demonstrated the "potential" to
comply with California's discharge standards that are approximately 1000 times more stringent
than the IMO standard. These ten systems include Alfa Laval, Ecochlor, Hyde, 1FE, NK-03,
OptiMarin, Quingdao, RWO, Severn Trent, and Techcross.
Response: New York's 401 certification of today's VGP does not contain limits "100 times
IMO." New York has certified that "permittees must meet the following discharge limits
consistent with Section 2.2.3.5" of the VGP, which contains numeric ballast water discharge
limits that are consistent with the IMO D-2 standard.
Commenter Name: Oral Comments from Canal Barge Company's Northern
Operation at the January 23, 2012 Public Meeting
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0469
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: Another example of how poor a fit the VGP is for towing vessels and barges in the
inland river system is the Section 401 Certification process that allows states to add requirements
to the permit. While this process is a requirement of the Clean Water Act in which the VGP
resides, it is extremely problematic for our vessels that travel through the waters of multiple
states, sometimes in a single day. You can imagine how difficult it is for vessel crews to change
the operations of a towing vessel moving across invisible state lines, and sometimes in parts of
the river over which two or more states claim jurisdiction. While we appreciate EPA's work to
better coordinate the 401 Certification process this time around, it still presents the same
challenge of multiple, and potentially conflicting, state requirements imposed on towing vessels
and barges.
1227
-------
EPA should strongly manage the state 401 certification process to affirmatively ensure that
conflicting, duplicative, or burdensome requirements are not imposed by states. However, the
true solution is to establish a new, uniform statutory framework for the regulation of vessel
discharges that provides for environmentally protective standards and is tailored to the operations
of vessels in interstate commerce. Fortunately, last November the House of Representatives
passed the Coast Guard Authorization Bill that includes a title that would establish such a
framework. We urge EPA to take a leadership role in working with the Senate to pass this bill
and send it to the President for his signature.
Response: Please see the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2 and
EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: Sarah K. Branch, Director of Government Relations,
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Commenter Affiliation: Offshore Marine Service Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0474-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: 3) We request that the EPA support a national uniform standard for ballast water and
other vessel discharges, to eliminate the conflicts between federal and state regulatory programs.
For vessels that must transit through multiple-state waters during a voyage, attempting to comply
with different requirements of each state is confusing and only raises the possibility of
unintentional noncompliance or contradictory requirements making compliance impossible.
Supporting such a national standard would actually allow for improved compliance with the
VGP and prevent hindrance of the movement of commerce via vessels.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Andreas Nordseth, Chairman, Consultative Shipping Group
(CSG)
Consultative Shipping Group (CSG)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0478-A1
3
No
Comment: The CSG remains concerned by disparate state-level standards, particularly those
that clearly exceed both current and foreseeable technological capabilities. The consequential
uncertainty risks delaying investments in ships and technology that would otherwise benefit the
marine environment, as well as commerce with and within the United States.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2.
1228
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Government of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A2
1
No
Comment: 1. New York believes that a strong, uniform national standard is the best approach to
achieve our mutual goal of ensuring that vessels Install and use achievable and cost-effective
technology to treat ballast water discharges that will dramatically limit the introduction and
spread of aquatic invasive species. Canada concurs with the view that achievable and cost-
effective ballast water treatment systems (BWTS) will further limit the introduction of aquatic
invasive species when compared with current ballast water exchange and flushing practices.
Canada shares New York's concern about the potential for domestic vessels to spread nonnative
species that have become established in our shared waters. Canada is supporting research to
ensure that BWTS are appropriate for use on the Great Lakes. Uniform ballast water
requirements will facilitate the continuance of marine transportation on the Great Lakes. This
mode of transportation offers environmental advantages (such as low air emissions) in moving
the heavy bulk goods that are key inputs and outputs of the economy in the Great Lakes region.
Compatible standards are necessary to allow ships to move across numerous state and federal
boundaries in plying their trade. Canada notes that the same argument applies to protecting
biodiversity throughout North America and around the world, which is why Canada prefers the
internationally compatible approach to ballast water regulation developed by the International
Maritime Organization (IMO). Accordingly, in April 2010, Canada ratified the IMO's
International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and
Sediments, 2004 ("the IMO convention").
Response: Today's VGP contains numeric limits for ballast water that are consistent with the
IMO D-2 standard. New York's 401 certification states that "permittees must meet the
following discharge limits consistent with Section 2.2.3.5" of the VGP, which contains numeric
ballast water discharge limits that are consistent with the IMO D-2 standard.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Russell E. Painter, Regulatory Affairs Manager,
McNational, Inc.
McNational, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0481-A1
3
No
Comment: EPA needs to affirmatively manage the section 401 state certification process by
widely publicizing opportunities for vessel owners and operators to engage in states' certification
processes and by helping states that share a waterway or coastline to resolve their conflicts
before certifying the permit.
Response: Please see the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2 and
1229
-------
EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: Cory Sause, Environmental Coordinator, Sause Bros
Commenter Affiliation: Sause Bros
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0482-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: Sause Bros, would also like to take the time to acknowledge the following issues
and weigh in with our thoughts. We would like to see the EPA affirmatively manage the section
401 state certification process by widely publicizing opportunities for vessel owners and
operators to engage in states' certification processes and by helping states that share a waterway
or coastline to resolve their conflicts before certifying the permit.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: LeRoger Lind, President, Save Lake Superior Association
Commenter Affiliation: Save Lake Superior Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0483-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: A national ballast water discharge standard (BWDS) must be established as
mandated by NISA in view of the fragmented standards that have either been issued or are being
developed by the individual states. The standard should not preclude the states from developing
"stricter than" standards for unique situations and ecologies. The broad authority and technical
skills in place at the EPA and other federal agencies applied to implementation of a national
standard would save considerable time and expense on the individual state level.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name: Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Shipping of America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 23
Late Comment? No
Comment: Specific Requirements for Individual States or Indian Country Lands (Part 6, pg.
85): CSA strongly urges EPA to request individual states to at least file drafts of their expected
401 certifications prior to finalization of the VGP in December 2012. The industry stands ready
to work with individual states to provide information on ship specific systems, their capabilities
and availabilities.
1230
-------
Response: The deadline for submission of 401 certifications was October 1, 2012.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Ingram
Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0486-A1
6
No
Comment: In addition to the above comments, we would like to concur with AWO in their
request for the Administration to strongly support efforts to reform the regulation of vessel
discharges that would effectively safeguard the marine environment while eliminating the
operational and administrative difficulties that have been caused by the grafting of a permit
program designed for fixed facilities onto mobile vessels. Ingram Barge also supports AWO's
request to EPA to manage the section 401 state certification processes to ensure that vessel
operators are not faced with inconsistent and burdensome state requirements as operators' transit
through different states.
Response: Please see the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2 and
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Roger Harris, Senior Vice President - Operations,
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
Magnolia Marine Transport Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0488-A1
8
No
Comment: Finally, EPA should affirmatively manage the section 401 state certification process
to ensure that vessel operators are not faced with inconsistent and unnecessarily burdensome
state requirements as they travel through the waters of multiple states. EPA should (1) widely
publicize opportunities for vessel owners and operators to engage in states' certification
processes and (2) require states that share a waterway or coastline to resolve their conflicts
before certifying the permit.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5. In
addition, EPA cannot require states that share a waterway or coastline to resolve their conflicts
before certifying the VGP. Conducting the process of requesting state certification is mandated
by the CWA in Section 401, and EPA cannot limit this statutory requirement, as commenter
suggests. Furthermore, it is Congress's intent that states have the authority provided by CWA
401 to review and certify Federal licenses and permits and add water quality-related conditions
to those licenses and permits. Pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, EPA cannot issue an
1231
-------
NPDES permit until a certification is granted or waived by the state, and when requesting
Section 401 certification, EPA is required by regulation to notify states that EPA cannot issue
the permit in question until the certifying state agency has granted or denied certification. See
40 C.F.R. 124.53(c). Moreover, the final permit will clearly identify the states that issued
certifications and include the conditions those states attached to their certifications.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Algis Vanagas, Senior Vice-President Technical, Algoma
Central Corporation
Algoma Central Corporation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1
5
No
Comment: 5. Part 2.2.3. Ballast Water. We note that this part of the draft permit applies to all
"discharges' of ballast water. We therefore encourage the EPA to provide guidance to the States
to ensure that their 401 certifications similarly limit any ballast water provisions (if they choose
to implement them) to only discharges of ballast water and not to vessels undertaking innocent
passage through state waters. The most preferable outcome would be for the States to accept a
national federal standard and avoid introducing state-specific ballast water provisions at all.
Response: EPA believes that Part 6 of the VGP places sufficient parameters upon the inclusion
of CWA section 401 certification conditions in the VGP: Section 401(d) of the CWA provides
that any certification under the Act "shall set forth any effluent limitations and other
limitations, and monitoring requirements" necessary to assure that any applicant for a federal
license or permit will comply with any applicable CWA-based effluent limitations and other
limitations, standards of performance, prohibitions, effluent standards, or pretreatment
standards, and with any other appropriate requirements of State and Tribal law. Section 401(d)
further provides that such additional limitations and monitoring requirements "shall become a
condition on any Federal license or permit subject to the provisions of this section." Pursuant to
section 401(d), EPA has attached provisions provided by states and tribes in their CWA section
401 certifications; those that constitute effluent or other limitations or monitoring requirements
are enforceable conditions of this permit for that state's or tribe's waters.
With respect to innocent passage, Part 1.15 of the VGP states that "EPA intends to implement
the VGP in accordance with the CWA as well as U.S. international legal obligations, including
those obligations associated with a vessel's right to innocent passage as provided for under
customary international law." However, EPA also notes that vessels passing through the inland
waters of the United States, including the St. Lawrence Seaway, are not engaged in innocent
passage because the innocent passage provisions in the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Seaare applicable to the territorial sea and not inland waters.
Commenter Name: Christian LaPense, Dann Marine Towing
Commenter Affiliation: Dann Marine Towing
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0496-A1
1232
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: We at Dann Marine Towing appreciate this opportunity to comment on this
proposed ruling for the new Vessel General Permit.
Before commenting on the content of the proposed VGP, Dann Marine Towing notes it
continues to believe that as a matter of public policy, the NPDES permit program, which was
designed for stationary, land-based facilities, is an ill-fitting framework for the regulation of
discharges from mobile sources of pollution like vessels, which regularly travel between two or
more states in a single voyage. As we have seen, under the NPDES certification process states
may arbitrarily add contradictory or unachievable conditions to the VGP, creating a confusing
patchwork of impracticable rules for vessels in interstate commerce. Legislation passed by the
House of Representatives in November 2011 would address this untenable situation by
establishing nationally consistent, clear, and science-based standards for vessel discharges. We
respectfully ask the Administration to strongly support this and other congressional efforts to
reform the regulation of vessel discharges that would effectively safeguard the marine
environment while eliminating the operational and administrative difficulties that have been
caused by the grafting of a permit program designed for fixed facilities onto mobile vessels.
In the meantime, Dann Marine Towing recognizes that EPA must administer the VGP as well as
it can within the confines of current law. We therefore urge EPA to affirmatively manage the
section 401 state certification processes to ensure that vessel operators are not faced with
inconsistent and unnecessarily burdensome state requirements as they transit through the waters
of multiple states. Dann Marine Towing believes that the EPA can help to prevent another
unacceptable patchwork of unfeasible state conditions by working with the states to make the
section 401 certification processes as transparent and accessible to the regulated community as
possible. EPA should facilitate stakeholders' engagement with the states by providing
information about state notice and comment periods and any other opportunities for public
participation in their certification processes, and publishing these renouncements on the EPA
Website. EPA should also play a leadership role in helping states that share a waterway or
coastline to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies among their proposed conditions before they
certify the permit.
Response: Please see the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2 and
EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0444, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President Human
Resources, Ingram Barge Company
Ingram Barge Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0500-A1
4
No
1233
-------
Comment: Ingram Barge also supports AWO's request to EPA to manage the section 401 state
certification processes to ensure that vessel operators are not faced with inconsistent and
burdensome state requirements as operators' transit through different states.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commenter Affiliation: Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Late Comment? No
Comment: There are a number of broader issues related to VGP 2.0 that must be resolved
before it comes into effect. The most important is the state 401 certification process. Probably
the most problematic part of VGP 1.0's development, this process must be affirmatively
managed by EPA to ensure that conflicting, duplicative, or burdensome requirements are not
imposed by states. We must avoid the situation we faced in 2008, when a lack of communication
between EPA and the states led some of those states to add conditions to the VGP with which
industry literally could not comply, forcing us to begin pulling vessels out of their waters. The
401 certification process is an example of what a poor fit the overall NPDES permit program is
for our vessels that travel through the waters of multiple states, sometimes in a single day. While
we appreciate EPA's commitment to better coordinate the 401 certification process this time
around, it still presents the same challenge of multiple, and potentially conflicting, state
requirements imposed on towing vessels and barges. The true solution is to establish a new,
uniform statutory framework for the regulation of vessel discharges that provides for
environmentally protective standards and is tailored to the operations of vessels in interstate
commerce. Fortunately, last November, the House of Representatives passed a Coast Guard
Authorization Bill that includes a title that would establish such a framework. We urge EPA to
take a leadership role in working with the Senate to pass this bill and send it to the President for
his signature.
Response: Please see the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2 and
EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0444, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Timothy D. Sullivan, Manager of Regulatory Affairs and
Environmental Compliance, Hornbeck Offshore Operators,
LLC
Hornbeck Offshore Services
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0502-A1
6
No
Comment: Section 6.0 of the Draft. Hornbeck also strongly endorses OMSA's request that the
EPA support a national uniform standard for ballast water and other vessel discharges in order to
1234
-------
eliminate the inherent conflicts between Federal and state regulatory programs. For vessels that
transit into multiple state waters, compliance with different requirements in each state is
confusing, burdensome, and unnecessary. Support for a uniform national standard would actually
improve compliance with the VGP itself and prevent the hindrance in international and domestic
movements of cargo by vessels.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President-National
Advocacy, The American Waterways Operators
The American Waterways Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0507-A1
3
No
Comment: Before commenting on the content of the proposed VGP, we emphasize that AWO
continues to believe that as a matter of public policy, the NPDES permit program, which was
designed for stationary, land-based facilities, is an ill-fitting framework for the regulation of
discharges from mobile sources like vessels, which regularly travel between the waters of
multiple states. As we have seen, under the section 401 certification process states may add
contradictory or unachievable conditions to the VGP, creating a confusing patchwork of
impracticable rules for vessels in interstate commerce. Legislation passed by the House of
Representatives in November2011 would address this untenable situation by establishing
nationally consistent, clear, and science-based standards for vessel discharges.1 We respectfully
urge EPA to work to generate Administration support for this and other congressional efforts to
reform the regulation of vessel discharges that would effectively safeguard the marine
environment while eliminating the operational and administrative difficulties that have been
caused by the grafting of a permit program designed for fixed facilities onto vessels.
In the meantime, AWO recognizes that EPA must administer the VGP as effectively as possible
within the confines of current law. We therefore urge EPA to affirmatively manage the
section401 state certification process to ensure that vessel operators are not faced with
inconsistent and unnecessarily burdensome state requirements as they transit through the waters
of multiple states. AWO believes that EPA can help to prevent another unacceptable patchwork
of infeasible state conditions by working with the states to make the section 401 certification
process as transparent and accessible to the regulated community as possible. During the
certification process accompanying the first VGP in 2008, it was extremely difficult, and in
many cases impossible, for the regulated community to obtain timely information on proposed
state requirements and provide needed expertise and perspective before the certifications and
associated conditions were finalized. We urge EPA to facilitate stakeholders' engagement with
the states by providing information about state notice and comment periods and any other
opportunities for public participation in their certification processes, and publishing these
announcements on the EPA Website. EPA should also play a leadership role in helping states
that share a waterway or coastline to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies among their
proposed conditions before they certify the permit.
1235
-------
1 United States Congress. 2011. Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011, Title VII, Commercial
Vessel Discharges Reform. U.S. Congress, H.R. 2838, passed in House on November 11, 2011.
Response: Please see the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2 and
EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0444, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Director, Environment &
Sustainability, Maerks Line North America Liner
Operations
Maersk Line
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0513-A1
3
No
Comment: 3. We greatly appreciate the recognition of and efforts to align with International
Maritime Organizations (IMO) standards. Clear international standards are the most effective
way to ensure understanding, compliance and environmental progress for the international
shipping community. We therefore urge EPA to encourage the individual States to accept federal
and international standards and minimize regulatory fragmentation in their 401 certifications and
programs. The various state requirements proposed and imposed under the 2008 permit resulted
in extensive time, research and cost for both vessel operators and state agencies, with no
corresponding benefits to the environment.
Response: Please see the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5 and
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0488-A1, excerpt 8.
Commenter Name: Kate Frantz, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0521-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: Protection of State Waters via CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
MPCA and MDNR are concerned about the effectiveness of the CWA Section 401 Water
Quality Certification process as a tool to protect state waters under the draft VGP2. States that
share ports, such as the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin, or larger water bodies such as Lake
Superior (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) will struggle to establish consistent, protective,
and workable 401 Certification requirements. Any variation in requirements that may occur as
part of these processes may result in an alteration of vessel traffic patterns, but no real reduction
in exposure to aquatic invasive species. Variation between neighboring states' policies on this
issue results in an inability for each state to adequately protect its own waters. To effectively
prevent ship-mediated introductions of AIS, the USEPA needs to derive and include a single set
of protective ballast water TBELs and WQBELs that are applicable to all vessels, and establish a
1236
-------
clear path for the collection of data that enables all interested parties to monitor the effectiveness
of the VGP2.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5
regarding the efforts EPA has made to facilitate coordination among the Great Lakes states to
encourage consistency between the states' 401 certification requirements. CWA § 510 expressly
preserves State authority to issue more stringent requirements than the Federal government, and
under CWA §401, states are vested with the responsibility for certifying that the federal permit
complies with state water quality standards. EPA has derived effluent limits for ballast water
discharges that are both practical and economically achievable and protective of water quality.
See the VGP Fact Sheet for further discussion about EPA's derivation of ballast water TBELs
and WQBELs.
Commenter Name: William R. Barr, Vice President Safety & Compliance,
Amherst Madison, Inc.
Commenter Affiliation: Amherst Madison, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0524-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: In the current VGP individual states can impose Section 401 emission standards that
are stronger than current Clean Water Act requirements, but that action stands to impede
interstate commerce as some states may have higher standards than others. California just
enacted a "no discharge zone" for the whole state and that action alone could restrict some
companies from operating there and ultimately go out of business.
Response: Commenter's assertion that the VGP's 401 certification provisions potentially
impeded interstate commerce is similar to petitioners' arguments that were rejected by the D.C.
Circuit in Lake Carriers' Ass'n v. EPA, 652 F.3d 1 at 12 (D.C. Cir. 2011). There, the Court
stated that "as to the dormant Commerce Clause, the petitioners claim only that '[allowing the
specter of multiple states imposing differing requirements on vessels that move through their
respective waters creates a . . . potentially impermissible[] burden on commerce.' Pet'rs Br. 22
(emphasis added). We note that even the italicized caveat is understated. Dormant Commerce
Clause doctrine applies only to burdens created by state law. See, e.g., Kassel, 450 U.S. at 678.
At issue here is a federal statute, the CWA, and a federal regulation, the VGP. It is true, as the
petitioners observe, that Wyoming v. Oklahoma held that it takes an "unambiguous" expression
of intent for Congress to authorize a state to burden interstate commerce in a way that would
otherwise transgress the dormant Commerce Clause. 502 U.S. 437, 458 (1992). But in Wyoming
it was a state law that was challenged, and the question was whether a federal statute had
authorized it. Here, it is a federal [permit] that is at issue. The CWA does not merely authorize
state certifications; it incorporates those certifications into federal law. See Reply Br. 12
(acknowledging that, when the conditions attached by each state "are aggregated in the final
VGP[,] [they] become federal requirements"); cf. Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 110
(1992).
1237
-------
California's "no discharge zone" is a prohibition on the discharge of sewage, and is outside the
scope of today's permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
1
No
Comment: 1. Continued Potential for Regulatory Fragmentation.
The Draft 2013 VGP does not resolve any of the regulatory fragmentation issues that occurred
under the 2008 version of the permit. As we saw with the first VGP in 2008, State certifications
can result in a patchwork of different regulatory requirements, causing ships calling ports in
multiple states to be subject to different (and often conflicting) permit requirements in addition to
those they already face at the federal level. Needless to say, this creates tremendous uncertainty
amongst shipowners and operators. Indeed, as a result of the requirements arising from New
York State's certification of the VGP, those of our members who transit regularly in the Great
Lakes have no guarantee that they will be able to continue operating beyond August 1, 2013 (the
date on which the New York requirements are scheduled to come into effect).
In our comments on the 2008 VGP, we noted that the existing NPDES program is designed for
fixed, non-mobile discharge sources (such as industrial and commercial facilities) which emit
relatively consistent components into the water, and not for mobile discharge sources such as
ships, which generate far less predictable discharges based on ship types, trades and sizes. In
view of the foregoing, we expressed the hope that the EPA would create a program that is
specific to mobile sources of discharge. Unfortunately, this has not been the case, and although
the EPA has indicated that it intends to work with States in order to ensure consistency in the
standards, we face the very real possibility that on May 30th (when the 6 month period for State
certification ends), Part 6 of the Draft 2013 VGP will be similar to the 2008 version.
Response: With respect to the inclusion of state 401 certifications in today's permit, please see
the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2. With respect to New
York's 401 certification, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-
A2, excerpt 19. To "create a program" other than NPDES to regulate discharges incidental to
the normal operation of a vessel would require a change to the CWA and is outside the scope of
today's action.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs, Shipping
Federation of Canada
Shipping Federation of Canada
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0525-A1
26
No
1238
-------
Comment: 6. Specific Requirements for Individual States and Indian Country Lands.
We would like to reiterate our earlier comments with respect to regulatory fragmentation. More
specifically, the Draft 2013 VGP does not resolve any of the issues related to regulatory
fragmentation that occurred under the previous version of the permit. Although we understand
that the EPA will work with Great Lakes States in developing a common approach for the area
(and we fully support this process), we fear that the State certification provisions of section 401
of the Clean Water Act will have the same result as for the 2008 VGP. In view of its global
nature, marine transportation would be far better served by uniform and consistent rules than by
the regulatory patchwork that is currently in place. We remain available to work with EPA
towards such a result.
Response: Please see the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2,
EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5, and EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0525-A1.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Late Comment? No
Comment: EPA should make the Section 401 certificate of the VGP itself, as it is required to do
under the Clean Water Act, and in doing so eliminate the differing and unachievable
requirements required by some Great Lakes states.
Response: This argument lacks any support in the statute. The gist of the argument is that under
section 401(a), certifications are to be provided by "the State in which the discharge originates
or will originate," except in a case where a State has "no authority" to give such a certification,
in which case the certification "shall be from the Administrator." Citing this language, Lake
Carriers argues that Congress "envisioned" that there would always be a single State (or one
interstate agency in certain cases), not multiple States (or interstate agencies), making the
section 401 certification for an EPA-issued permit. Lake Carriers (Br. 41, emphasis added)
argues that because the Vessel General Permit is "designed ~o regulate the same discharge point
as it moves from place to place," there is "no single state in which the discharge originates," and
therefore no individual State "may issue the section 401 certification." Lake Carriers' semantic
argument is ill-founded. Section 401(a) does not utilize the term "discharge points." Rather, it
focuses on the waters "where the discharge originates or will originate" and affords States the
right to certify (or refuse to certify) that the "discharge" in question will comply with applicable
CWA and state requirements. That a vessel might ultimately depart from one State's waters and
enter another's — possibly emitting pollutants in both, through discharges "originating" in both
—does not deprive each of those States of the right to protect its own waters by adding
conditions to the general permit through the section 401 certification process. Neither State
loses "authority" to issue certifications covering discharges originating in its waters simply
because the "discharge point" (i.e., the vessel) moves (or has the potential of moving) to another
State's waters and also discharging there. Lake Carriers' argument is founded on faulty logic. It
1239
-------
asserts that (1) because there is no "single" State in which all discharges originate, (2) no
individual State has authority to "issue the section 401 certification." Not only is there no
logical connection between the premise and the conclusion, Lake Carriers' argument turns the
section on its head. There is no reason to conclude that state certification authority is triggered
by a discharge in a single State but extinguished entirely when the discharge occurs (or might
occur} in multiple States. Indeed, the opposite conclusion —that there are then multiple States
with certification authority — is a far more plausible interpretation of section 401, given that its
goal is to allow States to act individually to protect the quality of their own waters. To the
extent that Lake Carriers believes that the CWA allows for the "over-regulation" of vessel
discharges, Lake Carriers' remedy lies with Congress, not the Agency or the courts.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 29
Late Comment? No
Comment: Question #17: Would it be appropriate to include alternative treatment limits used
by other regulatory agencies, specifically limits promulgated by the State of California?
LCA Response: Inclusion of any alternative treatment limits or discharge standards has no
scientific basis and therefore should be rejected. This conclusion is supported by Lee, et all
(2010) in which the EPA's own research ecologist concluded that the zero detectable California
standard "not be used at the national level for deriving environmentally protective limits on
concentrations of living organisms in ballast water."
Furthermore, this question illustrates what we and many others believe is a fundamental flaw
with the current VGP and this draft permit, namely multiple, conflicting standards. EPA itself
has previously acknowledged the benefits of a single, Federal standard and, further, that the
federal NPDES permitting program is ill-equipped to address the problem of mobile discharges.
In June 2008, for example, James Hanlon, the director of EPA's Office of Wastewater
Management, testified before a House subcommittee that "the NPDES program does not
currently provide an appropriate framework for managing ballast water and other discharges
incidental to the normal operation of vessels, which are highly mobile and routinely move from
port to port, state to state, and country to country. As a general matter, we believe that discharges
from such highly mobile sources would be more effectively and efficiently managed through the
development of national, environmentally sound, uniform discharge standard" See Transcript of
Testimony of James A. Hanlon (June 12, 2008), at 3.9 Nonetheless, the EPA's provisions in the
proposed VGP for Lakers operating upstream of the Welland Canal can, on a practical basis, be
nullified by various states' provisions. The table on the following page lists the current
patchwork of state requirements:
SEE TABLE IN ORIGINAL COMMENT
1240
-------
Only one vessel enrolled in LCA confines its operations to the waters of one state, the supply
boat OJIBWAY, and it does not ballast, as it ferries supplies to ships as they transit the St. Marys
River at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The car ferry BADGER services just two ports, so it
operates only in Michigan and Wisconsin waters, but the remaining 54 vessels operate in the
waters of multiple states. There must be one uniform standard for the Great Lakes. Although not
the purview of this VGP, we must also stress that U.S. and Canadian requirements must either
mirror each other or be considered equivalent, as vessels move between national boundaries
many times, especially when transiting the St. Marys and Detroit/St. Clair river systems.
Part of the solution to the patchwork of state regulations is for EPA to make the Section 401
certification of the VGP itself, as it is required to do by the Clean Water Act. The plain language
of section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and the definitions in section 502, demonstrate that
Congress envisioned that there would be a single state making the certification for a discharge
only affecting that state's waters or, if appropriate, a single interstate agency in the case of a
discharge that crosses state lines. Those same provisions instruct that a Section 401 certification
is to come from the Administrator of EPA when, as here, there is no single state or interstate
agency that has authority to provide the certification. See 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1). To the extent
EPA is concerned about a discharge from a vessel originating in one state migrating to impact
another downstream state, the Act provides a procedure by which the states affected by the
discharge may object and make recommendations to EPA. See 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(2). The
states affected by the discharge are not, however, given certification authority - only the state in
which the discharge originates or will originate, or "the interstate agency having jurisdiction over
the navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or will originate," is given such
authority. 33 U.S.C. at § 1341(a)(1).
EPA's proposal, as was the case in the current VGP, is to seek multiple certifications from every
state through which a vessel subject to the VGP travels. This proposal to allow multiple
certification of a single discharge is apparently premised on the contention that a discharge can
"originate" in more than one state for a mobile source. This premise is flawed for several
reasons. First, it ignores the ordinary meaning of the word "originates" - something can
"originate" only once, not multiple times. See THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY
1277 (3d ed. 1996) (defining "originate" as "to bring into being; create" and "to come into being;
start"). While a discharge may stop, move, and subsequently restart, it only "originates" once.
See Am. Mining Cong. v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1177, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ("legislative purpose is
expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used") (citation omitted).
Second, EPA's interpretation renders subsection 401(a)(2) superfluous in the case of a
nationwide general permit because, according to EPA, in that case every state has certification
authority. See Asiana Airlines v. FAA, 134 F.3d 393, 398 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (statute should be
construed so that no provision is rendered inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant).
Third, the VGP is a single permit and section 401 clearly contemplates a single certification for a
permit, not multiple certifications. See, e.g., 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1) ("No license or permit shall
be granted until the certification ..."); § 1341(a)(3) ("The certification obtained pursuant to
paragraph (1) ...."); § 1341(a)(4) ("Prior to the initial operation of any federally licensed or
permitted facility ... to which a certification has been obtained) (emphasis added).
1241
-------
Fourth, because section 401 allows "the certifying state" to seek suspension of "such [] permit,"
EPA's interpretation would effectively allow any state certifying a nationwide general permit to
seek and obtain suspension of the entirety of that permit, thus rendering it inoperable in other
states that have certified the permit but have not sought its suspension. Id. at § 1341(a)(5)
(emphasis added).
Finally, EPA's interpretation of the word "originate" to the exclusion of the remainder of Section
401 is contrary to EPA's previous recognition that "[i]t may be that the Congress used the word
originates to distinguish between the State in whose waters the discharge originally enters from a
downstream State whose waters are affected by the discharge." EPA General Counsel Opinion
78-8, at n.4 (emphasis added).
In short, the statute clearly contemplates a single certification for a permit, not multiple
certifications, and instructs that a Section 401 certification is to come from the Administrator of
EPA when there is no single state or interstate agency with authority to provide that certification.
Here, because there is no single state or interstate agency that has authority to certify the VPG, a
nationwide general permit, Section 401 instructs that EPA must provide the necessary
certification. EPA has never denied that it can make the section 401 certification of the VGP.
Even if Section 401 is not completely clear, there are several reasons why EPA's proposal to
again have multiple state certifications is unreasonable. First, it makes no sense to read Section
401 as EPA suggests because it renders subsection 401(a)(2) superfluous and inoperable in the
case of a nationwide general permit. See Massachusetts v. DOT, 93 F.3d 890, 897 (D.C. Cir.
1996) (rejecting, under Chevron's second step, agency's interpretation of statute when its
implications would render superfluous at least two other segments of that provision's statutory
scheme).
Second, EPA's interpretation tries to resolve the lack of clarity in Section 401 by rewriting it.
Had Congress intended that Section 401 provide for multiple state certifications, it could have
easily stated that an applicant for an NPDES permit obtain a certification from "[each or every]
State in which the discharge [will occur], or, if appropriate, from [each or every] interstate water
pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at [any] point where the
discharge [will occur]," that any such discharge will comply with certain requirements of the
Clean Water Act. Congress, however, only required certification from "the State in which the
discharge originates or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution
control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point where the discharge
originates or will originate," that any such discharge will comply with certain requirements of
the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a) (emphasis added).
Congress then said that "in any case where a State or interstate agency has no authority to give
such a certification, such certification shall be from the Administrator." Id. (emphasis added).
EPA cannot ignore the language carefully chosen by Congress. See Mova Pharm. Corp. v.
Shalala, 140 F.3d 1060, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (the second step of Chevron is not a license to
rewrite statutes); Indiana Mich. Power Co. v. DOE, 88 F.3d 1272, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ("The
[agency's] treatment of this statute is not an interpretation but a rewrite.").
1242
-------
Finally, EPA's assumption that there can be multiple state certifications for the same discharge
authorized under a single national permit contradicts the agency's prior position that the federal
NPDES permitting program is ill-equipped to address the problem of mobile discharges. See
Hanlon Testimony, supra. EPA has supplied no reasoned explanation for any new interpretation
of the Clean Water Act, and in particular Section 401. See Arent v. Shalala, 70 F.3d 610, 616 n.6
(D.C. Cir. 1995).
If EPA does not make the Section 401 certification itself, as it is required to do under the Clean
Water Act, then EPA must, at the very least, provide notice and comment on Part 6 of the VGP
to avoid issuing a federal NPDES permit that violates the U.S. Constitution or the Clean Water
Act itself. That could well be the case depending on what conditions are submitted by states.
States may not do indirectly via the Section 401 certification process what the dormant aspect of
the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution precludes them from doing directly. While
individual states may suggest that Congress, via Section 401, allows states to impact interstate
commerce in some way, these arguments ignore that the scheme of cooperative federalism
created by the Clean Water Act was specifically designed to preserve state authority, not to
expand it. States, in short, have no more authority under Section 401, and the Clean Water Act
generally, to burden interstate commerce than they previously possessed prior to the passage of
the Act.
If the first VGP is any indication, EPA has expressly recognized the state Section 401
certification process undertaken in the connection with the initial VGP, which allowed the last
minute addition of over 100+ conflicting state conditions without any opportunity for public
comment or coordination among the states, was fundamentally flawed. In its settlement
agreement with various environmental groups in litigation involving the current VGP, EPA
agreed as follows:
7. EPA will provide states with at least six months after publication of the Draft NextVGP to
grant, grant with condition, deny or waive certification under CWA §401.
8. EPA will provide information to the states and facilitate communication among the states at a
regional (e.g., Great Lakes, Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf) level regarding state certification of the
Next VGP. For purposes of this Paragraph, to "facilitate communication" means, at a minimum,
to arrange for at least one conference call or meeting between the states at each regional level
during the 6-month period referenced in Paragraph 7 to discuss appropriate interstate
coordination on the states' CWA §401 certifications. For purposes of this Paragraph, to "provide
information" means, at a minimum, to explain to the states in a letter or other written format the
states' obligations under 33 U.S.C. § 1341 and 40 C.F.R. § 124.53(e) either prior to or upon
commencement of the six-mo nth period referenced in Paragraph 7.
See NRDC v. EPA, No. 09-1163 (D.C. Cir.), Document No. 1296922, Filed March 8, 2011.
Finally, EPA must also conduct an appropriate economic analysis with respect to any new
requirements that will be added by the states in Part 6 of the VGP. Complying with dozens of
requirements to varying degrees depending on which state's waters the vessel crosses is certain
to impose on small entities substantial costs over and above or different than the cost of
1243
-------
complying with the original federal requirements of the proposed VGP. EPA failed to consider
the costs of compliance with state conditions in assessing the impact of the initial VGP permit on
small businesses, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., and it
does not appear that EPA has analyzed these costs, either on an individual or aggregate basis, in
connection with the draft proposed VGP.
Moreover, inclusion of any discharge standard other than the proposed is inconsistent with the
EPA's mandate under the Clean Water Act to establish a water quality based effluent limit
(QBEL) or a technology based effluent limit (TBEL). As the EPA correctly points out in the
VGP Fact Sheet, the NAS determined that there was a fundamental lack of data to support the
determination of a QBEL. Therefore, based on the NAS determination, the EPA has no scientific
basis to establish a QBEL.
Similarly, the SAB concluded that, at present, there have been no ballast water management
systems which have been able to demonstrate they can meet a more stringent standard than the
IMO Standard (or proposed Coast Guard Phase 1). Given that the NAS concluded a QBEL could
not be determined and the SAB determined that the best available technology (in this case
irrespective of economic or commercial achievability!) is capable of meeting the proposed EPA
standard, it is inconceivable that EPA could adopt a standard which is more stringent than
proposed.
9
Available at: http://www.epa.gOv/ocirpage/hearings/testimonv/l 10 2007 2008/2008.htm.
Response: With respect to the need for a "single, Federal standard," and commenter's concern
that 401 certification requirements can "nullify" provisions of the federal permit, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2. EPA also notes that state 401
certifications cannot contain less stringent requirements than the federal permit. Please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0534-A2, excerpt 8.
Regarding the assertion that EPA should "make the Section 401 certification of the VGP itself,"
please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2, excerpt 7.
Commenter argues that "EPA must, at the very least, provide notice and comment on Part 6 of
the VGP to avoid issuing a federal NPDES permit that violates the U.S. Constitution or the
Clean Water Act itself." This argument was rejected by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (Lake
Carriers' Ass'n v. EPA, 652 F.3d 1 at 12 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). The Court held that "in sum, given
the case law and the arguments that EPA had before it, the agency correctly concluded that it
did 'not have the ability to amend or reject conditions in a [state's] CWA 401
certification.. .Under those circumstances, providing notice and an opportunity for comment on
the state certifications would have served no purpose, and we decline to remand to require EPA
to do a futile thing" - that is, it would be futile to provide notice and comment on Part 6 of the
VGP.
In response to the issues raised about "the dormant aspect of the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution," please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0524-A1, excerpt
4. Commenter also states that "the scheme of cooperative federalism created by the Clean
1244
-------
Water Act was specifically designed to preserve state authority, not to expand it." (emphasis in
original) This statement is virtually identical to commenter's arguments that were rejected by
the Court.
Some passages in the petitioners' brief suggest that they may be making a "constitutional
avoidance" argument, contending that EPA must "construe and apply section 401 in a manner"
that avoids "creating] significant constitutional issues." Pet'rs Br. 45-46 (citing, e.g., Edward J.
DeBartolo v. Fl. Gulf Coast Bldg. Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 574- 75 (1988)). But
that canon comes into play only when a contrary construction would raise "grave and doubtful
constitutional questions." Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 190- 91 (1991). It has no applicability
in a case like this one, in which "there is nothing to avoid" from a constitutional perspective.
Cablevision Sys. Corp. v. FCC, No. 10-1062, 2011 WL 2277217, at *11 (D.C. Cir. June 10,
2011).
Perhaps the petitioners mean only to argue that EPA should have construed section 401 so as to
avoid creating inconsistencies and burdens, even if such problems do not rise to the
constitutional level. But if that is what the petitioners mean, they do not say so. More important,
they do not point to any text that could be construed to this end. The only text to which they
advert in this portion of their brief is section 101 of the CWA, which states that the policy of the
statute is to "recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to
prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution." 33 U.S.C. § 1251(b). From this they infer that
"section 401 's certification process is designed to preserve state authority, not to expand it."
Pet'rs Br. 48 (internal quotation marks omitted). Whatever the validity of that inference, it still
does not explain how the text of section 401 might be read to permit EPA to alter state
certifications. Cf. Am. Trucking Ass'n v. EPA, 600 F.3d 624, 628 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (rejecting a
challenge to EPA's approval of California vehicle standards because the petitioners were
"seeking improperly to engraft a type of constitutional Commerce Clause analysis onto EPA's .
. . decision[] that is neither present in nor authorized by the statute" (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Before concluding this Subpart, we note that EPA's resolution of this matter does not leave the
petitioners without recourse. If they believe that the certification conditions imposed by any
particular state pose an inordinate burden on their operations, they may challenge those
conditions in that state's courts. See Roosevelt Campobello Int'l Park Comm'n v. EPA, 684 F.2d
1041, 1056 (1st Cir. 1982) (noting that "the courts have consistently agreed . . . that the proper
forum to review the appropriateness of a state's certification is the state court"); see also City of
Tacoma, 460 F.3d at 67. If they believe that a particular state's law imposes an unconstitutional
burden on interstate commerce, they may challenge that law in federal (or state) court. See Am.
Trucking Ass'n, 600 F.3d at 628 n.l. And if neither of these avenues proves adequate, they are
free to ask Congress to amend the CWA, perhaps by reimposing the exemption for incidental
vessel discharges. See supra note 1 (noting that, in response to the Ninth Circuit's decision
vacating the exemption, Congress passed two acts that exempted small boats and recreational
and commercial fishing vessels from the CWA's permitting requirements).
Pages 14- 16.
Commenter asserts that "EPA must also conduct an appropriate economic analysis with respect
1245
-------
to any new requirements that will be added by the states in Part 6 of the VGP.. .as required by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act." EPA disagrees. Part 6 of the VGP, which contains the section
401 certification conditions, is not subject to the RFA because EPA is not "required" by APA §
553 "or any other law" to "publish a notice of proposed rulemaking" in connection with the
section 401 certification conditions. 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(a), 604(a). The CWA does not
contemplate that the section 401 process follow the APA § 553 notice-and-comment
procedures. Instead, the CWA mandates that the public participation process for these
certifications be carried out at the state level. Because the section 401 certification process does
not trigger the APA's (or any other statutes) rulemaking requirements, the RFA does not apply
to those certifications.
Consequently, EPA did not need to conduct an assessment of impacts on small businesses
taking into account the Permit's section 401 certification provisions in Part 6. Cf. Or. Trollers
Ass 'n v. Gutierrez, 452 F.3d 1 104, 1125 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that because the National
Marine Fisheries Service properly relied on "good cause" exception in connection with certain
management measures, "it did not have an obligation under the RFA" to issue a regulatory
flexibility analysis); Roche v. Evans, 249 F. Supp.2d 47, 57 (D. Mass. 2003) (finding that
agency was not required to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking and concluding,
therefore, that the "predicate for application of the RFA to the process is thus lacking"); A.M.L.
International, Inc. v. Daley, 107 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D. Mass. 2000) (holding "interim measures"
portion of fishery management plan exempt from RFA where Magnuson-Stevens Conservation
and Management Act exempted such measures from notice and comment requirements).
Finally, consideration of the impacts of the section 401 certification conditions would have been
futile in any event because EPA is powerless to affect those conditions and must include them
in its permits. EPA could not have carried out "the intent of the [RFA] legislation that agencies
give explicit consideration to a range of alternatives that would v substantially' reduce the
economic impact of the rule on individuals of limited means, small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions while meeting the goals and purposes of the
governing statute." S. Rep. No, 95-1322, at 9 (1978) (emphasis added). In this context, Lake
Carriers cannot demonstrate any harm traceable to EPA's decision not to conduct further
analysis under the RFA. See 5 U.S.C. § 706 (judicial review under APA is conducted with "due
account... of the rule of prejudicial error").
Commenter Name: Tim Eder, Executive Director, Great Lakes Commission
Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Commission
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0528-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Late Comment? No
Comment: The Great Lakes Commission appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP),
specifically focused on ballast water requirements. First and foremost, the Great Lakes
Commission is on record supporting a strong national standard for ballast water discharge that is
protective of the water resources of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River region. Attached
1246
-------
please find the most recent policy resolution on ballast water regulation approved by our
Commissioners in October 2011.
The introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species (AIS) from ballast water is an important
concern for the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. Given the delay
in establishing a national ballast water discharge standard, the Commission acknowledges the
importance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) VGP. The Commission
maintains a strong preference for a federal discharge standard as opposed to a jurisdiction-by
jurisdiction regulatory approach. The delay in promulgation of a federal standard has caused
most of the Great Lakes states to adopt their own ballast water control and treatment
requirements under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act or state permits to provide the necessary
protection for the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River water resources. The Great Lakes
Commission notes that our comments herein are in addition to comments that EPA will be
receiving from individual Great Lakes states. The GLC recommends that EPA pay close
attention to comments from the states in our region. The states have developed considerable
policy and technical expertise in this area.
Going forward, the Commission urges the EPA to consult closely with the Great Lakes states on
the final rule, to benefit from their expertise and experience. Moreover, the EPA should consult
closely with the Great Lakes states to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of the 401
certification process.
Response: With respect to coordination with states, please see the response to comment EPA-
HQ-QW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 36
Late Comment? No
Comment: P.7, Part 2.2 Legal Challenges- EPA describes that courts have found EPA does not
have a duty to provide opportunity for public input for state 401 certifications. EPA should take
leadership, and describe efforts for, soliciting public input in the 401 certification process. We
are aware of coordination efforts among western coastal states, although we have yet to gain
insight into their deliberations. This is particularly important for coastal and Great Lakes states,
whose ports are likely to be visited by ships sailing between states and their jurisdictions.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
1247
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
3
No
Comment: Much progress has been made in regulating ballast water discharge under the 2008
VGP2 program. However, there is still a lot of work to be done. Wisconsin DNR continues to
support a national standard for ballast water discharge that adequately protects the water
resources of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River ecosystem. The burden of controlling
ballast water discharge and the potential release of new species must be upon those who may
introduce such organisms into this ecosystem, and not on the taxpayers. This can most
effectively be done by creating a robust national regulatory system rather than a state-by-state
approach, and implementing a strong enforcement program that will deter violators.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0521-A2, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michelle Bonnett, Director, Division of Water, Water
Quality Section, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0534-A2
8
No
Comment: 5.1 - Large Cruise Ships (authorized to carry 500 people or more for hire) and 5.2 -
Medium Cruise Ships (authorized to carry 100 to 499 people for hire)
The State of Alaska implements its own cruise ship environmental compliance program. EPA
recognizes in the draft VGP that state programs can have different or additional requirements.
This is the case in Alaska. The State of Alaska regulates large ferries similar to large cruise
ships, as the Alaska definition of a large commercial passenger vessel is "vessels with 250 or
more passenger berths for hire". Ferries with fewer than 250 passenger berths for hire are
regulated as small commercial passenger vessels with applicable best management practices.
ADEC will further discuss this in the 401 certification. The EPA's VGP must account for and
allow for state regulation of such vessels in accordance with state authorities and not conflict or
create conflicts with those state authorities. The State sees the potential for conflict between
application of the VGP and the state's authorities including our Large Commercial Passenger
Vessel Wastewater Discharge General Permit. Potential conflicts may impact the State's
decisions on 401 certification of the VGP if ambiguities in the VGP, in light of state authorities,
are not resolved.
Response: Part 6 of the VGP includes conditions provided by the states in accordance with the
CWA section 401 certification process. That process provides states with the ability to include
state-specific requirements to implement their own water quality standards and requirements.
CWA § 510 expressly preserves State authority to issue more stringent requirements than the
1248
-------
Federal government and, under CWA § 401, federally issued-NPDES permits are subject to
certification by the states as to compliance with state water quality standards and other
requirements of state law.
EPA notes that pursuant to CWA section 401 and its implementing regulations, "a state may not
condition or deny a certification on the grounds that State law allows a less stringent permit
condition" and that EPA "shall disregard any such certification conditions or denials as waivers
of certification." 40 C.F.R. § 124.55(c).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michelle Bonnett, Director, Division of Water, Water
Quality Section, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0534- A2
12
No
Comment: Section 6 - State Requirements. Previous permit includes the provision that ferries
and cruise ships self-reporting violations to EPA must also report the violation to ADEC. ADEC
will also address this topic in its Clean Water Act Section 401 Certificate of Reasonable
Assurance.
Response: Today's VGP incorporates state 401 certification conditions, which are applicable in
that state's waters.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jeffrey E. Parker, Vice President, Operations, Allied
Transportation Company
Allied Transportation Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0539-A2
2
No
Comment: There are several areas addressed in the new permit that cause concern for us. First
and foremost is the specter of each state we travel to having different standards that we have to
comply with. Frequently these state conditions are unreasonable and unachievable. We ask for
your assistance in managing state conditions that are added to the federal permit. We have the
potential to conduct business in nineteen different states with many of those states impacting a
particular vessel on a single voyage.
Response: Please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2 and
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5.
1249
-------
Commenter Name:
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadians)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadians)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2
19
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: General Comments.
Although it is understood that it is not within the EPA's authority to regulate state requirements,
it is recommended that the EPA issue guidance to states on the application of the Vessel General
Permit to vessel discharges and not vessel transits. The CSA strongly recommends that the EPA
incorporate a clarifying statement as part of the next Vessel General Permit such that, consistent
with the Clean Water Act, the 401 water quality certifications apply only to vessel discharges
within that state's water bodies and not to ships simply transiting through without a discharge.
The EPA interim guidance document on the 401 certification process discusses this issue
indirectly. While this document provides insight into the certification process, it is prefaced with
the disclaimer that it is not EPA policy. Nevertheless, this document highlights the decision of
the U.S. Supreme Court in PUD v Washington Department of Ecology where the Court found:
"Section 401(a)(1) identifies the category of activities subject to certification-namely, those with
discharges. And §401(d) is most reasonably read as authorizing additional conditions and
limitations on the activity as a whole once the threshold condition, the existence of a discharge,
is satisfied."11
The CSA strongly urges that as part of this guidance on the 401 certification process, the
EPA additionally establish expectations relating to obligations under the Boundary Waters
Treaty of 1909. It is our strongly held perspective that some of the current State certifications
constitute a violation of this Treaty. All ships entering the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway
system must transit New York waters. It is important to emphasize that a Canadian-flagged
vessel engaged in a domestic transit between two points in Canada could be in contravention
when it enters New York waters, even if it does not discharge or take on ballast while in those
waters. We feel that this is contrary to the principle of allowing vessels the "privilege of free
navigation" as stated in Article I of the Boundary Waters Treaty.
The EPA and USCG must ensure a consistent, stable and achievable regulatory framework for
the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence System. The need for a harmonized approach to ballast water
regulation has never been as important as it is today. Vessels operating in the GLSLS potentially
fall under the regulatory authority of thirteen jurisdictions: the International Maritime
Organization, the Government of Canada, the U.S. federal government, the Ontario and Quebec
provincial governments, in addition to the eight U.S. Great Lakes state governments (New York,
Ohio, Minnesota, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin). The patchwork of
regulatory requirements on ballast water contained in the first Vessel General Permit introduced
significant uncertainty, threatening the business and investment climate. As a result of the
imminent coming into force of New York State's 401 certification condition requirements,
shippers have begun to respond by planning alternate modes of transport or seeking other
markets. For CSA member companies, this regulatory uncertainty is delaying further investment
1250
-------
in fleet renewal, and as such delaying the environmental and economic gains to be introduced
with the renewal of the Canadian domestic fleet. As a strategic transportation mode for trade and
the manufacturing sector, this uncertainty in the marine business planning environment may
disrupt U.S. recovery efforts following the financial crisis.
11 Quoted in U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. (20 10) Clean Water Act Section 40 1: Water
Qualify Certification A Water Quality Protection Tool for States and Tribes.
http://watCT.cpa .gov/lawsrcgs/guidance/c wa/upload/CWA 40 I Handbook 20 10 Interim.pdf (InteJim document),
16.
Response: With respect to guidance on the parameters of state 401 certifications, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0493-A1, excerpt 5. Commenter expresses
concern about New York's certification requirements being imposed on vessels that "transit"
the state's waters. EPA notes that New York's 401 certification of today's permit does not
appear to impose such requirements, and further notes that the appropriate venue for challenges
to 401 certifications is state court.
Commenter also recommends that EPA establish expectations relating to obligations under the
Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 because they believe that some of the current State
certifications constitute a violation of this Treaty. EPA notes that expectations relating to
international legal obligations, including the Boundary Waters Treaty, are articulated in Part
1.15 of the VGP, which states that "EPA intends to implement the VGP in accordance with the
CWA as well as U.S. international legal obligations, including those obligations associated with
a vessel's right to innocent passage as provided for under customary international law."
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Raymond W. Johnston, President, Chamber of Marine
Commerce (CMC)
Chamber of Marine Commerce (CMC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0541-A2
2
No
Comment: Another issue CMC has focused on and hopes will be addressed in the Final 2013
VGP is for language to be added to clarify and remove any ambiguity whatsoever that the VGP
and the statewide 401 certification process are regulatory instruments that are confined
exclusively to discharges of defined pollutants and cannot be manipulated, interpreted or
otherwise used in any way to impede a vessel's simple transit between inter-state, inter-
provincial or international jurisdictions, especially considering the egregious latitude the State of
New York has been afforded through these regulatory instruments.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2, excerpt 19.
Commenter Name: Raymond W. Johnston, President, Chamber of Marine
Commerce (CMC)
Commenter Affiliation: Chamber of Marine Commerce (CMC)
1251
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0541-A2
9
No
Comment: EPA's 2013 VGP specifically addresses regulatory aspects of the discharge of
defined pollutants from waterborne transportation. And yet, at least one jurisdiction (the State of
New York), has used its authority under the framework of the VGP and the Clean Water Act to
broaden the applicability of the VGP over vessels simply transiting the state's waters with no
intent to discharge ballast water.
While the CMC has, and continues, to work with other stakeholders - including the Government
of Canada - to argue against this unreasonable and, as we believe, unintended interpretation of
the VPG, the EPA has largely remained silent. The resulting confusion has cast a huge cloud of
uncertainty over the economic viability over all regions that benefit from marine commerce
transiting through New York waters, including the U.S. Northeast and the entire bi-national
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region as well as mid-west regions of Canada and the U.S. that rely on
such shipping routes to get commodities and materiel to and from markets in North America and
around the world.
Such regulatory confusion and commercial uncertainty could easily be alleviated by the EPA
adding clear, unequivocal language to the VGP which not only narrows the ambit of the VGP
such that it, and individual state section 401 certifications, can only apply to vessel discharges, as
well as specifying very clearly that the VGP cannot be used to potentially impede a vessel's
simple transit between inter-state, inter-provincial or international jurisdictions.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2, excerpt 19.
Commenter Name: Steven A. Fisher, Executive Director, American Great
Comment: State Section 401 Certification.
State regulation of ballast water discharges has been a debacle. Exploiting their authority under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, state environmental agencies have imprudently jumped into
the business of regulating interstate and international commerce — a role specifically reserved
for the federal government by the Constitution. As our forefathers anticipated, a state—by—state
patchwork of inconsistent and conflicting rules has evolved and is hurting the economy. Since
the State of Michigan issued ballast water discharge regulations in 2007, not a single export
cargo has been loaded at a Michigan port. Vessel operators are using alternative ports in
neighboring states or freight is moving by other means of transport. At the same time, Michigan's
ballast water discharge rules do nothing to protect the environment. Aquatic invasive species are
just that — invasive. They respect no political boundary and migrate freely from state—to-
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Lakes Ports Association
American Great Lakes Ports Association
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0545-A2
9
No
1252
-------
-state. Michigan, nor any other state, is in a position to unilaterally protect the Great Lakes
ecosystem by regulating vessel discharges. Only the federal government can effectively serve
this role. We urge EPA to work with state governments to harmonize state ballast water
discharge rules with the EPA's VGP. Such harmonization will better protect the environment
and economy.
We are grateful for EPA's leadership in establishing a comprehensive federal program to address
aquatic invasive species in ballast water. For more than 20 years, stakeholders have pleaded for
strong federal leadership on the ballast water problem. Such leadership has been elusive. In its
absence, state governments have stepped into the vacuum. Regrettably, their actions have further
confused the regulatory landscape. The resulting chaos has delayed deployment of ballast water
treatment systems, delayed environmental protection and created an uncertain business climate in
the maritime sector. We hope that the EPA's VGP will strike order into the chaos and create an
environment in which the private sector can begin to take action.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2,
EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5, and EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0524-A1, excerpt 4.
Commenter Name: Michael Lund, Chief Maritime Politics and Economics,
The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Commenter Affiliation: The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0548-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: BIMCO have repeatedly stressed the need for international standards for ballast
water treatment. BIMCO would also like to stress that there should preferable only be one
national standard per country.
The ballast water situation in the US could become very complicated for shipping to handle in
practice not only if the US establish rules diverting from international standards adopted in IMO
but especially if individual states in US were to establish their own individual standards.
It should be noted that this is an issue common for all ships calling the US. It is BIMCO's
sincere hope that all states in the US would seek to have the same standards regarding ballast
water treatment for ships calling their ports.
Would a state however seek to establish its own standard - and especially if such standard is
technically not feasible today or in nearby future - such state would probably place its ports in a
very difficult commercial situation as ships will be likely to stop calling. Was such a situation to
appear in only a few states it is still likely that the US transport infrastructure could be able to
cope as the cargo would reach the customers via other routes. If a unison solution is not possible
covering all US states a common solution including as many states as possible should be sought
to facilitate US trade.
1253
-------
We thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the proposed VGP. We would be pleased
to answer any questions raised by these comments or provide further information upon request.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Leah Miller, Clean Water Program Director, Izaak Walton
League of America, Inc. (IWLA) on behalf of Izaak Walton
League's Great Lakes Committee et al.
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (IWLA), et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0550-A2
6
No
Comment: 1.11 State Laws: We applaud the inclusion of language that allows states to set their
own standards and retain their ability to regulate discharges under section 510 of CWA.
Response: EPA acknowledges the commenters support of the provision as written in the VGP.
EPA notes that it has no authority to preempt the States or change section 510 of the CWA.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Randy Trapp, Safety, Security Manager, Dann Ocean
Towing, Inc.
Dann Ocean Towing, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0558-A1
5
No
Comment: We believe EPA needs to affirmatively manage the section 401 state certification
process by widely publicizing opportunities for vessel owners and operators to engage in states'
certification processes and by helping states that share a waterway or coastline to resolve their
conflicts before certifying the permit.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marc Gagnon, Director, Government Affairs & Regulatory
Compliance, Fednav Limited
Fednav Limited
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0559-A2
8
No
Comment: It is also essential that other US jurisdictions (States) recognize the importance of
harmonization. We strongly encourage the EPA to work closely with the States, and particularly
with States bordering the Great Lakes. In the exercise of the rights awarded to them by the Clean
1254
-------
Water Act, the States should plan their actions in a concerted way, so to better protect the
environment and the economy of their area.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and
Governmental Affairs, Foss Maritime Company
Foss Maritime Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0560-A2
1
No
Comment: Foss is privileged to operate in some of the most beautiful and pristine water bodies
in the nation and we are absolutely committed to the proactive environmental stewardship of our
water resources. Unfortunately Foss feels the framework of the NPDES permit program is not
suitable for mobile sources such as tugs and barges. Foss tugs and barges regularly cross state
lines on a single voyage and in fact our operations on the Columbia Snake River cross state lines
on this shared river border on a continual basis. Clearly a consistent national science based
standard for vessel discharges is needed and Foss supports current legislative initiatives to
establish a national framework.
The section 401 state certification process attendant with the NPDES permit process is
problematic at best and has the potential to destroy interstate commerce with tugs and barges.
Our operations cannot tolerate a patchwork of inconsistent and onerous state requirements when
transiting the waters of different states. Foss urges EPA to forcefully direct the 401 state
certification processes in order to engage stakeholders such as Foss early in the process and to
resolve potential problems before individual states certify the process.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2 and
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5. EPA cannot "forcefully direct" state 401
certification processes - please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0488-
Al, excerpt 8.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tim Eder, Executive Director and Katherine Glassner-
Shwayder, Senior Project Manager, Great Lakes
Commission (GLC)
Great Lakes Commission (GLC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0562-A2
1
No
Comment: The Great Lakes Commission appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP),
specifically focused on ballast water requirements. First and foremost, the Great Lakes
1255
-------
Commission is on record supporting a strong national standard for ballast water discharge that is
protective of the water resources of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River region. Attached
please find the most recent policy resolution on ballast water regulation approved by our
Commissioners in October 2011.
The introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species (AIS) from ballast water is an important
concern for the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. Given the delay
in establishing a national ballast water discharge standard, the Commission acknowledges the
importance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) VGP. The Commission
maintains a strong preference for a federal discharge standard as opposed to a jurisdiction-by
jurisdiction regulatory approach. The delay in promulgation of a federal standard has caused
most of the Great Lakes states to adopt their own ballast water control and treatment
requirements under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act or state permits to provide the necessary
protection for the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River water resources. The Great Lakes
Commission notes that our comments herein are in addition to comments that EPA will be
receiving from individual Great Lakes states. The GLC recommends that EPA pay close
attention to comments from the states in our region. The states have developed considerable
policy and technical expertise in this area.
Going forward, the Commission urges the EPA to consult closely with the Great Lakes states on
the final rule, to benefit from their expertise and experience. Moreover, the EPA should consult
closely with the Great Lakes states to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of the 401
certification process.
Response: Please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2 and
EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: David A. Ullrich, Executive Director, Great Lakes and St.
Comment: 2. Invasive Species and Ballast Water.
Since its inception, members of the Cities Initiative have expressed serious concern over the
threat and presence of aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence. Over 180
species have been introduced over the years in the basin, causing major damage and disruption to
the ecosystem and to infrastructure. The problem of invasive species has a direct impact on the
quality of life of our citizens and future generations.
We recognize that some of these invasive species have been introduced through the
transportation of ballast water in maritime vessels entering the Great Lakes. We are pleased to
see that measures taken since 2006 by the maritime industry have had a dramatic effect in
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Lawrence Cities Initiative
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0563-A2
1
No
1256
-------
reducing the introduction of new species. Nevertheless, we consider it of paramount importance
to remain vigilant and to improve protection from further introductions from all sectors.
3. Cities Initiative Position.
Over the last nine years, the Cities Initiative has reaffirmed its position of urging national
governments in Canada and the United States to take action on establishing standards to prevent
the introduction of invasive species through ballast water exchange. As responsibility for the
waters is shared amongst two national governments, eight states and two provinces, only a
holistic and concentrated approach will eliminate the risk of the introduction and spread of
aquatic invasive species through maritime ballast water.
The Cities Initiative has adopted several resolutions calling on our national governments to adopt
uniform, protective and achievable ballast water standards and to rigorously enforce them. We
believe that standards must be uniform throughout the basin, and that they must be stringent to
offer effective protection. The adoption of federal standards and equivalent binational standards
will avoid different standards at the state level. Without such a level playing field, different
standards would have a disruptive impact on maritime transportation logistics, specifically
making it difficult for ships to conform with different standards from state to state as they pass
through the Great Lakes.
4. Conclusion
The maritime transport of goods through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence allows businesses to
transport their products in an environmental and an economically efficient manner. Maritime
transportation contributes to the quality of life of our citizens by reducing road congestion and
reducing the risk of road accidents as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions per ton/per mile
travelled as compared with other modes of transportation. At the same time, the maritime
transportation industry must be held accountable for addressing the risks that its activity presents
with respect to the introduction of aquatic invasive species. Standards that are uniform,
protective and achievable are necessary for the health of our ecosystems and the quality of life of
our citizens.
Response: With respect to uniform national standards for ballast water discharges, please see
the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2. See also response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5 for a discussion about EPA's efforts to
encourage consistency among states that share waters, including the Great Lakes states holistic
and concentrated approach will eliminate the risk of the introduction and spread of aquatic
invasive species through maritime ballast water. The Cities Initiative has adopted several
resolutions calling on our national governments to adopt uniform, protective and achievable
ballast water standards and to rigorously enforce them. We believe that standards must be
uniform throughout the basin, and that they must be stringent to offer effective protection. The
adoption of federal standards and equivalent binational standards will avoid different standards
at the state level. Without such a level playing field, different standards would have a disruptive
impact on maritime transportation logistics, specifically making it difficult for ships to conform
with different standards from state to state as they pass through the Great Lakes.
4. Conclusion
1257
-------
The maritime transport of goods through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence allows businesses to
transport their products in an environmental and an economically efficient manner. Maritime
transportation contributes to the quality of life of our citizens by reducing road congestion
andreducing the risk of road accidents as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions per ton/per
mile travelled as compared with other modes of transportation.
At the same time, the maritime transportation industry must be held accountable for addressing
the risks that its activity presents with respect to the introduction of aquatic invasive species.
Standards that are uniform, protective and achievable are necessary for the health of our
ecosystems and the quality of life of our citizens.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. Guy Kaulukukui, Acting Administrator, State of
Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources
(DLNR)
State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources
(DLNR)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0572-A2
1
No
Comment: The State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) welcomes
the opportunity to comment on the proposed 2013 Draft National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation
of a Vessel released in late 2011.
The EPA Regions 1 through 10 published for comment a draft NPDES Vessel General permit
(VGP) that would authorize discharges incidental to the normal operation of non-military and
non-recreational vessels greater than or equal to 79 feet in length. The EPA is also proposing the
sVGP to authorize discharges from vessels less than 79 feet in length, because the P.L. 110-299
moratorium expires on December 18, 2013. These laws generally provide that no NPDES
permits shall be required for incidental discharges (except for discharges of ballast water) from
vessels less than 79 feet and commercial fishing vessels. Hawaii certified the VGP with
additional permit requirements in its Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 certification.
When all terms, requirements, restrictions and limitations contained in the proposed VGP, EPA
Region 9 permit for discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels;
including the conditional Section 401 WQC, are fully complied with, there is reasonable
assurance that the activities will be conducted in a manner that will not violate 1) the Basic
Water Quality Criteria applicable to all waters and 2) the Specific Water Quality Criteria
applicable to the class of State waters where the proposed discharges would take place.
Additionally, provisions of Chapter 13-76, Hawaii Administrative Rules, addressing
nonindigenous aquatic species introductions, will apply when restrictions are less stringent than
those specified in the proposed VGP.
1258
-------
Additional conditions to the proposed VGP are specified and shall constitute the minimal
acceptable requirements. Should any future modification/changes to the proposed VGP contain
any requirement, condition, effluent limitation, restriction that is less stringent than those
specified in the proposed VGP, the conditional Section 401 WQC would be subject to
modification(s)/change(s). EPA, Region 9 shall submit the modification(s)/change(s) to the
Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR), DLNR for review and concurrence. The DAR
administrator will determine whether the modification(s)/change(s) to the conditions of this
conditional Section 401 WQC is warranted. The Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) reviewed
the Section 401 WQC application and submitted comments to the Regional Administrator,
Region 9, EPA in December 2008. DAR concurs with the comments submitted in that letter from
the DOH to the EPA.
Response: Commenter appears to have submitted a draft version of the state's 401 certification
to the docket for today's permit. EPA notes that after a federal NPDES permit is issued,
modifications to a state's 401 certification must be conducted in accordance with 40 C.F.R. §
124.55(b).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: 1.11 State Laws.
It is essential that the State Of Minnesota retain its authorities under the Clean Water Act and
applicable state laws to regulate activities like ballast water discharges which threaten our
waters, economy, and way of life. The State of Minnesota has established a compelling case for
the need to regulate ballast water discharges from both oceangoing and laker vessels.10 Citizens
of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and the Province of Ontario have been fortunate so far in
that not all invasive species found in the lower Great Lakes have become established in Lake
Superior. However, we cannot hope to win this game of roulette in the long run. If the EPA fails
in its obligation to act more swiftly, with the stronger, more comprehensive permit requirements
needed to effectively prevent the spread of AIS from the lower Great Lakes to Lake Superior
(and ultimately into Minnesota's extensive inland waters), then the State of Minnesota must
retain its authority under the Clean Water Act and other applicable state laws to act to protect its
waters and citizens. However, we strongly favor the EPA strengthening the proposed VGP
Permit so that it is truly protective on Minnesota waters, thus obviating any need for Minnesota
to act separately.
10 See
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-permits-and-rules/water-permits-and-forms/vesseldischarge-balla
st-water-program.html?menuid=&redirect=l
Scott Strand, Executive Director, MN Center for
Environmental Advocacy, et al.
MN Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0573-A2
3
No
Response: For a discussion about states' responsibilities in certifying a federal permit, please
see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0521-A2, excerpt 5. EPA notes that
Minnesota did not include more stringent numeric ballast water discharge limits in its 401
1259
-------
certification of the VGP. Minnesota certified that the VGP will comply "with the applicable
provisions" of the CWA, "and that Permittees and their activities will not contravene applicable
limitations, standards, and other appropriate requirements of State law."
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Patrick Stant, President, Marmac, LLC, McDonough
Marine Service
Marmac, LLC., McDonough Marine Service
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0627-A2
11
No
Comment: With respect to the section 401 state certification process, we are deeply concerned
with the patchwork of state vessel discharge regulations that have arisen under the current VGP
and strongly recommend that the EPA take a lead position in managing the process to work
toward compromise between states with shared waterways or coastlines to achieve a uniform set
of rules for industry compliance going forward.
Response: Please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2 and
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tim Sizemore, Manager Waterway Regulatory Programs,
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0631-A2
2
No
Comment: AEP River Operations provides barge transportation services in the United States
offering service in the transportation of dry bulk commodities throughout the inland river system.
Our operations include the movement of grain, project cargo, coal, steel, ores, and other bulk
products. In 2011, the company moved over 80 million tons of cargo supporting our nation and
economy. AEP River Operations' services also provide fleeting and shifting services for barges,
hopper barge cleaning, drydocking, and topside repair services. Areas of operations include the
inland river systems of the Ohio, Upper, Illinois, Lower, and Tennessee-Tombigbee rivers and
gulf coast inter-coastal canals. The variety of services and geographic extent of AEP's operations
present significant compliance challenges if the permit program and associated states' Section
401 Water Quality Certifications are not constructed in a consistent and uniform manner.
Response: Please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2 and
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: Tim Sizemore, Manager Waterway Regulatory Programs,
American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
1260
-------
Commenter Affiliation: American Electric Power River Operations (AEP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0631-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Late Comment? No
Comment: AEP River Operations urges USEPA to affirmatively manage the state 401
certification process to ensure that vessel operators are not faced with inconsistent and
unnecessarily burdensome state requirements as they travel through the waters of multiple states.
To avoid this unacceptable result, AEP River Operations urges the Agency to work with the
states to make the 401 certification process as transparent and accessible to stakeholders as
possible. USEPA should facilitate stakeholders' engagement with the states by providing
information on state notice and comment periods and any other opportunities for public
engagement in their certification processes, and publishing these announcements on the USEPA
Web site. The Agency should also play a leadership role in helping states that share a waterway
or coastline to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies among their proposed conditions before
certifying the permit.
Response: Please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443, excerpt 2 and
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section
Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology (ECY)
Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECY)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0794-A2
1
Yes
Comment: The Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) welcomes the opportunity to
comment on the proposed large vessel general permit (VGP). The two vessel general permits are
huge undertakings. We are impressed with the reasonableness of the requirements. Our
comments for improving VGP requirements are enclosed with this letter.
We understand that approaches to regulating vessel discharges are still in development. The VGP
is based upon the current regulatory and technical state of the mi. However, the current state of
the art is widely considered to be inadequate in several areas. These areas of inadequacy include
vessel sewage and graywater discharges, ballast water discharges, toxic hull coatings, and in-
water hull cleaning. We encourage EPA to push the state of the art at every opportunity in these
areas and incorporate the improvements in future VGPs. Since shipping is an international
industry, it is acceptable to look to other nations in northwest Europe or in Australia and New
Zealand for advances in the state of the art.
We will consider writing 401 certification conditions to supplement VGP requirements in those
areas where our established requirements are more specific or stringent. These conditions might
1261
-------
create inconsistency between states. That is why we encourage EPA leadership in regulating
shipping.
Response: For a discussion of EPA's leadership role in coordinating state 401 certifications,
please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0444, excerpt 5. EPA has
derived effluent limits for discharges eligible for coverage under today's permit that are both
practical and economically achievable and protective of water quality. See the VGP Fact Sheet
for further discussion about EPA's derivation of ballast water TBELs and WQBELs. EPA notes
that the State of Washington certified the VGP and provided additional conditions. EPA has
incorporated those conditions into Part 6 of the VGP.
13. Economics
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: III. Discussion.
A. To Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Economic Analysis for Part 5.2.1.1 Must
Include Cruise Ships with 100-249 Passenger/Crew Capacity
The Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RF A") requires that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
must be performed in order to describe the impact of the proposed permit on small businesses
when the permit is likely to have a "significant economic impact" on "a substantial number of
small entities," and to consider alternatives that will achieve the agency's statutory goal while
minimizing the burden on small entities.
By the applicable standard, ACL is a "small business" for purposes of the RF A. See 13 C.F.R. §
121.201. This is because ACL is within the 2007 NAICS class 483114, identified as "Coastal
and Great Lakes Passenger Transportation," currently employs fewer than 500 employees, and
has always employed fewer than 500 employees.
The EPA has candidly announced that it did not perform an economic analysis on all ships
within the 100-499 passenger/crew capacity classification identified in the VPG as the "medium
cruise ships" category. As the EPA stated in its Economic Analysis:
The estimated number of medium cruise ships in Table 4-25 [that shows the affected vessel
population required to meet VGP Part 5 requirements specific to "large" and "medium" cruise
ships] was determined based upon a 250-499 passenger/crew capacity classification rather than
the 100-499 range. However, based on data provided by CL1A, there are very few cruise ships
within the 100-249 passenger/crew capacity classification.
Timothy J. Beebe, Vice President, American Cruise Lines,
Inc. (ACL)
American Cruise Lines, Inc. (ACL)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0477-A1
2
No
1262
-------
Economic Analysis, at 104 n. 49. Based on the data provided by CL1A3 the EPA therefore
dismisses the entire segment of the cruise ship industry in the 100-249 passenger/crew capacity
size range saying that it: "therefore expects that the estimate [of the number of medium cruise
ships] is only slightly below the actual universe of medium cruise ships." This conclusion
completely ignores the group of smaller, U.S. flag coastwise trade overnight passenger cruise
ships with 100-249 passenger/crew capacity in which ACL's ships fall and which comprise an
economically distinct segment of the cruise ship industry.
All of the cruise ships owned by ACL are in the category ignored by the EPA: ships sailing
under U.S. flag, coastwise trade privileged, and within the EPA's 100-249 passenger/crew
capacity classification. Other cruise operators also operate similarly small cruise ships under
U.S. flag in coastwise trade in U.S. rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. Many of these are members
of the Passenger Vessel Association (PV A). See http://www.passengervessel.coml. Moreover,
most cruise ships within 1 00-249 passenger/crew capacity size category are owned by entities
qualifying as "small businesses" for purposes of the RF A. By excluding that category of cruise
ships from the Economic Analysis performed for Part 5.2.1.1 of the VGP, the EPA has failed to
comply with the RF A. In fact Part 5.2.1.1 of the VGP will have a "significant economic impact"
on "a substantial number of small entities," including but not limited to ACL, which therefore
cannot be excluded from the EPA's economic analysis.
1. Small Us. Flag Coastwise Trade Cruise Ships Comprise an Entire and Distinct Industry
Segment and Therefore, a Substantial Number of Small Entities
The RFA expressly requires an economic analysis to consider whether the proposed permit will,
if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5
U.S.C. § 605(b). Legislative history for the RFA confirms that the term "substantial" is intended
to mean a substantial number of entities within "a particular economic or other activity." See
SBA "A Guide for Government Agencies -How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act,"
at 19 (June 2010) (hereinafter "SBA Guide").
As indicated above by the explanation of the specific characteristics of cruising with ACL, small
U.S. flag coastwise trade cruise ships calling in smaller ports and harbors in the United States
comprise a distinct economic industry segment sharing "a particular economic or other activity"
for purposes of the RF A. SBA Guide, at 15. Ships in this industry segment do not travel
internationally because they generally can only operate in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. In
order to qualify for coastwise trade privileges, they must meet stringent requirements of being
U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-operated. See, e.g., 46 U.S.C. §§ 12112, 55103, et seq. The
larger foreign flag cruise ships operating internationally are not permitted to carry passengers
between U.S. ports as do the much smaller ships in ACL's industry segment. 46 U.S.C. § 289.
Instead of carrying at most a few hundred passengers interested in the cultural and historic
attractions available in the smaller harbors and ports on U.S. rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, the
international cruising market in which the larger foreign flag cruise lines operate involves
typically thousands of passengers cruising in much, much larger ships with nearly endless on-
board activities which are themselves the primary passenger attraction.
1263
-------
Coastwise trade by small ships under U.S. flag is thus very distinct from and different than the
international trade of larger foreign flag overnight passenger cruise lines. Because the U.S. flag
coastwise trade cruise ship operators are small businesses comprising an entire and economically
distinct segment of the cruise industry which would be very adversely affected by the graywater
management requirements of Part 5.2.1.1 of the proposed VGP 2.0, for purposes of the programs
and policies of the RF A, they comprise a "substantial number" of "small entities" as to which a
regulatory flexibility analysis is required. See SB A Guide, at 15.
3 We note that the membership of CL1A (Cruise Lines International Association) consists of
primarily owners of much larger foreign flag cruise ships engaged in international cruising, not
the owners of smaller, U.S. flag cruise ships engaged in coastwise trade in rivers, lakes, and
coastal waters. See http://www.cruising.org/ In fact there is an entire segment of the cruise ship
industry segment comprised of these smaller U.S. flag coastwise trade cruise ships with 100-249
passenger/crew capacity.
Response: The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires federal agencies to consider
the impact of their regulatory proposals on small entities, to analyze alternatives that minimize
those impacts, and to make their analyses available for public comments. EPA notes that
today's action is a permit, not a regulation. However, the Agency has performed an analysis of
the impact of the VGP requirements on small entities that own vessels covered under the VGP.
This analysis was conducted for the purpose of examining the economic achievability of
complying with the technology-based effluent limitations embodied in the permit, and included
consideration of the potential costs for small businesses to comply with VGP requirements.
EPA used ratios of compliance costs to entity revenue as indicators of impacts on small entities
and to determine whether a substantial number of small entities would incur significant costs.
EPA notes that this is the same approach and methodology the agency has used in many of its
RFA analyses for proposing and finalizing federal regulations. Based on that analysis, EPA
expects that there will be minimal burden on entities, including small businesses, covered under
the general permit. EPA asked for additional information during the public notice of the
proposed permit. Based on comments received, EPA modified the permit to reduce impacts on
small entities, including reducing recordkeeping requirements for barges, reduced biological
and other monitoring from different effluent streams, and finalizing requirements that allow for
electronic recordkeeping. For the final VGP, EPA has concluded that there is not a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A quantitative analysis of impacts is
not required for the final VGP, consistent with EPA guidance regarding RFA certification.
Further, as part of the analysis of the impact of the VGP requirements on small entities, EPA
specifically considered costs on firms in the smallest revenue categories for numerous industry
segments including "inland waterways passenger transportation and other water transportation,"
"deep sea passenger transportation," and "Coastal/Great Lakes passenger transportation." It is
highly probable that the commenter would fall into one of these segments based upon the
description of their operations. EPA did not ignore these entities as the commenter suggests, but
rather examined the projected impacts of compliance with the VGP on these entities and
concluded that there would not be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities as discussed in Section 2.7 of the VGP fact sheet. Please see the Economic and
1264
-------
Benefits analysis (particularly Section 5.2), available in the docket for today's permit, for the
underlying analysis that informed EPA's conclusion that there would not be a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
In response to the comments regarding the inclusion of costs for 100-249 passenger/crew
capacity classification, EPA has revised the economic analysis to specifically address costs
associated with "medium cruise ships." In particular, EPA reviewed information received under
the 2008 VGP and determined, in an effort to generate a conservative estimate, that some
medium cruise ships may incur additional costs greater than EPA originally estimated. These
costs were included in the revised compliance costs and economic impact analyses of the 2013
VGP. As discussed above, EPA considered and identified ways to reduce costs and streamline
implementation for all permittees from the proposed to the final permit (including medium
cruise ships). Additionally, EPA continues to find that AWTs are available for new build
medium cruise ships (defined as those built after December 19, 2008) and their use is
economically achievable. For more information, see Section 4.3.1 of the Economic and Benefit
analysis, available in the docket. Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-
0569-A2, excerpt 1 for further discussion. Please also see section 11.2 of this comment
response document, which has several responses discussing the availability of AWTs for this
size class of vessels (including example technologies on the market) and their ability to install
them, as evidenced by two vessels in the 100-249 passenger size class.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0497-A1
2
No
Comment: The Nation's waters have been dramatically damaged by AIS. By way of example, a
recent scientific report1 estimated that zebra mussels, a ship-borne invasive species first
discovered near Detroit 20 years ago, now comprise half the consumer biomass, by weight, of
the Hudson River.
Over 180 such invaders - species that infest, overwhelm and destroy native habitat - already
plague the Great Lakes, at an estimated annual cost of$5.7 billion2 to that system's economy and
environment. Ballast water released from ocean vessels is the recognized vector for 65% of all
invasions recorded in the Great Lakes since the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959.3
For a detailed recitation of the damage caused by invasive species in the Great Lakes due to ship
ballast water, and an analysis of the Canadian and United States Governments' inaction, see J.
Alexander, Pandora's Locks (2009). Clearly, if the threat posed by AIS is to be effectively
addressed, ballast water must be properly managed.
1265
-------
1 Strayer, D.L., J. Powell, P. Ambrose, L.C. Smith, M.L. Pace, and DT Fischer. 1996. Arrival, spread, and early
dynamics of a zebra mussel (Dreissena polvmorpha) population in the Hudson River estuary. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 1143-1149.
2
Pimentel, D. et. al. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species
in the United States. Ecological Economics 52:273-288.
3
Anthony Ricciardi. 2006. Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation to changes in vector
activity. Diversity and Distribution 12: 425-433.
Response: The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's additional
information on the estimated impact of invasive species in the Great Lakes lends further support
to EPA's findings regarding the impact on invasive species. EPA believes the ballast water
measures taken in the permit significantly reduce the risk for potential impacts to the U.S.
waters. Please also see sections 9.1, 9.1.1, 10, 10.1 and 10.1.1 in this comment response
document. In addition, as provided under CWA section 401, the State of New York provided a
certification that the terms of the permit were sufficient to protect their State water quality
standards. Where the State felt supplemental requirements were needed, they provided
additional provisions. For more information on the ballast water requirements established in this
permit see Permit Section 2.2.3 and Factsheet section 4.2.3. Both the economic analysis
conducted for this permit and the State CWA section 401 certification provided by the State of
New York, are available in the docket.
Commenter Name: William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commenter Affiliation: Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: Furthermore, as the Federal Register notice states, more than 90 percent of the
businesses impacted by the rule are small businesses (Page 76724). However, the notice claims
on the same page that the rule won't have a substantive impact on small businesses. This seems
counterintuitive. To comply with the ballast water treatment requirement alone, an inland towing
company would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the purchase and installation
of a treatment system (that is, if they exist for such vessels; see discussion on the following
page). In 2009, the Small Business Administration submitted comments to the docket on the
Coast Guard's ballast water treatment proposed rule, expressing concern that it would negatively
affect small businesses, and the requirements of that rule are generally similar to the ballast water
requirements in VGP 2.0. EPA should more full investigate and publicize VGP 2.0's true impact
on small businesses.
Another major issue is EPA statement that it "is unable to calculate the expected benefits of the
rule in dollar terms due to data limitations." It is extremely problematic to impose such a far
reaching rule that will affect tens of thousands of vessels without being able to quantify its
benefits. If the data doesn't exist to support the rulemaking, then that rulemaking shouldn't be
imposed on thousands of vessels and their operators. Worse still, the Economic Analysis is based
on flawed or confusing assumptions. For example, the analysis states that the maximum number
of vessels owned by one inland water transportation "firm," or company, is 72, and then uses this
1266
-------
number and the overall average to gauge the rule's average economic impact on companies
(Page 117). CBC owns over 800 vessels and is considered a mid-sized company in the industry.
Clearly, either the statistics used by EPA to create the Economic Analysis are faulty, or are
presented in such a confusing manner as to make it impossible for companies to determine the
true economic impact of the rule.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's overall characterization of the quality of the
assumptions used to conduct the Economic and Benefits Analysis. EPA's economic analysis
was based on the best data available within the timeframe for permit issuance, and reasonably
supports the requirements set forth in this permit.
First, regarding the commenters discussion on the impact to small businesses, EPA used a cost-
to-revenue test to evaluate the potential severity of economic impact on entities of varying sizes
that own vessels covered by this permit and to specifically evaluate the potential impact of the
VGP on small entities. EPA modeled the distribution of vessels to firms of different sizes to
establish potential compliance costs at the firm level. The distribution shows that compliance
costs are generally small relative to revenue, with a very small fraction of small entities
expected to incur compliance costs exceeding one percent of revenue. EPA conducted this
analysis even though not required to do so since today's action is a permit, not a regulation.
Second, regarding the comment on ballast water, EPA, based on other comments, changed the
terms in the final permit such that inland and seagoing vessels less than 1600 Gross Registered
Tons (GRT) are not required to meet the numeric treatment limits in Section 2.2.3.5.3.4 of the
permit, see discussion in secion 9.1.1 of this comment response document. Hence, EPA does
not expect any tugboats owned or operated by Canal Barge to incur costs as a result of installing
ballast water treatment systems. EPA notes that the vast majority, if not all, of the tugs
operating in U.S. waters are below 1,600 GRT. There are approximately 5,200 tugboats/
towboats in operation in the navigable waters of the United States according to the U.S.
Waterway Data maintained by the Navigation Data Center of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.armv.mil/index.htm). The majority of these tug boats are less than
300 gross tons (USCG. 2006. Uninspected Towing Vessel Industry Analysis Project, Final
Report, Report Number: 469-05; included in the docket for today's permit). One of the largest
tug boats listed in the database is the John R. Ingram which is 1116 GT, which is clearly below
the 1600 GRT (approximate 3000 GT) cutoff for inland and seagoing vessels listed in the VGP
section 2.2.3.5.3.4.
Additionally, treatment requirements have already been finalized in the recent U.S. Coast Guard
rulemaking for many vessels. EPA does not expect the performance standards stipulated in the
2013 VGP to impose an incremental cost for treatment itself to vessel owners for the vast
majority of affected vessels, as these vessels will already be required to comply with USCG.
EPA notes that the U.S. Coast Guard's rulemaking has established a baseline for costs and
Federal entities are not required to assess costs twice.
Regarding the commenters concern that EPA underestimated the number of vessels owned by
firms and the methodology used in the economic analysis, please see Part 5.3 of the economic
analysis, where discussion has been added to acknowledge the issues raised by the commenter.
1267
-------
Finally, EPA disagrees with the commenter that the absence of quantified benefits should
prevent EPA from issuing the permit. Neither SBREFA nor the CWA require such
quantification. In addition, while not required to do so, EPA conducted a qualitative analysis of
the benefits of permit requirements.
Commenter Name: William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commenter Affiliation: Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: On a related topic, EPA states in the Economic Analysis that it assumes that
companies will incur no additional cost to comply with the ballast water treatment requirements,
since the Coast Guard's ballast water treatment final rule will already be published (Page 61).
The Coast Guard's rule is not yet final, and it is dangerous to assume when it will be published
or that it will contain the same requirements as the proposed rule. EPA should calculate the cost
of complying with its rule, regardless of other rules still under consideration by other agencies.
Response: Since the end of the comment period on this permit, the U.S. Coast Guard has
finalized their regulation, and EPA maintains that the BWTS performance standards are
consistent with the "Phase One" standards finalized by USCG in 2012 under 33 CFR part 151
and 46 CFR part 162 (74 FR 44632). Because of this general consistency, vessels that comply
with the U.S. Coast Guard ballast water regulations will not incur capital or operational costs as
a result of the VGP. Where there is variation in the VGP from the Coast Guard regulations,
EPA has included those costs in the economic analysis conducted for the permit. For instance,
EPA has fully costed the requirements for meeting required monitoring from ballast water
treatment systems. For more information, see Section 4.2.3 Economic and Benefits Analysis,
available in the docket.
Commenter Name: William S. Murphy, Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commenter Affiliation: Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Late Comment? No
Comment: Reduce the Permit's Paperwork Burden on Companies.
While the effluent discharge requirements make up the majority of the VGP, fulfilling the
numerous paperwork requirements creates the largest burden for operators. Unfortunately, VGP
2.0 does little to reduce these obligations. The administrative requirements are especially
burdensome for smaller towboat operators dealing with barges, as discussed above. Even worse,
these requirements do not contribute to environmental protection, and simply distract our
mariners from their main focus, which is safely operating the vessel. Most puzzling is EPA's
assessment of the paperwork burden in the Economic Analysis. For example, the analysis states
that towboats and barges are considered to be "small" in terms of their complexity for paperwork
1268
-------
requirements and time needed to fulfill those requirements (Page 108). However, our experience
is that fulfilling these requirements is extremely complex and time-consuming. Therefore, while
towing vessels and barges should have streamlined and simplified paperwork requirements due
to their limited crew size, types of discharges, and volumes of discharges, this simply isn't the
case under the VGP 1.0 or VGP 2.0. For example, EPA estimates that each recordkeeping
requirement should take two hours or less per vessel. However, multiply those requirements by
the more than 800 vessels that we own, and one can see the overwhelming time and resources
that must be dedicated to a task that should be straightforward, such as filing a Notice of Intent
(NOI). EPA must reduce the permit's paperwork burden on companies and better focus its
requirements on measures that will truly improve the environment.
Response: EPA cannot "eliminate" recordkeeping requirements in this permit, as those
provisions are required under the CWA and its implementing regulations, including CWA
Section 402(a)(2) and 40 CFR 122.44. EPA has attempted to streamline these requirements as
much as possible, in order to make compliance with the permit simple, and do so without
imposing significant additional paperwork on vessel owners and operators. In the 2013 VGP,
EPA has made significant effort to minimize recordkeeping burden for companies with several
vessels, such as tugs and barges, under their control. For example, EPA has revised the
recordkeeping requirements for unmanned, unpowered barges and vessels less than 300 gross
tons, to allow owners to submit a single annual report for all their barges and other vessels less
than 300 gross tons, provided that certain conditions are met (no analytical monitoring data are
included, there were no instances of noncompliance, etc.); this provision in particular was
designed to address concerns raised about record burden for companies with large numbers of
vessels. Additionally, EPA has allowed for electronic recordkeeping, limited routine inspections
as appropriate, and other time saving measures to improve efficiency. EPA believes these
changes will result in cost savings for owners of affected vessels. For a more detailed discussion
of this change see Section 4.4.2 of the permit and Section 6.4.2 of the factsheet. For an
additional discussion on the cost savings related to the revised reporting requirements, see
section 4.4.2 of the Economic and Benefits Analysis, available in the docket.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: Small vessels with greater than 8 cubic meters of ballast water capacity, will face
difficulties to install a BWTS due to space and stability issues. Further, EPA has estimated the
cost of installing and operating a BWTS as between $300,000 to more than $2.5 million
depending upon vessel characteristics and treatment system. Economic and Benefits Analysis of
the Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit, at p. 64 (Nov. 30, 2011). This expense range would
constitute a prohibitive expense for fishing vessels, particularly smaller vessels. It is unclear if
EPA's estimate includes the cost of retrofits and structural modifications that may be necessary
to install BWTS, given existing vessel space and stability concerns.
1269
-------
We request that EPA maintain the ballast water management requirements of the 2008 VGP in
lieu of the BWTS requirement if vessels can demonstrate, with appropriate documentation, that
installation of BWTS would be cost prohibitive or structurally impossible.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1, excerpt 2.
As discussed there, smaller vessels (1600 grt) are no longer subject to the numeric ballast water
effluent limits and, for larger vessels, the costs of installation of treatment systems to meet the
limits have already been borne by industry due to the recently issued USCG ballast water rule
except where specifically discussed in the economic analysis for today's final VGP.
Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Late Comment? No
Comment: Economic Analysis: We briefly reviewed the economic analysis provided and find it
very sparse and difficult to read but can state that the costs estimated for Alaska (Region 10) are
significantly underestimated for the populated areas, not to mention the increased costs for
remote communities. For example the economic analysis estimates the range for OIL PADS
from $0.15 to $0.48, the cost in Southeast Alaska ranges more like $0.75 to $1.25.
Response: EPA notes that this comment is beyond the scope of the VGP. EPA has considered
this comment as it finalizes the sVGP.
Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trailers
Association (ATA)
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trailers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0509-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Late Comment? No
Comment: Unnecessary Cost to the Nation.
Discharge regulations for our fleet would do nothing more than further burden state and federal
agencies, thousands of small businesses, local communities, and American families.
Cost to the troll fleet, and other small vessel/business owners, stemming from increased
regulation of vessel discharges under these permits is likely to be substantial. The rules seem
impractical and cost prohibitive for both industry and the United States. In short, regulation of
small boat commercial fishing discharges would be premature based on the data gathered thus
far, and is likely to be unnecessary, as there would be no substantial gain realized. If these
permits are put in place, EPA would be faced with the administrative, monitoring, enforcement
1270
-------
and fiscal burdens of an additional 140,000 new permits nationally, at time when federal budgets
are being significantly cut. Again, and importantly, we do not believe that the benefits from new
regulations would outweigh the negative impacts to the fleet and nation.
We anticipate the nation would be better served if congress and the administration allowed EPA
to focus on solving real problems that could lead to significant improvements in water quality.
Simply focusing on the discharges of 70,000 small commercial fishing vessels would be off the
mark, missing the point of regulating an activity to provide human and environmental benefit.
Response: In July 2008, Congress enacted legislation to exempt discharges incidental to the
normal operation of certain types of vessels from the need to obtain an NPDES permit. That
legislation included a temporary moratorium on NPDES permitting for discharges subject to the
40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion from (1) commercial fishing vessels (as defined in 46 U.S.C. § 2101
and regardless of size) and (2) those other non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. S.
3298, Pub. L. 110-299 (July 31, 2008). The statute's NPDES permitting moratorium ran for a
two-year period beginning on its July 31, 2008, enactment date, during which time EPA studied
the relevant discharges and submitted a report to Congress. For more information on that report,
see www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/reportcongress. This moratorium was subsequently extended to
December 18, 2014, by two follow-up pieces of legislation.
In order to provide commercial fishing vessels 79 feet or larger permit coverage if needed after
the expiration of the moratorium, EPA has made those vessels eligible for coverage under the
2013 VGP. EPA intends to finalize the Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) at a later date to
provide permit coverage for discharges incidental to the normal operation of non-recreational,
non-military vessels less than 79 feet (including commercial fishing vessels). Absent this
authorization or Congressional action, vessels would be discharging illegally in U.S. waters or
would need to obtain individual permit for their vessel discharges.
For a detailed analysis of the incremental costs that are understood to result from the inclusion
of all commercial fishing vessels 79 feet or larger under the 2013 VGP, see EPA's economic
analysis for the VGP, which is included in the docket for this permit (EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0141). If finalized, for a detailed analysis of the impact of the sVGP on all affected vessels, see
EPA's economic analysis for the sVGP, which will be included in the docket for the permit
(EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150). Finally, issues regarding Congressional legislation or activities are
beyond the scope of this permit issuance.
Commenter Name: Mark W. Barker, President, Interlake Steamship
Commenter Affiliation: The Interlake Steamship Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0516-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: Interlake has considered the costs associated with the installation of ballast water
treatment systems aboard its ships. While it is highly unlikely as to whether any of the available
systems would actually work on a Laker while meeting the high pumping volume requirements
1271
-------
operating in fresh and often encountering heavily silted water ranging in temperature from 32° F
to nearly 80° F, there are other limitations. Assuming solely for the purpose of economic analysis
that a ballast water treatment system device costing $655,000 per system would work and
became available. Interlake considered the significant scope of work and costs and expenses
associated with installing that system in its ships and found it to be commercially impracticable.
For instance, one of Interlake's 1000 foot ships has a ballast system consisting of 18 separate
ballast tanks located along the whole length of the ship. Each ballast tank is fitted with one
ballast pump of 3,600 gallons per minute capacity driven by a specialized 30hp. 1,200 rpm
electric motor that must be certified for use in a coal dust environment. Each pump is designed to
pump water into and out of its respective ballast tank, with actual operation of the pump and
valves by remote control from the engine control console located in the ship's engine room. Each
of these separate ballast tanks and its associated ballast pump is piped and built as a separate
selfstanding ballast system, and each works independently of the others. Therefore, each would
require a separate ballast water treatment system that would consist of: The $655,000 ballast
water treatment device itself: a new compartment in which to install the equipment (space
permitting); space heaters: lighting, electrical, painting and plumbing work; and a new 50% more
powerful ballast pump with increased discharge pressure to overcome the increased pressure loss
of approximately 15 psi caused by the ballast water treatment device. It is estimated that the cost
for each of the 18 ballast tanks would be $1,116,000, and that outfitting a single 1000 foot ship
would cost a total of approximately $20,217,000 including engineering, approvals and
inspections. In addition to the one time installation cost that is estimated to exceed $20M for
each 1000 foot ship, the additional equipment would also saddle Interlake with the following
additional annual recurring costs, estimated to total more than $226,000: The additional
equipment will increase the electrical load on the ship, resulting in additional fuel consumption
of 54.000 gallons of diesel fuel relating to the generation of electrical power estimated at current
fuel prices to have a cost of $129,000 annually; and the equipment will require maintenance and
repair which, including additional man hours, is estimated to cost $97,000 annually.
Furthermore, the additional equipment required to install ballast water treatment systems would
result in a loss in deadweight cargo carrying capacity that would cause a revenue loss to the
operator in excess of $ 124.000 annually. The aforementioned numbers represent the costs,
expenses and lost revenue for one 1000 foot ship. Fleet-wide, the numbers are staggering.
For a 1000 foot ship, the combination of installation costs in excess of $20M and recurring
annual costs in excess of $300,000 for the installation and maintenance of equipment that
generates absolutely no return. Those costs, coupled with the reduced cargo carrying capacity,
makes the project commercially impracticable. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that a ship
owner would be able to secure financing for such projects given that there would be a 0% rate of
return on invested capital.
The financial burden created by requiring Lakers to install ballast water treatment systems would
result in at least three unintended consequence: 1) It would likely cause a substantial modal shift
in the carriage of bulk materials, detrimentally impacting the environment in several negative
ways; 2) it would cause ships to utilize more fossil fuels, further detrimentally impacting the
1272
-------
environment; and 3) it would result in severe economic impact to Interlake. its employees, its
customers and the Great Lakes region.
Should Lakers be required to install ballast water treatment systems, it is likely that many ship
operators would have no choice but to either raise freight rates substantially or to cease
operations (which in turn would result in a reduction in size of the Great Lakes merchant fleet
and similarly lead to a substantial increase in rates.) These higher freight rates would drive many
cargoes to rail or truck, as many bulk commodity suppliers on the Great Lakes would have no
ability to absorb increased freight rates for waterborne transportation. Some suppliers would
inevitably be driven out of business, as they would no longer be able to competitively price their
commodities.
As noted above. Lakers, by virtue of the fact that they operate exclusively in the fresh water of
the Great Lakes, typically last decades longer than those that operate on the oceans. It is not
uncommon for a Great Lakes ship to be more than fifty years old and as a consequence, freight
rates on the Great Lakes are low because ships are almost never replaced, and new ships are
rarely built. These low freight rates do not support massive capital expenditures.
Transportation of bulk commodities in the Great Lakes basin is an extremely competitive,
freight-rate sensitive, business. Increasing freight rates to any degree is not an effective option,
as it would make waterborne carriage uncompetitive with and would shift to trucks and railroads.
The financial burden on ship operators of requiring Lakers to install ballast water treatment
systems would put Great Lakes ships at a competitive disadvantage to railroads and trucks.
Clearly, that is an unpleasant prospect and could quite possibly be the demise of the Laker fleet.
Any reduction in the Laker fleet would have a significant affect on utilities and manufacturing,
their customers, and the states in which our ships trade. The most significant negative impact of a
reduction in fleet size and/or an increase in rates would be on the environment. Manufacturers
throughout the Great Lakes region would still require iron ore. coal and aggregates, regardless of
the fact that many Lakers would eventually cease to operate. Consequently, our customers would
have to find alternate means of delivery. Given the tonnages involved, there is really only one
practical option - rail. While the EPA has raised the standards for locomotive engines, there is no
ignoring that train locomotives burn more fuel than ships do to move one ton of cargo, and train
locomotives produce more carbon dioxide than ships do per ton of cargo moved (it takes 7
separate unit trains of 100 railcars each to move the equivalent cargo as carried in one trip of a
1000 foot ship). Clearly, waterborne commerce is the most environmentally friendly and
responsible method to move bulk commodities throughout the Great Lakes region. While the
intention of requiring the installation of ballast water treatment systems would be to improve the
environment, the modal shift following the loss of vessel capacity resulting from the economic
burdens of such a requirement would ironically have the exact opposite effect in other
environmental sectors - emissions and the consumption of fuel.
Moving bulk commodities by ship is still the most fuel efficient and lowest carbon producing
method of transport where water routes exist. According to a recent paper published by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers^ it would take seven trains with one hundred cars and two to three
massive locomotives for each train (a total of 14 to 21 diesel engines) to move the equivalent
1273
-------
tonnage of what one 1,000 foot Great Lakes bulker with two diesel engines can move in one trip.
Further, a shift to rail movements will put thousands more rail cars and the associated engines on
an already congested rail way system and place local communities at an increased risk of
derailments and rail crossing accidents. The equivalent tonnage carried by a single Laker, when
transported by truck across city streets, county roads and highways, would require approximately
3,000 diesel powered trucks. That same study reports that a Great Lakes bulker can move one ton
of cargo 607 miles on one gallon of fuel, as compared to a train that can only move that ton 202
miles and a truck that can only move that ton 59 miles on the same gallon of fuel. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers study also documents that Great Lakes ships produce 70% less carbon
dioxide per ton of cargo than trains produce, and 90% less than trucks produce. If the cargoes
carried by Great Lakes ships were shifted into trains, those trains would burn tens of millions
more gallons of fuel. If it were shifted into trucks (which would not even be practical due to the
tremendous number of trucks required and the congestion and road damage that they would
cause ), those trucks would burn approximately 85 million more gallons of fuel, and would add
tens of thousands more truck tires annually to landfills.
Ironically, rules intended to have a positive impact on a specific section of the environment
would ultimately have the opposite result on the overall environment if applied to Lakers. As
previously stated, the sole possible benefit from requiring Lakers to install ballast water
treatment systems would be the slowing of the inevitable spread of non-indigenous species that
find their way into the Great Lakes. However, the ballast water treatment systems themselves
would directly cause the consumption of more fossil fuels and more resulting emissions. That is
because ballast water treatment equipment is energy intensive, and would require the addition of
more electrical power generation capability to meet this increased demand aboard Lakers.
Additionally, the decrease in cargo carrying capacity resulting from the space and weight of the
ballast water treatment equipment would ultimately cause ships to have to make more trips to
carry the same tonnage as before, again causing the consumption of more fossil fuels and
resulting in more emissions.
The Great Lakes are located in the core of North America's industrial and manufacturing
heartland. This is no coincidence. These industries developed in this region in large part because
of the availability of efficient, reliable, low cost waterborne transportation. According to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers3, more than 80% of the iron ore used in U.S. steel manufacturing is
shipped on the Great Lakes. Millions of tons of low sulfur coal from Montana and Wyoming is
moved through the Great Lakes to power generating stations in many metropolitan areas. Great
Lakes ships also carry limestone and cement used in the construction of roads, homes and
commercial buildings and as flux in the steel making process. According to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the next least costly mode of transportation would cost these industries an
additional $3.6 billion per year. Manufacturers would see their transportation costs increase. Not
only would the reduction of lakes shipping cause the cost of steel, power generation and building
materials to significantly increase, but it would make U.S. manufacturers even less competitive
than they already are in global markets. That is certainly not a good situation in the current
economic climate and cannot be permitted to materialize.
The direct impact that a reduction in the size of the Great Lakes merchant fleet would have on
various states surrounding the Great Lakes would also be significant. Great Lakes shipping
1274
-------
provides a significant boost to the region's economy. Interlake provides, stable, good paying
jobs with health care and pension benefits to more than 300 skilled individuals, most of who are
represented by collective bargaining agreements. Many of Interlake's seamen live throughout the
Great Lakes states, where they pay taxes, maintain homes and contribute to the local economy.
Many of the Great Lakes states are among the hardest hit by the latest economic downturn, and
any reduction in the size of the Great Lakes merchant fleet would only serve to exacerbate and
contribute to the staggering unemployment rates in Great Lakes states. Throughout the Great
Lakes basin. Interlake spends millions of dollars annually with marine related vendors involved
in the maintenance and repair of its ships. This local spending would significantly decrease if
Interlake's business were disrupted or its fleet size reduced. The negative economic impact on the
states surrounding the Great Lakes caused by the demise of lakes shipping would certainly be
multiples of the dollars spent by Interlake, as all other fleets that operate on the Great Lakes
conduct significant business throughout the Great Lakes. Requiring a significant investment in
ballast water treatment systems would place jobs, regional economies and local welfares in grave
danger.
We further agree that if and when a ballast water system that will work on Lakers is developed
and receives type approval from the U.S. Coast Guard, a benefit cost analysis needs to be made
to determine if the considerable expense we and other operators would incur in buying and
installing such a system would be justified. As is evident in the table depicting the analysis
below, the costs, impacts and unintended consequences would likely far outweigh, and simply
would not justify, what de minimis temporary benefit could possibly come from requiring Lakers
to install ballast water treatment systems.
2
US Army Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes Navigation System: Economic Strength 10 the NOlioll, January 2009.
3 Id.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for providing specific cost information related to the
installation of ballast water treatment systems on an existing vessel (i.e., retrofitting an older
Laker). However, EPA notes that existing Lakers built before January 1, 2009 confined
exclusively to the Laurentian Great Lakes (i.e., existing vessels that operates upstream of the
waters of the St. Lawrence River west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap de Rosiers to West
Point, Anticosti Island, and west of a line along 63 W. longitude from Anticosti Island to the
north shore of the St. Lawrence River) are not required to meet the numeric ballast water
requirements for this permit term. Hence, EPA does not expect their to be any costs borne by
operators of existing Lakers as defined in the VGP during this permit term for the installation of
ballast water treatment technologies. For EPA's estimates for the potential costs for new build
Lakers, please see the Economic Analysis finalized with today's permit. For more information
on this provision, see Section 2.2.3.5.3 of the permit and Section 4.2.3.5.3 of the factsheet.
Commenter Name: Mark W. Barker, President, Interlake Steamship
Commenter Affiliation: The Interlake Steamship Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0516-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
1275
-------
Comment: The possible benefit of slowing down the inevitable spread of non-invasive species
that are already in the Great Lakes does not outweigh even one of the following costs, let alone
their aggregate: The $20M+ per ship cost to install the systems on just one 1,000 foot ship; the
annual expense and loss of revenue of $226,000 related to maintaining and operating the
systems; the annual revenue loss of $124,000; the environmental impacts resulting from the
increase in fuel consumption that the demands, space and weight of the ballast water treatment
systems would cause; or the impact on the regional and national economy that a decrease in the
size of the Lakers fleet would cause.
SEE TABLE IN ORIGINAL COMMENT.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for providing specific cost information related to the
installation and maintenance of ballast water treatment systems. EPA notes that existing 1,000
foot Lakers do not have to currently meet the numeric treatment limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of the
permit. The costs provided by the commenter are for retrofitting an existing ship, and costs for
new build vessels are far lower. For a detailed analysis of the costs associated with monitoring,
sampling, testing, and recordkeeping required in the permit, see Section 4.2.3 of the Economic
and Benefit Analysis, which is available in the docket. In general, based on this analysis EPA
concludes that the VGP will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities or other businesses. EPA notes that the Agency does not believe the spread of
invasive species across all lakes once introduced into one, is inevitable. Please also see section
9.1.4 of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: James H. I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers Association
Commenter Affiliation: Lake Carriers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0527-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Late Comment? No
Comment: Before addressing those concerns in detail, as well as the specific questions the EPA
has posed, we believe it is important that the role of Great Lakes shipping be reviewed, for it
would be a blow to our economy and national defense capabilities if the next iteration of the
VGP were to negatively affect our members' ability to move cargo and shift this commerce to
other more costly and environmentally harmful modes of transportation.
As previously noted, LCA's 17 member companies collectively operate 56 U.S.-flag vessels on
the Great Lakes. For the year just concluded, those companies moved 93.8 million tons of dry-
bulk cargo, an increase of 5.75 percent over 2010. The table on pg. 3 records cargo movement
for the past six years:
SEE TABLE IN ORIGINAL COMMENT
Minnesota and Michigan and shipped from ports on Lake Superior or Lake Michigan to steel
centers in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states. It takes 1.5 tons of iron ore
1276
-------
(plus 400 pounds of fluxstone and a quantity of other raw materials) to make a ton of steel. The
American Iron and Steel Institute estimates the steel industry generates 135,000 direct jobs and
another 865,000 in related industries and activities.
Steel is perhaps the most global of industries and being so raw-materials dependent, cost-
effective transportation is key to a competitive posture. The anti-trust laws preclude a trade
association from having knowledge of freight rates, but we can make a generalization that a
vessel can move a ton of iron ore the 800-plus miles from Minnesota to Ohio for about what it
costs to have lunch at a restaurant. Little wonder then that half of all American steelmaking
capacity is located in the Great Lakes basin.1
The other cargos are no less dependent on efficient transportation and just as fundamental to our
standard of living. The coal powers the region's utilities. The aggregate and cement are the
foundation of the construction industry. The salt de-ices wintry roads and so keeps society and
the land-based modes of transportation mobile from December to April.
The totals above also generally represent the majority of these commodities moved on the Great
Lakes. In 2011, U.S.-flag Lakers carried 77 percent of the iron ore, 73 percent of the coal, and 76
percent of the limestone. (Year-end totals for the other commodities were unavailable at the time
of submission.)
The cargos our members carry generate jobs in every Great Lakes state as well as others.2 More
jobs will be created as our economy fully rebounds from the recession. The table below
summarizes jobs tied to U.S.-flag Great Lakes shipping in the eight Great Lakes states. The
source for this data is the study "The Economic Impacts of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
Seaway System" performed by Martin Associates of Lancaster, Pennsylvania and released on
October 18, 2011 (attached):
SEE TABLE IN ORIGINAL COMMENT
Our society derives another great benefit from shipping on the Great Lakes, and that is that
waterborne commerce is the greenest form of transportation. A recent report by the U.S. Army
Corp of Engineers found that on average a Great Lakes freighter travels 607 miles on one gallon
of fuel per ton of cargo. This compares to 202 miles for a train and 59 miles for a truck.3
The amount of carbon dioxide emissions is also significantly lower for vessels. Again citing the
Corps, a cargo of 1,000 tons transported by a Laker produces 90 percent less carbon dioxide than
the same cargo transported by a truck and 70 percent less than a corresponding rail move.
Lakers move cargo using only l/3rd to l/5th of a horsepower per ton. If this ratio held true on
our highways, a semi could be powered with a lawnmower engine. Even so, our members
continually strive to further reduce their vessels' carbon footprint. In the past few years, three
vessels have been repowered and a number of auxiliary engines and generators upgraded. During
the winter of 2011/2012, our members will spend more than $75 million maintaining and
upgrading their vessels.
1277
-------
The EPA has recognized that moving cargo by vessel is the most energy and environmentally
efficient transportation as witnessed by their support for repowering an LCA-registered vessel.
1 In fact, a steel industry executive has explained that, "As you look at the rationalization of the American steel
industry, the likelihood of a primary steel mill being shut down is proportional to its distance from the Lakes."
(Daniel J. Cornillie, Manager, Marine & Raw Material Logistics, ArcelorMittal USA - Indiana Harbor, on April 2,
2008, in Washington, D.C.).
2
Iron ore moved on the Lakes supplies a steel mill in West Virginia. Coal shipped on the Lakes is mined in states
far away as Montana and Wyoming.
3
Great Lakes Navigation System: Economic Strength to the Nation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, February 2009,
pgs. 2-3 (attached).
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for providing information and the commenter's
perspective regarding the financial impact of shipping in the Great Lakes region.
Commenter Name: Douglas B. Schneider, World Shipping Council (WSC)
Commenter Affiliation: World Shipping Council (WSC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0533-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Late Comment? No
Comment: Cost of BWMS. In its NPRM, the Coast Guard estimated the cost of an installed
BWMS to range from approximately $400K to $1.5 mil7. These estimates received significant
criticism during the public comment period with many industry experts estimating the costs to be
twice or three times that amount. Given the age of the data and discussions with BWMS vendors,
vessel owners and others, the minimum cost of an installed BWMS is more likely to be in the
neighborhood of $1 mil but could be triple that amount or more for ballast water systems which
require multiple BWMS to be installed. This represents a significant capital investment for the
vessel owner. Conversations with vessel owners indicate that they normally amortize capital
investments of this magnitude over ten to twelve years for each vessel. Therefore, with the rare
exception of vessel owners who install BWMS to evaluate them for fleet-wide application, or
who receive some other financial incentive, vessel owners will not voluntarily install a BWMS
which does not have U.S. type approval. These same vessel owners have also stated that
obtaining loans for unapproved BWMSs will be problematic given the great uncertainty
regarding whether or not BWMSs which have not been Type Approved by the U.S. will
ultimately be able to be used to comply with U.S. Coast Guard requirements.
Response: EPA notes that the VGP performance standards are the same as those finalized
under the USCG regulations (USCG, 2012a), and vessels are assumed to already have to
comply with these requirements. Therefore the cost of installing BWTS is not an incremental
cost attributable to the 2013 VGP. EPA did consider the incremental costs for sampling,
monitoring, and reporting BWTS performance as part of the Economic and Benefit Analysis,
available in the docket. In addition, EPA notes that due to concerns that there would not be an
adequate number of approved BWMS, the U.S. Coast Guard delayed the date for which a vessel
would be considered a new build vessel by 23 months — from January 1, 2012, to December 1,
2013 in their final rule on ballast water discharge standards (77 FR 17259; 17266; 17271).
1278
-------
Based on comments received in the proposed permit, EPA has defined "new build" vessels as
those constructed (as defined in Appendix A of the VGP) after December 1, 2013 and, like the
Coast Guard, has required compliance with the technology-based ballast water numeric
limitations upon delivery. For a more detailed discussion of this change, see Section 4.4.3.5.5 of
the factsheet or sections 9.1 and 9.1.1 of this comment response document. For a detailed
analysis of the costs associated with the ballast water requirements in the permit, see Section
4.2.3 of the Economic and Benefit Analysis, which is available in the docket.
EPA further notes that the Agency does not expect a vessel to have to install a system that has
not received AMS designation or U.S. type approval by the USCG since the U.S. Coast Guard
intends to grant its first AMS designations in March 2013.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruce Bowie, President, Canadian Shipowners Association
(CSA) (Association des Armateurs Canadiens)
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) (Association des
Armateurs Canadiens)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2
12
No
Comment: IV. Cost of BWTS - The EPA cites costs from the USCG's 2008 Preliminary
Regulatory Analysis estimated at an average capital cost of ballast water treatment systems to
meet their Phase I1IMO 0-2 standards between 2012 and 2021 to be $315,000 per vessel." This
cost is vastly underestimated. CSA members have determined through manufacturer cost
estimates that systems would cost in the range of $1.5M to $3.0M per vessel system. This cost
could be significantly greater for vessels which would require multiple systems. Based on these
costs, CSA submits that the EPA conclusion on page 50 of its Fact Sheet that the BAT limits in
the proposed permit "are unlikely to result in a substantial economic impact on businesses of any
size, and, in particular, small businesses. Hence, EPA interprets this analysis to indicate that the
BAT limits are economically achievable" is flawed.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's conclusion that the BAT and analysis of
impacts on small businesses analyses are flawed. EPA has found that requiring installation of
ballast water treatment will impose no incremental cost to the regulated community over
meeting the US Coast Guard standards, beyond sampling and monitoring costs specific to the
VGP, except where specifically discussed in the economic analysis for today's final VGP. As
vessels are assumed to already have to comply with treatment requirements, the cost of
installing BWTS is not an incremental cost attributable to the 2013 VGP. EPA did consider the
incremental costs for sampling, monitoring, and reporting BWTS performance as part of the
Economic and Benefit Analysis, available in the docket, and found that these costs were not
unreasonable. For a more detailed discussion of this analysis see Section 3.4.2 and 4.2.3 of the
Economic and Benefit Analysis, available in the docket.
1279
-------
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Raymond W. Johnston, President, Chamber of Marine
Commerce (CMC)
Chamber of Marine Commerce (CMC)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0541-A2
4
No
Comment: A recent study on the economic impact of shipping activity in the bi-national Great
Lakes - St. Lawrence Seawayl found that commercial shipping through these waters was
responsible for 227,000 jobs, $14.1 billion per year in personal income, $33.5 billion per year in
business revenue, $1.5 billion per year in state/provincial/local taxes and $3 billion per year in
federal taxes. Besides the economic contribution of shipping to society, the comparative
environmental benefits derived from shipping - especially via short sea shipping routes - should
not be taken for granted as shipping is by far the most environmentally friendly mode of
transportation. Certainly, given that the typical Great Lakes-Seaway sized vessel carries as much
cargo as approximately 870 heavy trucks, it would be sadly ironic if excessive regulation of
shipping caused such an increase in freight rates that these vessels were replaced with tens of
thousands of additional heavy trucks to North America's already overburdened highway
infrastructure.
Indeed, while the marine transportation industry is eager to continue working with governments
and other stakeholders towards a progressive evolution in environmental operations, we must
remember that all such advancements must be balanced against what ultimately is practical and
economically feasible. It is through this balanced lens that the Chamber of Marine Commerce
respectfully provides the following observations and recommendations on the EPA's draft 2013
VGP.
1 The Economic Impacts of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System, Martin & Associates, Lancaster, PA,
October 18, 2011.
Response: EPA has responded to your specific suggestions throughout this comment response
document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James Zehringer, Director, Environmental Services
Section, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR)
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR),
Environmental Services Section
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0542-A2
3
No
Comment: We submit that requiring costly new regulations on Ohio's $2 billion sport fishery
will devastate Ohio's recreational charter boat captains who are already dealing with our
continuing economic downturn.
1280
-------
Ms. Jackson, we respectfully request that you re-examine these proposed conditions and put the
necessary restrictions where they are most needed, while not imposing undue economic damage
on the recreational industry with conditions that we can find no good reason or scientific basis
for implementing.
Response: In the event these vessels are recreational vessels as defined under the Clean Boating
Act, EPA notes that they would not need to seek NPDES permit coverage. Recreational vessels,
as defined under the Clean Boating Act (which amends the Clean Water Act), do not have to
obtain NPDES permit authorization for incidental discharges, and therefore, are not subject to
this permit (Clean Water Act §§ 312(o), 402(r), and 502(25)). Instead, discharges incidental to
the normal operation of a vessel, if the vessel is a recreational vessel, will become subject to
management practices after regulations are finalized establishing those management practices.
See 33 U.S.C. 1322(o). The Clean Water Act defines a recreational vessel as any vessel that is
either (1) manufactured or used primarily for pleasure, or (2) leased, rented, or chartered to a
person for the pleasure of that person. The term recreational vessel does not include a vessel is
both subject to Coast Guard inspection and either (1) is engaged in commercial use or (2)
carries paying passengers. For example, the following kinds of vessels would be recreational
vessels within the meaning of the Clean Water Act and those are not subject to NPDES
permitting (or this permit):
• Boston whaler-type recreational vessel manufactured for activities like water skiing, but
also used for law enforcement purposes, for example, operated by a state police
department or fish and wildlife agency;
• An vessel originally manufactured for pleasure and not subject to Coast Guard
inspection requirements, but retrofitted for commercial towing,
• An crabbing boat not subject to Coast Guard inspection and operated primarily for
pleasure (e.g., where the owner also maintains a commercial fishing license for
occasional sale of surplus catch); or
• A small vessel chartered to another for the pleasure of that person, including for fishing,
but of a size that is not subject to Coast Guard inspection.
Please also see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-05Q9-A1, except 9.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Randy Trapp, Safety, Security Manager, Dann Ocean
Towing, Inc.
Dann Ocean Towing, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0558-A1
3
No
Comment: Being a Responsible Carrier is a voluntary certification sought by this company to
maintain a safe working environment for our crews and equipment, and to lead in an
environmental stewardship of our surroundings. Soon this will become involuntary under the
finalization of 46 CFR Subchapter M where the vessels will be required to undergo annual
inspections or have an approved Towing Safety Management System (TSMS). The proposed
1281
-------
documentation and recordkeeping in conjunction with the TSMS will be over-burdensome in its
own right, so to require even further documentation and recordkeeping for the VGP would add
extensively to the already required recordkeeping under Subchapter M. As a small business, this
would require additions to office staff just to perform recordkeeping requirements and add to the
already myriad of recordkeeping required by the tug Captains, Mates, Engineers and
Watchstanders for the Responsible Carrier Program, TSMS and the preventive maintenance
programs already established.
Response: Comments regarding the finalization of 46 CFR Subchapter M are beyond the scope
of this permit. With respect to the recordkeeping in the VGP and the burden imposed, please see
the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0501-A1, excerpt 10 and section 7.7 of this
comment response document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
H. Clayton Cook, Jr., Counsel, Seward & Kissel LLP on
behalf of Joseph W. McHugh, Jr., Vice President & Chief
Financial Officer, Rand Logistics, Inc.
Rand Logistics, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0568-A2
3
No
Comment: 3. The Great Lakes St Lawrence River System Economics.
SUMMARY:
The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region is the industrial and agricultural heartland of both the
United States and Canada. Every year, more than 160 million metric tons of cargo is moved
through the Great Lakes- St. Lawrence River (GLSLR) waterways system.
The River Class and similar vessels serve locations on all of the Great Lakes upstream of the
Welland Canal and they transit the Welland Canal to serve locations on Lake Ontario and on the
St. Lawrence River as far downstream as Sept-Iles and Anticosti Island and longitude 63 west.
Many of these services represent long-established water borne bulk commodities trades critical
to the economies of these locations as regional centers for which no land side rail or highway
bulk transportation alternatives exist.
The BWM requirement proposed cannot be met and if it were imposed, it would have a
devastating effect for the U.S. and Canadian flag vessels involved and the U.S. and Canadian
communities they serve.
DISCUSSION:
Recent studies highlight the importance of the GLSLR region to the economies of the U.S. and
Canada. A study by Martin Associates - The Economic Impacts of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
Seaway System (hereinafter, the "Martin Report") states that in 2010, U.S. and Canadian ports
and marine terminals on the Great Lakes - Seaway System, handled 322.1 million metric tons of
cargo.13 Likewise, the University of Toledo's Economic Development Research Group's
1282
-------
Multimodal Freight Transportation within the Great Lakes-Saint Lawrence Basin report
(hereinafter, the "Toledo Report") estimates that more than one billion tons of cargo moves
annually by water through the Great Lakes - Saint Lawrence River basin. Water transportation is
of critical importance to industries needing to move bulk commodities in high volumes,
particularly iron ore, coal, petroleum, chemicals and cement.14
This cargo generates jobs, personal income, business revenue, and taxes for the U.S. and
Canadian cities that serve as ports and marine hubs on the GLSLR. The Martin Report states that
maritime commerce on the Great Lakes-Seaway system generated over 225,000 U.S. and
Canadian jobs, $14.1 billion in total personal wage and salary income and local consumption
expenditures, $33.6 billion in business revenue, and $4.6 billion in federal, state/provincial and
local tax revenue.15
It is not only the Great Lakes' cities west of the Welland Canal that serve as significant
economic hubs to their surrounding communities. The cargo that is loaded and unloaded on the
St. Lawrence River ports is not insignificant, and therefore neither is the economic dependency
of the surrounding cities. The Toledo Report shows that, in terms of thousands of U.S. tons
loaded and unloaded at ports on the GLSLR, the St. Lawrence River contained, in 2007, the
second, third, fifth and sixth largest ports. The breakdown, as seen in Figure 3-7 of the Toledo
Report, is as follows:
1. Duluth/Superior - 47,000 thousand tons.
2. Quebec - 29,000 thousand tons.
3. Montreal - 28,000 thousand tons.
4. Chicago - 25,000 thousand tons.
5. Sept-Iles - 24,000 thousand tons.
6. Port Cartier - 22,000 thousand tons.
Likewise, the Martin Report looked at the economic impact of shipping confined to the St.
Lawrence Seaway portion of the GLSLR. According to the report, maritime commerce in 2010
impacted 86,000 U.S. and Canadian jobs, accounted for $4.6 billion in total personal wages and
local consumption expenditures, generated $12.3 billion in direct business revenue and generated
$1.7 billion in local, state/provincial and federal taxes.16 In addition, the establishment of a
demarcation at the Welland Canal would halt growing export opportunities, including grain, iron
ore and coal.
In the VGP Fact Sheet, the EPA found that the VGP requirements could result in aggregate
annual incremental costs for domestic vessels ranging between $6.5 and $20.9 million (2010).17
Specifically for the ballast water provisions, the EPA estimates a cost for domestically flagged
vessels between $1.1 and $2.5 million annually.18 Notably, the EPA excluded from this figure
the cost of purchasing and maintaining a BWM system.19 After performing its own analysis, the
Company has concluded that the actual cost for implementing a BWM system that complies with
the VGP would be between $5 and $6 million dollars per vessel, were such a system available.
The cost of implementing these systems will force the Company to reassess whether it will be
financially viable to retain certain vessels and customers. In some cases, it will not be feasible to
rely upon economies of scale to pass these costs on to customers - the required increased charge
per ton will be too costly to recover the cost of implementing a BWM system.
1283
-------
Of the vessel-operator communities that operate solely within the GLSLR waterways ecosystem
- Large U.S. Lakers and Lakers - only one vessel class, the Large U.S. Lakers, will not have to
implement the cost-prohibitive ballast water treatment systems imposed by the VGP. The
exemption limitation to Large U.S. Lakers establishes an artificial competitive barrier that not
only creates large capital cost differences between those Large U.S. Laker vessel operators and
other U.S. and Canadian smaller vessel operators, but may limit the long term replacement of,
and addition of, acquired new or used U.S. and Canadian vessels on the four upper lakes west of
the Welland Canal. In addition, the VGP would likely impose significant cost increases to Great
Lakes customers due to lack of a viable transportation alternative east of the Welland Canal, and
reduced long-term competition and vessel capacity west of the Welland Canal. The VGP
proposed regulations acknowledge that BWM systems are not available to meet a combination of
Great Lakes conditions and impose a requirement for "best practices," but limit and distinguish
between these two communities on the basis of vessel size, and propose a division line at the
Welland Canal that would exclude U.S. and Canadian flag, River Class and similar vessels
operating east of that demarcation.
If the regulation is adopted as proposed, the Company and others like it will be forced to
consider whether it is financially viable to continue to service port cities east of the Welland
Canal. These downstream customers and the cities in which they reside will be significantly
affected by the cost of this regulation. Some of these customers that will incur harm include:
Casco, Cargill, James Richardson International, ArcelorMittal, Parrish & Heimbecker, US Steel,
Lafarge, North American Salt and Morton Salt.
13
Martin Associates, The Economic Impacts of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System, October 18, 2011
(hereinafter, the "Martin Report").
14 Toledo Report at 13.
15 Martin Report at 5.
16 Martin Report at 9.
17 EPA VGP Fact Sheet at 12.
18 TJ
Response: With respect to the cost of ballast water treatment system installation, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0540-A2, excerpt 12. With respect to ballast
water requirements for Confined Lakers, please see sections 9.1.4 and 9.1.6 of this response to
comments document (where EPA explains that the categories of vessels about which the
commenter is concerned are generally not subject to the numeric effluent limits for ballast
water). For EPA's estimates for the potential costs for new build Lakers, please see the
Economic Analysis finalized with today's permit. For more information on the ballast water
requirements in the Great Lakes generally see Section 4.3.4 and 4.4.3.5.6.3 of the factsheet.
Commenter Name: Congressman Andy Harris, House of Representatives,
Congress of the United States
Commenter Affiliation: House of Representatives, Congress of the United States
1284
-------
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0569-A2
1
No
Comment: This letter is to note my concern that one of the principal effects of the graywater
management requirements for small cruise ships with 100-249 passenger/crew capacity in the
above-referenced proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) will be to overregulate and
unduly burden small U.S. flag coastwise trade cruise ships carrying less than 250 overnight
passengers and thereby stifle growth and eliminate U.S. jobs. This is not the time to impose
another unnecessary burden on small businesses when our economy is already struggling to
create jobs.
Extending to small U.S. flag coastwise trade cruise ships the stringent VGP graywater
purification standards that may be appropriate for large foreign flag cruise lines creates an
essentially impenetrable barrier to entry in coastwise overnight cruising - a market in which U.S.
owners of small U.S.-flag cruise ships could otherwise compete. Small cruise ships are unable to
retrofit the equipment required to meet tile stringent gra)"vater purification standards, i.e., the
advanced wastewater treatment system (AWTS). While AWTS may be appropriate for large
cruise ships which typically carry many hundreds if not thousands of passengers, the AWTS is
too large and too heavy to install on already-built small cruise ships in the size range of under
250 passengers and presents major unsolved challenges to designing new cruise ships in that size
range for coastwise trade on rivers, lakes and coastal waters.
The stringent VGP graywater purification standards appropriate to large cruise ships are not
needed for small coastwise trade ships. These small cruise ships discharge much less graywater
both because they carry only a small fraction of the number of passengers that large cruise ships
carry and because unlike large cruise ships, they do not provide services and amenities that
produce those toxic forms of graywater, such as swimming pools, photo labs, and drycleaners.
The stringent graywater management requirements of the VGP stifle growth and eliminate jobs
by presenting a serious if not impossible barrier to entry and competition in this segment of U.S.
coastwise trade. These are U.S. jobs at risk for work on ships that are U.S. owned, U.S. built,
U.S. manned, and supported by U.S. marine services. Instead of supporting our domestic
economy, the VGP discriminates in favor of large cruise ships, essentially all of which sail under
foreign flag. This is a policy not justified by the actual environmental impact of graywater
discharge of these very small U.S. flag coastwise trade ships, nearly all of which are operated by
"small entities" which are the backbone of our economy.
The EPA should amend the proposed 2013 VGP to be more practical and realistic. The EPA
must not put such an undue burden on small U.S. flag cruise ships cruising in American
coastwise trade. The best way to do this is to amend the graywater management requirements for
small cruise ships with 100-249 passenger/crew capacity to a "best practices" standard.
Such an amendment would recognize the economic benefits of the U.S. flag coastwise cruise
industry and the limitations of available technology, would bring the proposed 2013 VGP in line
with leading state regulations, would more appropriately allocate the graywater management
1285
-------
requirements in proportion to the amount of toxic graywater generated by the ships in question,
and would remove the presently insurmountable barrier presented by the proposed VGP to small
ship overnight cruising in America's rivers, lakes, and close coastal waters.
What is at stake is an industry segment that sails under U.S. flag and employs U.S. crew on ships
built in the U.S. and owned by U.S. citizens The adverse effect disregard of this industry
segment will impact both on-board personnel, crew and stewards and other onboard employees,
and also land-based employees of U.S. shipbuilders and the many vendors that service and
supply the U.S. flag fleet.
One of these shipbuilders in my district, for instance, is Chesapeake Shipbuilding Corp., which
builds for this smaller, U.S. flag overnight passenger coastwise trade vessel class and is a
significant employer in the Salisbury, Maryland area. Our current economy cannot afford to
stifle growth and eliminate jobs when it is not necessary to do so.
Please consider amending the graywater management requirements proposed 2013 VGP for
these small coastwise cruise ships to a "best practices" standard which more adequately balances
the business concerns of small cruise ship operators with the important public goals of
environmental protection.
Response: To better explore the opinions expressed in this and other comments, EPA reviewed
existing information in the administrative record and vessel information submitted to EPA's
Notice of Intent (NOI) Database to evaluate characteristics of vessels covered by the VGP. EPA
reviewed data submitted through May 8, 2012 in that NOI database to assess the potential for
incremental costs due to the need to install advanced wastewater treatment systems (AWTs) and
monitor graywater discharge on medium cruise ships.
The NOI data indicate that a little less than half of the medium cruise ships currently treat their
graywater using AWTs capable of achieving the limits specified in the 2013 VGP. The data
show that ATW systems have been installed on newly built vessels or retrofitted to existing
vessels; further, there seems to be no clear distinction in the ability of medium cruise ships with
different passenger capacities to implement AWT. Based on this information, EPA determined
that the AWTs represent a reasonable basis for establishing BAT limits under the 2013 VGP.
EPA has made changes from the proposed 2013 VGP to the final 2013 VGP for requirements
for medium cruise ships based on this and other comments. In the proposed VGP, EPA would
have altered the applicability for existing medium-sized cruise ships (i.e., constructed before
issuance of the 2008 VGP) that had to meet the numeric treatment limits. EPA had proposed
changing the applicability threshold from a vessel unable to voyage more than 1 nm from shore
to a vessel unable to voyage more than 3 nm from shore. EPA was persuaded by the comments
received not to make the proposed change in the final VGP. The final VGP retains the
applicability threshold that is consistent with the 2008 VGP for medium Cruise Ships. EPA did
not intend to inadvertently require retrofits for a vessel that is able to voyage more than lnm
from shore, but not 3 nm from shore. Based on the previous permit conditions in the 2008
permit, some existing (constructed before issuance of the 2008 VGP) medium-sized vessels
may have foregone installation of graywater treatment during regularly scheduled vessel
1286
-------
maintenance and repair since issuance of the 2008 VGP based on the 2008 VGP provisions that
had authorized the discharge untreated graywater while underway.
Exercising an abundance of caution, in order to ensure that its 2008 cost estimates did not
underestimate costs to the medium cruise ship regulated universe, EPA considered the
additional incremental costs to some medium cruise ships to comply with the graywater
discharge requirements in its Economic and Benefit Analysis (see Section 4.3.1). Based on this
and other comments, though the Agency believes it to result in a highly conservative estimate
(e.g., overestimate of costs), the Agency increased the numbers of medium cruise ships the
Agency assumed would have to install treatment systems as a result of this permit requirement.
Additionally, EPA notes that Agency determined that the effluent limits, as contained in the
2008 VGP, and reproposed for the 2013 VGP, are reflective of Best Available Technology. For
more information on how the Agency determines BAT, please see Section 4 of the VGP Fact
Sheet.
EPA disagrees that it is not possible to install AWTS on medium cruise ships with between
100-250 passengers. Please see section 11.2 of this comment response document for further
discussion. EPA also disagrees that medium cruise ships do not discharge significant quantities
of graywater. Based on information gathered in developing the proposed permit, EPA estimates
that medium cruise ships discharge approximately 83 million gallons of graywater into U.S.
waters every year. EPA also notes that Agency has determined that the pollutant concentrations
contained in graywater are roughly equivalent to those found in raw sewage. These pollutants
include fecal coliform, nitrogen, phosphorus, oils and greases, and total suspended solids.
Please see EPA's 2011 analysis of "Graywater Discharges from Vessels" (EPA-800-R-11-001),
contained in the docket for this permit, for further discussion.
Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director, California
Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0575-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Late Comment? No
Comment: CWPA is also concerned about the cost of these EALs. Our vessels use up to 400
gallons of hydraulic fluid, a typical cost of about $6,000. Our preliminary research suggests the
costs to use these products can be triple, if not higher! We do not believe the realized
environmental benefits are worth such a heavy cost burden on small business. Therefore, we
recommend an exemption be provided for prohibitive cost as well as technical infeasibility.
However, if EPA persists in requiring the use of biodegradable oils in hydraulic machinery, the
government should also provide a tax credit for fishermen to help offset the significant increase
in cost. One additional point, as noted earlier, biodegradable oils also leave a sheen on the water.
Thus it is critically important for EPA to clarify what specifically constitutes a non-compliance
event.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the use of Environmentally
1287
-------
Acceptable Lubricants (EALs) will place an unreasonable cost burden on small businesses, and
declines to incorporate the recommended revision to allow an exemption for prohibitive cost.
For the purposes of the economic analysis, EPA assumed a wide price range (from 50-120
percent difference in price) to assess the potential incremental cost of this requirement. This
information was based on examples provided by industry representatives, as well as EPA's
review of retail prices for different types of lubricants marketed for marine application. EPA
notes that this incremental cost is based on prices charged in major U.S. ports and that regional
prices may differ from this average. Based on this analysis EPA found that the use of EALs
could result in an incremental cost between $4 and $8 per gallon. Please see EPA's economic
analysis finalized for today's permit for further discussion. EPA is unaware of, and commenter
did not provide, the basis for commenters' more inflated cost estimate. For more information on
EPA's analysis, see Section 4.2.9 of the Economic and Benefit Analysis, available in the
docket.
In response to the comment regarding what constitutes a non-compliance event, EPA will
continue to work with permittees to provide appropriate outreach and guidance on complying
with the requirements of the VGP. Finally, comments related to the potential for a tax credit are
outside the scope of the permit.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: Small vessels with greater than 8 cubic meters' of ballast water capacity, will face
difficulties to install a BWTS due to space and stability issues. Further, EPA has estimated the
cost of installing and operating a BWTS as between $300,000 to more than $2.5 million
depending upon vessel characteristics and treatment system. Economic and Benefits Analysis
o/the Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit, at p. 64 (Nov. 30, 2011). This expense range would
constitute a prohibitive expense for fishing vessels, particularly smaller vessels. It is unclear if
EPA's estimate includes the cost of retrofits and structural modifications that may be necessary
to install BWTS, given existing vessel space and stability concerns.
We request that EPA maintain the ballast water management requirements of the 2008 VGP in
lieu of the BWTS requirement if vessels can demonstrate, with appropriate documentation, that
installation of BWTS would be cost prohibitive or structurally impossible.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-05Q5-A1, excerpt 8.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 20
1288
-------
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: Economic Analysis: We briefly reviewed the economic analysis provided and find it
very, sparse and difficult to read but can state that the costs estimated for Alaska (Region 10) are
significantly underestimated for the populated areas, not to mention the increased costs for
remote communities. For example the economic analysis estimates the range for OIL PADS
from $0.15 to $0.48, the cost in Southeast Alaska ranges more like $0.75 to $1.25.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-05Q5-A1, excerpt 15.
14. Consistency with International or USCG Regulations (Except Ballast
Water)
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Andreas Nordseth, Chairman, Consultative Shipping Group
(CSG)
Consultative Shipping Group (CSG)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0478-A1
1
No
Comment: CSG countries have supported the development of mandatory international
measures to protect the marine environment and we share the US government's concerns
regarding the impact of invasive species. The United States and the CSG countries have worked
closely together in forging strict new rules to ensure that ecosystems are protected, particularly
from the introduction of invasive species.
The CSG believes that the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) is the most appropriate
forum for establishing robust standards for environmental protection including ballast water
management requirements and other standards.
The adoption of multilateral solutions to challenges confronting an industry that is global in
scope is crucial for ensuring clarity and predictability for shipping operators who need consistent
rules when calling at or passing through the waters of other countries. For the same reasons,
consistency of requirements within a single country is vital. Uniform international standards play
a critical role, facilitating the carriage of global trade as well as the protection of the marine
environment.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment from the Consultive Shipping Group. EPA notes
that the numeric ballast water treatment limits in today's VGP are consistent with the IMO D-2
standard. Please see section 12 of this comment response document for discussion of why EPA
cannot mandate uniform standards across the country.
Commenter Name: Paul E. Robertson, Economic Minister, Embassy of
Canada, Government of Canada
Commenter Affiliation: Government of Canada
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0479-A1
1289
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: For the reasons described further in the annexed review of key points made in New
York's letter, Canada urges the EPA to conclude that no standard more stringent than that of the
international convention should be included in the next VGP.
Response: Today's VGP contains numeric ballast water discharge limits that are consistent
with the IMO D-2 standard. Please see section 12 of this comment response document for
discussion as to why EPA cannot mandate uniform standards across the country.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Mark Miller, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Terresolve
Technologies
Terresolve Technologies
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0499-A1
3
No
Comment: Practical Note.
This VGP should also correspond to Coast Guard and local environmental agency protocols to
have leniencies for vessels that discharge environmentally acceptable fluids. These leniencies
should include reduced fines, clean-up and required down time.
Response: Enforcement is outside the scope of today's action.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Donald Sweeney, Vice President of Finance, Terresolve
Technologies
Terresolve Technologies
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0512-A1
6
No
Comment: Practical Note.
This VGP should also correspond to Coast Guard and local environmental agency protocols to
have leniencies for vessels that discharge environmentally acceptable fluid s. These leniencies
should include reduced fines, clean-up and required down time.
Response: Enforcement is outside the scope of today's action.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A1
1290
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: First, via this permit, or its associated Fact Sheet, EPA proposes or considers several
initiatives that diverge from the current regulatory framework established by the International
Maritime Organization (IMO). Specifically this includes the timetable for installation of ballast
water treatment equipment, the potential for ballast water treatment limits more stringent than the
"D-2" standards considered by IMO, effluent limitations for exhaust gas scrubber systems,
and the possibility of a 5 ppm effluent limit for bilge water. As a general statement CLIA
members strongly encourage EPA to remain consistent with the IMO established framework.
The international nature of the shipping industry is such that it is all the more appropriate to
migrate towards the international standard rather than to introduce additional requirements,
absent adequate technological solutions or sound scientific rationale. The United States can, and
has, engaged with the IMO process successfully in the past, and we encourage this approach in
the future.
Response: Today's VGP contains numeric ballast water discharge limits that are consistent
with the IMO D-2 standard. The timetables for installation, while consistent with the March
2012 Coast Guard rulemaking, do differ in some respects from the IMO schedule; the reasons
for the timetable in the VGP are discussed in the VGP fact Sheet at § 4.4.3.5.5. The effluent
limits for exhaust gas scrubber systems are generally consistent with Annex VI of MARPOL
criteria for the effluent discharge from those systems. See section 4.4.26 of the VGP fact sheet
for further discussion of the VGP's numeric "best available technology" limit for exhaust gas
scrubber washwater discharges, which is consistent with the international guidelines established
by the IMO. Please also see sections 9.4, 9.4.1, 9.4.2, and 9.4.3 of this comment response
document. The final VGP contains discharge location limitations and a 15ppm effluent limit for
bilgewater, both of which are consistent with the existing IMO framework.
Commenter Name: Michael Lund, Chief Maritime Politics and Economics,
The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Commenter Affiliation: The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0548-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Late Comment? No
Comment: BIMCO are strong supporters of international rules for the probably most
international industry in the World. BIMCO would therefore encourage the US to ratify The
International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and
Sediments. US ratification would be a key part of establishing a truly global system regarding
ballast water treatment. Also should also be noted that in order to ensure the efficient flow of
world trade and to protect the global economy, ships must be able to trade on equal terms under a
global legislative regime where port states accept a ship's International ballast water
management certificate as evidence that its equipment fulfils the requirements of the Ballast
Water Convention.
1291
-------
Response: The issue of ratification of the IMO Ballast Water Treaty by the United States is
outside the scope of today's action.
Commenter Name: Michael Lund, Chief Maritime Politics and Economics,
The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Commenter Affiliation: The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0548-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: Likewise is the introduction of national test protocols for ballast water management
treatment systems which differs from the internationally agreed not promoting the
implementation of an agreed global legal framework aiming at protecting the marine
environment. We understand that systems approved under the IMO standard have been rejected
in the US under the ETV protocol. This opens up for a very difficult situation were a ship in full
compliance with IMO rules will not be compliant with US rules in a port state control. Such
situations should be avoided.
If a Member State feels that IMO conventions or guidelines are not fulfilling their particular
needs or desires it would be appropriate to bring such matters forward to the IMO for possible
amendment of such conventions or guidelines in order to keep national approval, certification
and verification procedures in line with the international agreed standards and procedures.
Response: Under today's final permit, vessel owner/operators utilizing a ballast water treatment
system to meet the permit's numeric effluent limits are not limited to systems that have been
evaluated by the ETV protocol but instead must use a system shown to be effective by testing
conducted by an independent third party laboratory, test facility, or test organization. Such
systems include, but are not limited to, systems that have been type-approved by the Coast
Guard or type-approved by a foreign Administration and received an "Alternative Management
System" designation by the Coast Guard. EPA notes that approval of treatment systems is
outside the scope of the VGP and that such approvals are the responsibility of the US Coast
Guard. See, 46 CFR Part 162, Subpart 162.060; 33 CFR 151. EPA notes that multiple vendors
have applied for Coast Guard AMS approval and EPA fully expects multiple systems to have
such Coast Guard designation in the immediate future. Please see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0485-A1, excerpt 11. EPA notes that the IMO Ballast Water
Convention is neither in force internationally nor is the US a signatory, and further notes that
potential amendments to IMO Conventions or guidelines are outside the scope of today's
action.
Commenter Name: Michael Lund, Chief Maritime Politics and Economics,
The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Commenter Affiliation: The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0548-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
1292
-------
Late Comment?
No
Comment: To keep the international supply chain flowing to support international trade it is of
crucial importance that implementation of the rules do not cause operational problems or delays
to ships e.g. caused by testing procedures. Below is included the wording from The International
Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments to illustrate
the importance and BIMCO strongly encourage that the following should be taken into account
when developing and implementing national legislation and regulations for Ballast Water
Management. It could be that the US decides not to ratify the convention but the spirit of key
elements of the convention could and hopefully will serve as valuable elements for a future
implementation in the US.
The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and
Sediments, 2004 states:
"Article 7 Survey and Certification
1 Each Party shall ensure that ships flying its flag or operating under its authority and subject
to survey and certification are so surveyed and certified in accordance with the regulations in
the Annex.
2 A Party implementing measures pursuant to Article 2.3 and Section C of the Annex shall not
require additional survey and certification of a ship of another Party, nor shall the
administration of the ship be obligated to survey and certify additional measures imposed by
another Party. Verification of such additional measures shall be the responsibility of the Party
implementing such measures and shall not cause undue delay to the ship.
Article 9 Inspection of Ships
1 A ship to which this Convention applies may, in any port or offshore terminal of another
Party, be subject to inspection by officers duly authorized by that Party for the purpose of
determining whether the ship is in compliance with this Convention. Except as provided in
paragraph 2 of this Article, any such inspection is limited to:
(a) Verifying that there is onboard a valid Certificate, which, if valid shall be accepted; and
(b) Inspection of the Ballast Water record book, and/or
(c) A sampling of the ship's Ballast Water, carried out in accordance with the guidelines to
be developed by the Organization. However, the time required to analyse the samples
shall not be used as a basis for unduly delaying the operation, movement or departure of
the ship.
2 Where a ship does not carry a valid Certificate or there are clear grounds for believing that:
(a) The condition of the ship or its equipment does not correspond substantially with the
particulars of the Certificate; or
(b) The master or the crew are not familiar with essential shipboard procedures relating to
Ballast Water Management, or have not implemented such procedures; a detailed
inspection may be carried out.
3 In the circumstances given in paragraph 2 of this Article, the Party carrying out the
inspection shall take such steps as will ensure that the ship shall not discharge Ballast Water
until it can do so without presenting a threat of harm to the environment, human health,
property or resources.
1293
-------
Article 12 Undue Delay to Ships
1 All possible efforts shall be made to avoid a ship being unduly detained or delayed under
Article 7.2, 8, 9 or 10.
2 When a ship is unduly detained or delayed under Article 7.2, 8, 9 or 10, it shall be entitled to
compensation for any loss or damage suffered."
Response: EPA notes that the IMO Ballast Water Convention is neither in force internationally
nor is the US a signatory and that it is the CWA, not the Convention, that governs the contents
of today's permit That being said, EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as well as other
regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with shipboard
operations and not in conflict with existing vessel regimes.
15. Miscellaneous/Other
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Sarah K. Branch, Director of Government Relations,
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Offshore Marine Service Association
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0474-A1
3
No
Comment: Additionally, OMSA offers the following recommendations for the 2013 VGP:
1) From a housekeeping perspective, we request that the numbering system for sections of
the VGP be re-organized. When discussing the VGP, referring to "Section
2.2.3.5.1.1.4.1" is extremely onerous and makes it more difficult for an industry to learn
the VGP in the proper detail as we should.
Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's suggestion, and notes that the ballast water
sections of the permit contain many different numbering levels, which are cumbersome.
However, EPA maintained the current numeric organization to remain consistent with the
previous permit. Furthermore, EPA could not identify a numbering scheme that would be less
confusing for the permittee. EPA would invite the commenter to provide additional specific
proposals for the next iteration of the VGP for how EPA can improve the numbering system.
Commenter Name: Joel Brammeier, President and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Alliance for the Great Lakes et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0491-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Late Comment? No
Comment: X. EPA must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
1294
-------
As EPA notes in its Economic and Benefits Analysis for the draft VGP, "[invasions have had
especially adverse impacts on threatened and endangered species by predation, alteration of
habitat, or further competition for limited resources."160 EPA cites studies estimating that
invasive species "are a contributing factor to the endangered status of 70 percent of listed fish
species, and more than half of combined endangered and threatened listings," as well as having
"contributed to 68 percent of fish extinctions in the last 100 years."161
Accordingly, before issuing the final VGP, EPA must initiate and complete Endangered Species
Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the effects of the permit on threatened and
endangered species and critical habitat.162
Under ESA § 7(a)(2), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), federal agencies must, in consultation with either
FWS or NMFS, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 163 ESA § 7 and the
implementing regulations set out a process for determining the biological impacts of a proposed
activity.164
An agency proposing an action must first determine whether the action "may affect" species
listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.165 If it is determined that the action "may
affect" listed species or designated critical habitat, the action agency must pursue some form of
consultation, either "formal" or "informal." Informal consultation is "an optional process that
includes all discussions, correspondence, etc., between the Service and the Federal agency...
designed to assist the [action agency] in determining whether formal consultation... is
required."166 "If during informal consultation it is determined by the [action agency], with the
written concurrence of the Service, that the action is not likely to adversely affect listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation process is terminated, and no further action is necessary."167 If
an action agency chooses to forego informal consultation, or the informal consultation concludes
that the proposed action is likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat, the agency
must participate in "formal consultation."168 Formal consultation entails the formulation of a
Biological Opinion ("BiOp") by either FWS or NMFS. In a BiOp, a federal agency is advised as
to whether the proposed action, taken together with its cumulative impacts, is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of designated critical habitat. 69
EPA concluded that the previous iteration of the VGP "may affect" all aquatic and aquatic-
dependent species that live in waters of the United States.170 Consultation under the ESA is
therefore required.171 EPA has conceded that consultation is necessary, having executed an
agreement with several of the undersigned organizations to settle litigation over the previous
iteration of the VGP to "initiate consultation under the Endangered Species Act" for this
. 17?
permit.
At this time, however, EPA does not appear to be making expeditious progress toward
completing the required ESA consultation. The only apparent step that EPA has taken in
1295
-------
connection with issuing the current draft VGP was to send an email to FWS and NMFS
requesting a meeting to initiate informal consultation discussions.173 Although formal
consultation will likely also be required, due to the indisputable adverse impacts that invasive
species discharged in vessels' ballast water have on threatened and endangered species, EPA's
initial steps regarding consultation do not appear calculated to successfully complete the
consultation process, including issuance of a BiOp, before the draft VGP is finalized in
November 2012.
We remind EPA that issuing a final permit without completing the required ESA consultation
violates the ESA.
XI. Conclusion
We urge the EPA to accept our recommendations to comply with the Clean Water Act by issuing
a permit that will prevent non-indigenous species from invading the Nation's waters.
160 Economic and Benefits Analysis at 133.
161 Id.
162 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).
163 Id.
164 16 U.S.C. § 1536; 50 C.F.R. Part 402.
165 50 C.F.R. §402.14.
166 50 C.F.R. §402.13(a).
167 Id.
168 50 C.F.R. §402.14.
169 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(h)(3). If it is determined that a "take," 16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(B), 16 U.S.C. 1532(19), 50
C.F.R. § 17.3, may occur incidental to the proposed action, but that the action and associated incidental take will not
violate the Section 7 jeopardy standard, then FWS or NMFS includes an incidental take statement with the BiOp. 16
U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i)(l)(i-v). The incidental take statement specifies the predicted impact to
the species, the reasonable and prudent measures that FWS or NMFS determines necessary to minimize take, and
the terms and conditions required to implement the reasonable and prudent measures. Id. If the action complies with
the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement, ESA Section 7(o)(2) exempts the incidental taking from
the prohibitions contained in ESA Section 9. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(o)(2).
170
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management, Biological Evaluation for the
United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal
Operation of Commercial Vessels and Large Recreational Vessels (VGP) and General Permit for Discharges
Associated with Recreational Vessels (RGP), Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0008, at 245 (May 7, 2008).
171 50 C.F.R. §402.14.
172
Settlement agreement between 12 environmental organizations and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
regarding Vessel General Permit litigation, 6,(Mar. 8, 2011).
173
Email from Deborah Nagle, U.S. EPA, to Jim Lecky, NMFS, and Gary Frazer, FWS, dated Nov. 29, 2011,
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0303.
Response: Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires each Federal agency,
in consultation with and with the assistance of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), collectively "the Services," to ensure that the
actions the Federal agency authorizes, funds, or carries out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species (referred to as "listed species") or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of their designated critical habitats.
1296
-------
EPA commenced informal consultation with the Services in December, 2011. EPA initiated
formal consultation with the Services on July 3, 2012, submitting a formal consultation package
including an extensive biological evaluation for the 2013 VGP and sVGP. Section 7 of the ESA
allows 90 days for interagency consultation and an additional 45 days for the Services to
prepare a biological opinion, under most circumstances. After a short, mutually agreed upon
extension of the formal consultation time frame, EPA and the Services successfully concluded
formal consultation on November 28 and 29, 2012 with transmittal of separate biological
opinions. Both of those opinions concluded that EPA's issuance of the VGP was not likely to
jeopardize listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Both biological
opinions can be found in the docket for this permit issuance. For additional information, see
section 12.2 of the VGP fact sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bruno Pigott, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Water
Quality, Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM)
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0515-A1
3
No
Comment: Additionally, IDEM recommends that the EPA develop and implement a training
and certification program to educate the various industries regulated under the VGP and
especially the sVGP. Education on the specific regulations and compliance with those
regulations is essential for the success of any permitting program.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0141-0534-A2, excerpt 4.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 39
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 17 Part 3.4.2 - Nutrients - The permit and this section of the fact sheet do not
properly distinguish between the nutrient challenges faced by fresh water bodies as opposed to
saltwater marine bodies. With respect to the former, phosphates are the limiting nutrient and
relevant constituent of concern whereas in the marine environment it is nitrogen that is most
relevant.
1297
-------
In the permit, and in the relevant sections of the fact sheet, EPA should discuss these different
considerations and should modify the permit to provide greater flexibility in the appropriate
water bodies.
There should be an additional discussion describing the Science Advisory Panel's assessment of
nutrients from Alaska cruise ship wastewater discharges. For the sake of brevity, it could be
summarized as:
The Alaska cruise ship wastewater discharge Science Advisory Panel evaluated the
effects of nutrient discharges from cruise ships in Southeast Alaska, using nutrient data
collected in the summers of 2000 and 2001, and put the data in context of natural
nutrient levels, dilution, and biological utilization. Given the initial rapid dilution from
discharges from moving cruise ships, and the subsequent dilution, the discharged waters
had little impact on the natural nutrient cycle. (See, ADEC Science Advisory Panel,
2002; and Loehr, et. al., 2006)
There should also be a discussion of EPA studies in Skagway Alaska that looked at the effects of
nutrients from cruise ship waste water effluent inputs on macroalgal production (Kaldy, 2011).
The cruise ship effluent in the study was a mix of black water and gray water treated by an
advanced wastewater treatment system. The study utilized stable isotope signatures for 815N
characteristic of cruise ship waste water effluent and determined that the signature for this
isotope was not detectable in microalgae under the effluent loading conditions of the experiment.
P. 18, Part 3.4.3 Pathogens EPA states that it is not likely that vessel discharges are a primary
source of infections. This is consistent with findings from the Washington State Department of
Health in which they found that properly functioning AWTS would disinfect for both bacteria
and virus. EPA should incorporate this conclusion in both their permit (which is to say E. coli
monitoring is not warranted), and in this section of the fact sheet.11
Page 19, part 3.4.5 Metals - The discussion on metals notes that through a process known
as bioaccumulation, metals may not be fully eliminated from blood and tissues by natural
processes, and may accumulate in predator organisms further up the food chain, including
commercially harvested fish species (US EPA 2007e). EPA does not offer any risk assessment or
analytical data suggesting that cruise discharges are a significant source in this regard.
The metals discussion needs to acknowledge that the water quality criteria are intended to apply
in receiving waters and are not directly comparable to effluent concentrations. There is very
considerable rapid dilution from a moving vessel when discharging such that metals criteria are
very rapidly attained and toxic conditions do not occur. A vessel discharging in port still has
some dilution benefit. Because of dilution, there is much less environmental impact from metals
in the discharges than this section implies. For the underway discharge scenario, duration of
exposure to levels greater than the water quality criteria is mere seconds, and not a concern.
11 See Washington State Department of Health Assessment of Potential Health Impacts of Virus Discharge from
Cruise Ships to Shellfish Growing Areas in Puget Sound, November 2007,
httv://www. doh. wa. eov/ehv/sf/Pubs/cruise-shiv-revort. vdf
1298
-------
Response: EPA notes that the commenter is focusing on the portion of the fact sheet where
EPA describes the impact that various pollutants and constituents of concern have for water
bodies. As a whole, EPA believes that the fact sheet is more than adequate in terms of meeting
the regulatory requirements contained in 40 CFR Parts 124.8 and 124.56.
Regarding nutrients, EPA notes that the commenter's assertion of the nutrient challenges faced
by fresh water bodies (being phosphorus limited) as opposed to saltwater marine bodies (being
nitrogen limited), are general rules of thumb, but this is not always the case. Though nitrogen is
the most common limiting nutrient in estuarine and marine waters, it is an oversimplification to
state that nitrogen is the only limiting nutrient in estuarine and marine waters. Phosphorous can
also be a limiting nutrient in estuaries. For example, please see:
Thomas C. Malone, Daniel J. Conley, Thomas R. Fisher, Patricia M. Glibert, Lawrence W.
Harding, and Kevin G. Sellner. 1996. Scales of nutrient-limited phytoplankton productivity
in Chesapeake Bay. Earth and Environmental Science 19(2): 371-385; or Heikki Pitkaenen
and Timo Tamminen. 1995. Nitrogen and phosphorus as production limiting factors in the
estuarine waters of the eastern Gulf of Finland. Marine Ecology Progress Series 129: 283-
294.
In a vessel discharges' context, vessels often move between fresh and saltwater and their
operators may not always know whether nitrogen or phosphorus constitute the limiting nutrient
in a given water body. Nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and numerous micro-
nutrients, are constituents of vessel discharges. Though traditionally associated with discharges
from sewage treatment facilities and runoff from agricultural and urban stormwater sources,
nutrients resulting from vessels are also thought to be discharged from deck runoff, vessel
graywater, and vessel bilgewater, among other sources. Increased nutrient discharges from
human sources are a source of water quality degradation throughout the United States.
Though EPA is aware of the cruise ship studies cited by the commenter, EPA did not establish
any numeric technology-based or water-quality based nutrient limits in the VGP. Hence,
detailed discussion of those studies in the permit or fact sheet is neither needed nor warranted.
Additionally, EPA notes EPA notes that Kaldy (2011) is not necessarily representative of
Cruise Ships impacts on all aquatic ecosystems in U.S. waters, particularly for nutrient impaired
waters. Kaldy found that: "It is likely that this system [Skagway harbor] is "nitrogen saturated"
and that N loading from the cruise ships waste water effluent has little or no effect on macro
algal N dynamics within Skagway Harbor, AK." In other words, another parameter, likely
temperature, is limiting.1 However, there are numerous ecosystems where nitrogen is the
limiting factor (e.g., Gulf of Mexico dead zone, parts of the Chesapeake Bay). When waters are
listed as nutrient impaired, it is likely that reducing the nutrient concentration, including
reducing the nutrient loadings from cruise ships, will lead to improved water quality.
Regarding the suggestion to incorporate additional discussion of studies in Skagway into the
permit or fact sheet, EPA will continue to evaluate the state of technology, as well as the impact
on water quality from such discharges in future permits. However, EPA did not establish any
numeric nutrient limits that needed to consider dilution. Regarding the ADEC report, EPA is
aware of the ADEC science advisory panel report and, based on this and other data sources, the
1299
-------
Agency believes that discharges of many pollutants would not lead to acute violations of water
quality standards due to the dilution of the discharges while the vessel is moving. EPA notes
that existing federal law does establish limitations and operating restrictions applicable
discharges of sewage and graywater from cruise ships in certain Alaska waters.
The commenter notes that EPA "should modify the permit to provide greater flexibility in the
appropriate water bodies" in regards to their discussion on nutrients. Noting that there are only
non-numeric BMPs that directly regulate nutrients in vessel discharges, and there are no
numeric effluent limits for nutrients, EPA is uncertain as to what conditions the commenter
suggests that EPA modify. The primary nutrient requirements of the permit that are directly
applicable to cruise ship BMPs relate to (and restrict) the discharge of graywater into nutrient
impaired waters or require the vessel to utilize phosphorus free soaps. Regarding phosphorus
free soaps, because vessels often move between fresh and saltwater, the vessel operator may not
always know with sufficient advance time (i.e., prior to learning of the vessel itinerary) to affect
the purchase of soap supplies, and presence of both phosphate and phosphate free soaps in
supply rooms therefore is likely to increase the chance for improper use. Therefore, EPA
believes it is reasonable for the VGP to call for use of phosphate free soap without distinction as
to when the vessel sailing in fresh or saltwater. Under this permit, graywater discharges from
cruise ships are not authorized in nutrient impaired waters, unless the length of the voyage
through those waters exceeds the ship's holding capacity. This BMP is reasonable for vessels in
order to reduce the nutrient loading to waterbodies that are already impaired by these pollutants.
EPA disagrees with the commenter's conclusion that, because discharges from a properly
functioning AWTS on a vessel may not be a primary source of pathogens, no vessel should be
required to monitor for pathogens in the discharge. The limits included in today's permit for
pathogens are based on a Best Available Technology (BAT) analysis that results in a
technology-based effluent limit for a properly functioning AWTS. EPA established the numeric
effluent limits for graywater found in Part 5.1.1.1.2 of the permit because data gathered by EPA
demonstrated that technologies are available, as well as economically practicable and
achievable, and therefore, would represent BPT and BAT. Further, monitoring is intended to
ensure, among other things, that such AWTS remain properly functioning and operational.
Improper operation, partially disabled functions, and action or inaction that might otherwise
reduce high performance will be avoided through monitoring. In addition, EPA notes that the
graywater discharge standards in this permit are consistent with those for large cruise ships
underway in Alaskan waters required under Title XIV. Industry information shows that many
cruise ships are already meeting the operational standards required by the permit. EPA declines
to incorporate the commenter's suggestion that monitoring is not warranted given the nature of
the wastes treated in properly functioning AWTS. In addition, after issuance of the VGP, if a
vessel owner/operator believes that a particular discharge standard is not appropriate for their
operation, the permittee may request to be excluded from such coverage by applying for an
individual permit. For more information on alternative permits, see section 1.8 of the permit and
section 3.10 of the fact sheet.
EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the discharge of metals, even in a high
dilution scenario, is not an adverse environmental concern in vessel discharges (see Table 3-5 in
EPA's 2008 cruise ship discharge assessment report (EPA842-R-07-005) discussing metal
1300
-------
concentrations from those discharges). As a general matter, consideration of dilution in deriving
numeric effluent limits would be inappropriate for pollutants that are persistent,
bioaccumulative, or can have other substantial environmental impact. Thus, the Agency does
not adopt the commenter's recommendation to discuss the role of dilution in deriving permit
limits for metals or toxics. However, EPA also notes the commenter's discussion referencing
the ADEC science advisory panel report and that discharges of many pollutants would not lead
to acute violations of water quality standards due to the dilution of the discharges while the
vessel is moving. Hence, with respect to those pollutants, cruise ship owner/operators may find
that no additional measures are necessary in order to discharge at levels that meet water quality
standards.
EPA did consider dilution in its determination of certain effluent limitations and the VGP
reflects this consideration both in the Fact Sheet and in the Permit. Given the scope of this
general permit, EPA considered dilution where EPA believed it was appropriate. For example,
in the Section 7.1.1.2 (Operational Limits) of the Fact Sheet, EPA discusses its use of a dilution
factor for graywater discharged from large cruise ships that was based on a recommendation
from Science Advisory Panel for the Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative.
1 Based on the principle of Liebig's Law of the Minimum, growth is limited by the scarcest resource and not all
resources available. As identified by Kaldy, Nitrogen is not the scarcest resource in Skagway Harbor.
Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health
Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0530-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 56
Late Comment? No
Comment: P. 17, Part 1.13 - This section references the General Permit conditions found at 40
CFR Part 122.41 that are applied to all NPDES permits. These additional conditions are clearly
written for shore-based facilities and in some instances conflict with operational requirements of
vessels. Examples include:
1. 40 CFR Part 122.41(a)(1) requires that the permittee shall comply with standards for
sewage sludge use or disposal established under section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act.
As virtually all advanced waste water treatment systems blend sewage with gray water to
some extent, the retained sewage liquor in these systems (known as bio-residual or
biomass) would be subject to this requirement. Biomass is commonly and frequently
discharged in order to properly maintain conditions in the bioreactor to sustain microbial
health and prevent fouling of the ultra-filters. Nearly all ports lack reception facilities to
receive such waste streams and cruise ships do not typically have sufficient storage
capacity to retain the full volume of bio residual generated during a voyage even if
reception facilities were available. It should be noted that this discharge of bio residual is
outside 12NM and is fully consistent with MARPOL 73/78 Annex IV "Regulations for
1301
-------
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships," to which most of the flag states of our ships are
parties.
2. 40 CFR Part 122.41(1) requires notification of significant planned physical alterations or
additions to the permitted facility, or anticipated non-compliance.
a. As this General Permit applies to discharges from equipment throughout the vessel
rather than just a treatment system at the "end of pipe," this might be interpreted as a
requirement to notify EPA of alterations to virtually any system operating on the
vessel that may have the potential to significantly increase discharges, qualify as a
new source, or be classified as a significant change to the use or disposal practice or
managing sludge. This raises considerable potential for conflict with respect to non-
US flag registries, classification society roles and responsibilities, and U. S. Coast
Guard Port State Control. We believe such an interpretation would extend far beyond
EPA's mandate to regulate vessel discharges. EPA must provide an interpretation
appropriate to its application to vessels.
b. 40 CFR 122.41 (1) (4) describes monitoring reports that must be submitted. 40 CFR
Part 122.42(l)(4)(i) discusses monitoring reports with regard to sludge use or
disposal; we refer EPA to comments above with regard to bio residual management.
Response: As explained in Part 1.2.3.2 of the VGP, discharge of sewage from a vessel within
the meaning of CWA section 312 does not require NPDES permits. These discharges are
subject, however, to the requirements established at 40 C.F.R. Part 130 and 33 C.F.R. Part 159.
Only the liquid and solid human wastes recovered from a Type III marine sanitation device are
subject to the requirements applicable to "domestic septage" that are established under the
sewage sludge regulations at 40 CFR Part 503. Part 2.2.25 also established VGP requirements
applicable to graywater mixed with sewage. The graywater requirements of the VGP are
applicable for the discharges from a vessel. CWA section 312 includes separately implemented
requirements for discharges of only sewage from a vessel. The NPDES permit template
regulations at 40 C.F.R. 122.41 would still apply, therefore, to domestic septage recovered from
Type III marine sanitation devices.
With respect to the requirements for notifying EPA of planned changes to a facility pursuant to
40 C.F.R. §122.41(1), commenter does not explain how this notification requirement would
interfere with classification society roles and responsibilities or U.S. Coast Guard port state
control. NPDES permittees must provide EPA with notice only in limited, specified
circumstances in which significant changes are planned for a vessel pollutant treatment system
or management practice. For example, EPA would expect to be notified if a vessel installs a
ballast water treatment system. The regulation at 40 C.F.R. §122.41(l)(i) requires notice "only
when the alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for
determining whether a facility is a new source in § 122.29(b)." The VGP is an NPDES permit
that has been issued for the discharge of pollutants and constituents of concern from point
sources that are not "new," pursuant to CWA Section 306. Section 306 of the CWA defines a
"new source" as "any source, the construction of which is commenced after the publication of
the proposed regulations prescribing a standard of performance under this section which will be
1302
-------
applicable to such sources, if such standard is thereafter promulgated in accordance with this
section." No new source performance standards have been promulgated pursuant to Section
306 for vessels; therefore, new source alteration/addition reporting does not apply. In terms of
providing notice of alterations or additions that significantly change the nature or increase the
quantity of pollutants discharged, notice only "applies to pollutants which are subject neither to
effluent limitations in the permit, nor to notification requirements under §122.42(a)(1)." 40
C.F.R. §122.41 (1)(1)(ii).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0531-A2
20
No
Comment: Insufficient Data
In areas where data is absent or insufficient, Wisconsin DNR's inspectors would like to work
with EPA, USCG and research institutes to help gather data as they inspect and board permitted
vessels. Wisconsin DNR is currently assisting the University of Minnesota - Duluth in sampling
efforts. Although Wisconsin DNR only has two inspectors (Lake Michigan, Lake Superior), it is
willing to offer this resource. Please let us know how Wisconsin DNR can help fill data gaps.
Response: Though beyond the scope of today's permit issuance, EPA acknowledges the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource's offer to help gather information. After permit
issuance, EPA intends to communicate with Wisconsin about possible collaboration efforts.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
6
No
Comment: For alternative permits, particularly the individual permit, the EPA needs to ensure
an appropriate public process for comment is available, (page 15)
Response: EPA notes that any permit issued by EPA, or an authorized state, must be public
noticed in accordance with 40 CFR 124.10.
Commenter Name: Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Commenter Affiliation: Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
1303
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Late Comment? No
Comment: We fully support that no waivers are available for the VGP and that individual
permits are required.
Response: Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel identified in Part 1.2 of the
permit and Part 3.5 of this fact sheet into waters subject to the permit, must be authorized by an
NPDES permit. Vessels operating in a capacity as a means of transportation are eligible for
coverage under the VGP. Alternatively, pursuant to 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3), EPA may require a
discharger to apply for and obtain an individual permit instead of obtaining coverage under the
general permit, or any interested party may petition EPA to take such an action. In addition,
after issuance of the VGP, the permittee may request to be excluded from such coverage by
applying for an individual permit. For more information on alternative permits, see section 1.8
of the permit and section 3.10 of the fact sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
17
No
Comment: List National Wildlife Refuges under G.3 by State to make it easier for applicants to
use (page 112).
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment; however, EPA maintained the current listing
method to remain consistent with the previous permit with which mariners are now familiar.
16. Misfiled Comment
Commenter Name: January 11, 2012 Public Hearing Oral Comments by PVA's
Jennifer Wilk and Ed Welch
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: Draft sVGP - Don't impose needless administrative burdens.
Adherence to the sVGP will constitute yet one more regulatory mandate on thousands of small
businesses that operate commercial passenger vessels of less than 79 feet in length.
Consequently, EPA should make compliance as simple as possible and impose no more
administrative requirements than absolutely necessary.
1304
-------
PVA acknowledges that the Permit Authorization and Notice of Inspection (PARI) need not be
submitted to the EPA under normal circumstances.
Nevertheless, EPA should alter the conditions for the PARI. There is no justification for
requiring that this document be retained on board the small vessel; the permit should allow for it
to be kept on shore at the company's office.
Furthermore, why is there a need for it to be filled out quarterly? This amounts to a paperwork
exercise that will not benefit anyone. At most, there should be a yearly attestation of compliance
entered on the PARI. Finally, many commercial passenger vessels operate seasonally, not year-
round. Going to a once-a-year attestation on the PARI will accommodate their real-world
operating situation.
Response: EPA notes that this was an oral comment provided at a public hearing held for both
the VGP and sVGP. Comments specifically regarding the sVGP are outside the scope of today's
VGP issuance. However, EPA notes that similar comments were submitted in the sVGP docket,
including written comments from this commenter, and responses will be provided upon
issuance of the sVGP.
Commenter Name: January 11, 2012 Public Hearing Oral Comments by PVA's
Jennifer Wilk and Ed Welch
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0443
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Late Comment? No
Comment: Draft sVGP Retain the proposed definition of "minimize."
In many parts of the draft SVGP, the vessel operator is told to "minimize" various discharges.
Part 2 says that the term "minimize" means "reduce and/or eliminate to the extent achievable
using control measures (including best management practices) that are technologically available
and economically practicable and achievable in light of best marine practice." By the phrase "to
the extent achievable," it acknowledges that many discharges are likely to continue to some
extent. By qualifying the term "control measures' with the phrase "technologically available and
economically practicable and achievable," it takes into account the fact that effective
technological "fixes" are not always available at a reasonable cost. By acknowledging the use
of:"best management practices," it demonstrates awareness that an operational measure may be
the best or most effective method of minimizing a discharge.
This definition of "minimize" is appropriate, and it is important to retain it in the SVGP. It may
be desirable to include "minimize" as a defined term in part 6.
Response: EPA notes that this was an oral comment provided at a public hearing held for both
the VGP and sVGP. Comments specifically regarding the sVGP are outside the scope of today's
VGP issuance. However, EPA notes that similar comments were submitted in the sVGP docket,
including written comments from this commenter, and responses will be provided upon
1305
-------
issuance of the sVGP.
Commenter Name:
David Connor, Water Quality Specialist, Alyeska Pipeline
Service Company
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0489-A1
1
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Comment: As the operator of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company owns and operates multiple small vessels that would be affected by this rulemaking. A
review of the proposed sVGP determined that there are a variety of conditions that. If
implemented in the final rule, would create onerous and complex issues with very little tangible
environmental benefit. It appears that EPA has proposed overly broad and prescriptive
requirements that will apply to all small vessels regardless of whether any of the preventative
measures would actually be protective of waters of the U.S. By using a blanket "one size fits all"
solution to address specific regional problems or watershed concerns constitutes an unreasonable
burden to those operate outside those particular areas. The proposed sVGP also creates a
potential compliance quandary by requiring the operator to certify that overly broad, onerous and
prescriptive inspection requirements have been performed when in fact they would be difficult to
perform or ascertain whether they were done correctly. EPA should consider establishing
regional priorities for Invasive Species management rather than requiring the implementation of
preventative measures nationwide for a small percentage of waters that are impacted. In addition,
consideration should be given to the establishment of a regulatory exemption for certain small
vessels that are either very low risk of contributing to water quality degradation or are
sufficiently small to be considered a low risk.
Section 1.1. EPA should consider the establishment of a minimum length of vessel that does not
require coverage under the sVGP in order to exclude all manner of vessels that otherwise would
be covered, such as, row boats, canoes, kayaks, paddle boards or any other small non-
recreational use vessel. Small vessels (14 feet or less) should be conditionally exempt due to the
low likelihood that they would require the same Permit conditions than much larger and more
complex vessels. EPA should also exclude single passenger vessels and non-motorized vessels as
these are generally of the type that would not be appropriate to require coverage under a sVGP.
Section 2.3.(d). The requirement to dispose of used oil absorbent materials in containers
designed for oily waste disposal is outside the regulatory context of the Clean Water Act and
should not be a requirement of the sVGP. Disposal of oily wastes should be in accordance with
appropriate regulations that cover solid wastes and not mandated by provisions of the Clean
Water Act such as General Permits.
Section 2.3(h). Use of the term "technically infeasible" is not defined so it is improper to assume
that there is a common understanding of the term. EPA should define the term and include the
provision that the use of environmentally acceptable lubricants should not be required if it would
1306
-------
void manufacturer's warranties or has not been approved for the specific use by the appropriate
trade standards or are not readily available (a common issue in remote Alaska).
Section 2.30(j). The prohibition to adding "chemicals" to bilge is overly broad. "Chemical" is not
a defined term and could be construed to mean any substance that requires a Material Safety
Data Sheet which is virtually all liquid substances. Also the intent of the sequence of words in
this provision is not clear. If the intent of this provision is to prevent the addition of any
substance that removes the appearance of sheen then the sentence should be restructured to say
"Substances that remove the appearance of a sheen, such as..., should not be added to the bilge".
Section 2.4(b). This provision requires that vessels have an appropriate trash receptacle on board.
EPA should not regulate waste handling as part of a Clean Water Act General Permit unless it is
directly tied to a discharge to waters of the US. Vessels should be required to prevent trash from
entering waters of the U.S. but not prescribed how it must be accomplished or by what means
trash must be managed. The nature and design of some vessels that would require coverage
under the sVGP do not accommodate provisions for having appropriate trash receptacles but
would none-the-less be required to comply. Again, EPA should restrain from issuing overly
broad requirements that have no basis in discharges to waters of the U.S. such as requiring
"appropriate receptacles" for retaining trash for all manner of vessels regardless of size,
complexity or design.
Section 2.6 (f& g). The requirement to perform periodic inspections of vessel hulls is so overly
general as to be useless as an enforceable action. Additionally, this requirement does not
recognize the fact that many vessels never leave a specific watershed and therefore inspecting
and cleaning a hull is meaningless as a strategy to prevent the spread of invasive species. EPA
should focus on refining the requirements to address meaningful actions that can be easily
implemented to address an actual problem and not create obligations that are unreasonable and
ineffective. EPA should consider making these types of provisions a voluntary activity rather
than an enforceable requirement.
Section 2.7(h). The requirement to inspect and remove any living organisms when transporting a
vessel from one waterbody to another is not necessary in the majority of the nation's waters and
would be better served if it was directed to occur only in areas where a problem exists.
Furthermore, many water bodies are hydraulically interconnected and this practice would serve
no purpose other than creating onerous burdens in all waters of the U.S. in order to protect a
small percentage of affected water bodies.
Section 2.8(a). This section uses the term "economically achievable", which is not defined, and
makes for uncertainty on how to apply this criteria.
Section 3.1 and 3.2. These sections require quarterly inspections but does not make it clear
whether the inspections are required if the vessel is stored out of the water. Many vessels are
used seasonally and should be exempted from these requirements if they are stored out of the
water. Additionally, these prescriptive inspection requirements are onerous, overly broad and
unnecessary to protect waters of the U.S. These inspection requirements should be represented as
voluntary best management practices rather than enforceable provisions of a General Permit.
1307
-------
Requirements that specify that "all discharges and all applicable areas... "or "all areas are clear
of garbage ... or "all equipment on board ... or "all protective seals ..." cannot possibly be
realistically accomplished let alone be correctly or consistently interpreted. Is it really the intent
of EPA that vessel owners inspect each and every protective seal despite the time it would take,
the complexity of the system or the likelihood that the particular seal could cause a discharge to
waters of the U.S.? Statements like "minimize", "when feasible", "should", "consider", "to the
extent practicable and feasible" leave the permittee open to circumventing the intent of the
permit. EPA needs to consider alternative realistic inspection requirements that are not overly
prescriptive yet serve to protect waters of the U.S. A more appropriate inspection requirement
would be a general outline of the types of pollutants that need to be managed to ensure the vessel
is not discharging these pollutants unnecessarily. The current language contained in the last
sentence of the first bullet under section 3.2 would suffice as a general statement. EPA should
omit bullets 2, 3,& 4 under section 3.2 as they are unrealistic, prescriptive, onerous, and by
themselves do not constitute a water quality concern. EPA should recognize that prescribing
these types of requirements as enforceable provisions under the Clean Water Act will lead to
enforcement inconsistency, compliance uncertainty, reluctance to certify the inspection report,
and general confusion regarding how these requirements are construed to be protective of water
quality. As EPA is aware many small vessels use underwater engine exhaust discharge systems
and routinely cause changes to the receiving water that contacts the exhaust. Having inspection
and certification requirements that appear to be at cross purposes to the normal operation of
vessels with submerged exhaust creates unrealistic expectations and unachievable criteria. In
many parts of the country there are seasonal considerations that should be recognized by EPA
that make the quarterly inspection requirements problematic. Many vessels overwinter in
icelocked harbors, marinas, lakes, ponds and rivers and become incapable of operating. It would
be virtually impossible for the vessel owners/operators to comply with the inspection
requirements and to knowingly certify the inspection. EPA needs to consider modifying the form
to include an option that defers the inspection requirements when a vessel is either out of the
water or is otherwise not capable of being inspected. In summary, EPA should change sections
3.1 and 3.2 to reflect achievable and realistic goals, make the inspection criteria voluntary, and
not create enforcement and certification pitfalls.
The owners/operators of small volunteer vessels that Alyeska relies on for assistance in
responding to future oil spill incidents in Prince William Sound might find it challenging to
comply with the proposed sVGP substantive permitting requirements. Many of these vessels
routinely operate as fishing boats, but also may be recruited by Alyeska for future spill response
work, including laying booms, skimming, towing, recovery and storage. EPA identifies "oil
recovery vessels" as a subcategory of "utility vessels" in the Fact Sheet supporting the proposed
sVGP (pp. 10-11). EPA further explains in its November 30, 2011 Economic and Benefits
Analysis o/the Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (p. 24), that vessels addressed by the sVSP
include vessels that are involved in spill response and oil recovery operations. Thus, each of
these small volunteer vessels technically may be subject to the sVGP permitting requirements as
both a commercial fishing vessel and a utility vessel. The distinct and unique functions,
operations, and incidental discharges related to fishing vessels and oil recovery vessels may
complicate compliance with multiple and possibly inconsistent best management practices and
pollution prevention measures imposed under the sVGP.
1308
-------
In addition, there are temporal considerations with respect to compliance with the sVGP by these
volunteer vessels. Some of these volunteer vessels might not ordinarily qualify as any vessel type
covered by the sVGP, but may later become subject to the permit when placed into service as oil
recovery vessels for spill responses. In these situations, it is unclear if, first, such vessels would
need to comply with the sVGP permit conditions starting December 19, 2013 or only later when
used for spill response, and second, if such a vessels would lose permit coverage upon
decommissioning from an oil spill incident or remain subject to the permit.
EPA requested comments on its proposal to incorporate by reference requirements from other
statutes and regulations, as well as comments on its proposal to incorporate those other
requirements as they are in effect on the date of issuance of the final sVGP instead of the
proposed sVGP. EPA states that it has relied on these other statutes and regulations to develop
the sVGP terms and conditions, and that these other statutes and regulations will be legally
binding permit conditions. However, while EPA generally identifies the statutes and regulations
in the permit and supporting Fact Sheet, in many instances it does not cite or explain the precise
applicable requirements, especially the applicable best management practices and pollution
control measures.
In general, Alyeska has concerns over EPA's incorporating by reference a host of other,
unspecified requirements from international and federal laws into the permit as legally binding
conditions, and over EPA's expectation that permittees (e.g., owners/operators of small volunteer
vessels) must comply with versions of such requirements that are in effect at some point in the
future when the final sVGP is adopted. Incorporating other potentially changing statutory and
regulatory requirements merely by reference prevents effective participation in the comment
process and complicates compliance with the permit. This approach by EPA makes it difficult to
discern whether the best management practices and other requirements contained in these other
statutes and regulations apply to and are appropriate for certain types of vessels and incidental
discharges that will be covered by the sVGP. Also, depending on when EPA issues the final
version of the sVGP, many of these requirements may change in the interim without the
knowledge of the stakeholders or permittees who will be covered by the final version of the
permit. Thus, stakeholders and permittees are forced to speculate as to those other requirements
for purposes of submitting comments and for complying with the permit.
In considering whether to impose unspecified and potentially changing permit requirements as
legally binding conditions, EPA should take into consideration the types of owners/operators to
which the proposed sVGP permit requirements will apply, and the onerous and unfair burden
placed on such vessel owners/operators by such an approach. In many cases, these are small
boats with independent, unsophisticated owners/operators having limited resources and
knowledge of the underlying statutory and regulatory requirements with which they will be
obligated to comply. That these legally binding permit conditions simply will be incorporated by
reference magnifies the risk of such owners and operators being in non-compliance with the
permit and the accompanying exposure to penalties. Accordingly, EPA should set forth in the
permit with specificity each of the requirements applicable to the vessels to be covered by the
sVGP. Further, consistent with the approach taken by EPA for the 2008 proposed VGP, EPA
should incorporate any such requirements as they exist on the date of the sVGP proposal, not the
date of the final sVGP.
1309
-------
Under the excessively broad scope of sVGP coverage, EPA potentially imposes on numerous
and different types of small vessels, certain requirements derived from some statutes or
regulations that appear to apply only to certain kinds of vessels and operations. For example,
EPA cites the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL
73178) and the related Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. 1901 ef seq. and Coast
Guard regulations. Many of the provisions contained in these authorities apply to large, open-sea
vessels, not small vessels. Similar concerns can be raised about application of standards and
requirements under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (F1FRA), 7 U.S.C. 2136
et seq., and the Federal Noxious Weed Act, 7 U.S.c. 2801 ef seq. Permit terms and conditions
that are grounded on these other laws and regulations may be unnecessary and overly
burdensome in light of the function, operation and nature of incidental discharges related to
small transportation-related vessels under 79 feet in length. Moreover, such other requirements
may be duplicative or inconsistent with each other or with other maritime regulations that also
apply to small vessels subject to the sVGP. The arduous responsibility for small vessel
owners/operators covered by the sVGP will be to remain fully cognizant of and to comply with
each and every such requirement at the risk of a minor or inadvertent oversight that leads to
permit noncompliance.
EPA also requested comments concerning incorporation by reference of other statutory and
regulatory requirements as they are in affect at the time the incidental discharges covered by the
sVGP actually occur. This concept of rolling compliance with unspecified and potentially
changing legally binding permit terms and conditions also would impose an unfair and undue
burden, as many of these owners/operators may not be aware of and certainly will not receive
notice of any changes to these other statutory and regulatory requirements with which they will
be expected to comply. Moreover, this approach results in an impermissible and inappropriate
modification of an issued final permit without notice and an opportunity for hearing. EPA should
decline to take this rolling compliance approach.
Alyeska agrees with EPA's approach of requiring nonnumeric effluent limitations under the
sVGP. EPA is correct that deriving numeric effluent limitations for the types of incidental
discharges subject to the sVGP is simply not feasible. The pollution control measures and best
management practices set forth in the sVGP are more than sufficient for protecting water quality
standards. However, there are concerns about EPA's potential future imposition of water-quality
based effluent limitations (WQBEL's) where receiving waters have been listed as "impaired"
under § 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (or future imposition of WQBEL's even where such
discharges occur to receiving waters not listed as impaired under 303(d)). 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d).
Under § 4.12 of the sVGP, EPA has reserved the right to impose more stringent requirements in
the general permit or individual permits covering incidental discharges from small vessels. In the
context of 303(d) impaired waters, that might result in imposition on small vessels of numeric
effluent limitations in order to meet Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and respective
Waste Load Allocations adopted for the "impaired" receiving waters. This approach could lead
to overly excessive and unwarranted responsibilities on permittees in some circumstances. For
example, EPA recently has taken the position that coastal states like Alaska should list coastal
waters as impaired on their 2012 303(d) lists and ultimately adopt related TMDLs to address pH
levels allegedly affected by ocean acidification. See EPA's November 15,2010 Memorandum re:
1310
-------
Integration Reporting and Listing Decisions Related to Ocean Acidification. Imposing resulting
numeric effluent limitations under the sVGP would place additional severe hardships on
the owners/operators of small vessels operating in Alaska's extensive coastal water areas. Given
the nature of the small vessels and incidental discharges covered by the proposed sVGP, and the
demonstrated success of the types of best management practices incorporated into the sVGP,
EPA should impose only nonnumeric effluent limitations under the permit.
Response: Comments specifically regarding the sVGP are outside the scope of today's VGP
issuance. However, EPA notes that similar comments were submitted in the sVGP docket, and
responses will be provided upon issuance of the sVGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marie Hobson, Counsel, Government Affairs and John
Hopewell, Assistant Director, Environmental Affairs,
American Coatings Association (ACA)
The American Coatings Association (ACA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0490-A2
2
No
Comment: Recommended Changes - The Small Vessel General Permit should begin with a
warning about invasive species, and proceed to detail the proper management of the coating to
minimize its impact. We believe that beginning the sVGP (Section 2.6 Vessel Hull Maintenance)
with a warning about hull coatings does more harm than good in terms of limiting the invasion of
non-indigenous species. We suggest the following wording:
2.6 Vessel Maintenance
(a) If the vessel use pattern requires the use of anti-foulant system you should use the most
effective antifouling coating necessary to prevent biofouling on your vessel and to prevent the
transport of organisms from one area to another.
(b) Vessel hulls must be periodically inspected, and if necessary, cleaned to prevent the spread or
dispersal of potentially invasive species.
(c) Minimize the transport of any visible living aquatic organisms from one water body to
another by regularly cleaning and maintaining the hull.
(d) Prior to transporting the vessel from one water body to another overland, you must inspect
the visible areas of the vessel for any attached or visible stowaway living organisms. If
organisms are found, they must be removed and appropriately discarded onshore. Removed
organisms may not be discharged into waters subject to this permit.
(e) If the vessel is equipped with an anti-foulant system, you must minimize the impact of that
system or the discharges resulting from anti-foulant paints on the aquatic environment.
1311
-------
• Where drying or hull cleaning at haul-out is adequate for managing fouling (e.g., for
vessels that are hauled frequently or for over-winter storage), do not use anti-fouling
coatings if not needed.
• Discharges of tributyltin (TBT) are prohibited (zero-discharge standard).
Two potential ways to meet this standard are to:
1. Have no TBT coatings; or
2. Have an effective overcoating that completely eliminates TBT discharges.
(f) Do not clean anti-fouling paint, which releases biocides, for the first 90 days after application.
(g) If the anti-foulant paint requires cleaning, gently clean hulls on a regular basis (this
minimizes the need for stronger cleaners and more abrasive brushes).
(h) When cleaning hulls coated with anti-fouling paint while the vessel is in the water, use only
soft sponges. You must examine the water while cleaning to assure that you are not causing a
plume of paint to form. Stop immediately if any visible plume of paint appears in the water.
Consider hiring a qualified, professional hull cleaner to do the work, and ensure that they follow
environmental guidelines.
(i) When cleaning hulls coated with anti-fouling paint while the vessel is out of the water, always
work away from the water in a location where paint chips and dust will not be washed into the
water. Place a tarp under the area to catch loose particles, and properly dispose of paint chips,
dust, and other particles. If you are working in an area that is covered by an NPDES permit (e.g.
marina or drydock), you must follow the cleaning requirements of that permit.
Response: Comments specifically regarding the sVGP are outside the scope of today's VGP
issuance. However, EPA notes that similar comments were submitted in the sVGP docket, and
responses will be provided upon issuance of the sVGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marie Hobson, Counsel, Government Affairs and John
Hopewell, Assistant Director, Environmental Affairs,
American Coatings Association (ACA)
The American Coatings Association (ACA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0490-A2
3
No
Comment: Visible Plume and Prohibition on TBT - The language on 'visible plume' and
the prohibition on TBT in the sVGP should match the language in the VGP. ACA sought and
received clarification on 'visible plume' and the prohibition on TBT under the VGP, and we
believe this should be consistent in the sVGP. As it is written now, the explanation of visible
plume in the sVGP is undeveloped and could lead to confusion whether an individual is creating
a plume or not (because a visible plume or sheen on the surface of the water is a normal
occurrence during hull cleaning). The VGP describes a 'visible plume' as follows, "Production
1312
-------
of a plume or cloud of sediment or hull growth is normal in some cases during vessel hull
cleaning, but this plume or cloud must be substantially paint free (e.g., paint should not be
clearly identifiable in the plume or cloud)." We suggest the sVGP incorporate this language.
Response: Comments specifically regarding the sVGP are outside the scope of today's VGP
issuance. However, EPA notes that similar comments were submitted in the sVGP docket, and
responses will be provided upon issuance of the sVGP.
Comment: Small VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150 (sVGP)
First we request that in the final draft permit, the PARI form be simplified and written in
language eliminating the need to look up references in the Code of Federal Register. Most
fishermen will find it difficult to look up the references provided in the draft sVGP permit unless
a link to the exact spot in the federal register is provided.
Discharges Currently or Previously Covered by Another NPDES Permit on page 2: This
draft sVGP states that a vessel is not covered under this permit if covered by another NPDES
permit. Some commercial fishing vessels are permitted under the NPDES Permit AK-G52-0000
for Alaska Seafood Processors or the AK-G52-4000 Offshore Alaska Seafood Processors permit
yet these permits do not cover all the same discharges that are covered under the sVGP permit
for the incidental to the normal operation of vessels. How does a vessel reconcile the permit
applicable to their operation since neither permit covers the full scope of their operations?
Vessel Discharges Not Eligible for Coverage on page 1 section 1.5: The U.S. Coast Guard,
Dept of Commerce and Regional Fishery Management Councils defines "seafood processing" as
the commercial preparation of fish or fish products other than by gutting, decapitating, gilling,
skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling. Section 1.5 states that discharges described
in 40 CFR 122.3 include but are not limited to, discharges from industrial operations (e.g.
seafood processing ... are not covered by this permit). The draft permit needs to contain the
definition of seafood processing and should use the already accepted definition provided above
and include allowances for the discharges not already covered created by gutting, decapitating,
gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling as normal incidental operation of a
commercial fishing vessel. Annex V of Marpol excludes "fresh fish and parts thereof, generated
during the normal operation of the ship and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically"
. . . again bringing us back to the assumption that these operations should be covered under this
permit.
Effluent Limits and Related Requirements on page 2: The draft sVGP states "In the limits
below and throughout this permit, the term "minimize " means reduce and/or eliminate to the
Commenter Name:
Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA)
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0505-A1
16
No
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
1313
-------
extent achievable using control measures (including best management practices) that are
technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best marine
practice
The section on definitions should contain the word "minimize" and contain this definition, and
should provide more guidance on when technologically available and/ or economically
practicable is the standard that takes precedence. The term "minimize" as defined does not
clarify the point between compliance and non-compliance and what must be recorded and
submitted on the Annual Non-compliance form.
General Requirements on page 3 section 2.1:
(b) Annex 5 of Marpol regulates garbage. This is unnecessary and duplicative language.
(d) Minimize foam or floating solids. See previous comment above about seafood processing and
the guts, gills, shells etc would be solids disposed of that might at times float for short intervals.
Foam can be created by circulating seawater for keeping shellfish species alive.
(h) EPA should develop a list of approved soaps, detergents or cleaners that meet the
requirements for non-toxic, phosphate-free and biodegradable to prevent unnecessary burden on
the commercial fishermen and unnecessary enforcement actions.
Engine and Oil Control page 4, section 2.3: UFA is concerned about the requirement in the
draft permit for environmentally acceptable lubricants being accessible in Alaska especially in
the more remote communities and the cost. The Aleutians East Borough (AEB) found one
environmentally acceptable hydraulic oil, sold in Anchorage, was more than double the cost of a
standard petroleum 5 gallon bucket. Has EPA considered the cost of switching lubricants and
oils since you generally can't just switch over and start using a synthetic product?
Solid and Liquid Waste Management on page 5, section 2.4: This section should be deleted
since Annex V of Marpol regulations cover all these situations and is referenced in section 2.11
Compliance with other Statues and Regulations.
Quarterly Visual Inspection Requirements on page 9 section 3.2 also in the Overview page
1, section 1.3: The quarterly visual inspection requirement is overly burdensome particularly in
short lived fisheries lasting about a month and then pulled out of the water such as Bristol Bay. A
more practical and less encumbered method would be a pre-season inspection, a quarterly
inspection during active fishing seasons and post-season inspection. Requiring a vessel owner to
go to remote locations for quarterly inspections would be costly and possibly infeasible if the
boats were buried under snow.
Definitions on page 14-18: The following definitions should be added to this section: Seafood
Processing, ballast water, ballast tank, and fishing hold.
Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold Cleaning Wastewater Discharge Report (Supporting
Documents): This report contains false and misleading information. The descriptions of types of
1314
-------
vessels, discharges, and practices should be re-examined. It is obvious that this was written by
individuals with no knowledge of commercial fishing.
Response: Comments specifically regarding the sVGP are outside the scope of today's VGP
issuance. However, EPA notes that similar comments were submitted in the sVGP docket, and
responses will be provided upon issuance of the sVGP.
Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trailers
Association (ATA)
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trailers Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0509-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Late Comment? No
Comment: While EPA itself notes that these permits are a 'significant regulatory action', it
concludes that the sVGP will not significantly impact our members, because it does not exceed
the 'cost-to-revenue' threshold. First, we question EPA's assumption regarding cost per vessel
and also whether or not the gross revenue calculation is appropriate for small, unincorporated
businesses. Second, even a cursory review of the draft permit suggests that the costs could, in
fact, be substantial for small boat fishermen. At minimum, costs to comply with these regulations
could include structural changes to vessels (if even possible); fishing time lost by individuals and
small crews to fulfill such requirements as documentation and reporting; fishing time lost and
expense incurred running great distances to communities large enough to provide services and
accept discharges; and even disruption of basic daily operations (e.g. vessel sanitation, cooking,
cleaning, and showering).
Response: Comments specifically regarding the sVGP are outside the scope of today's VGP
issuance. However, EPA notes that similar comments were submitted in the sVGP docket, and
responses will be provided upon issuance of the sVGP.
Commenter Name: Nick Schroeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes
Environmental Law Center
Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Environmental Law Center
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0535-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Late Comment? No
Comment: VI. Vessels Requesting a Small Vessel General Permit ("sVGP ) should be
required to submit a Notice of Intent ("NOI") in addition to a Permit Authorization and
Record of Inspection ("PARI")
An NOI provides permitting authorities with useful information to assist in oversight and
enforcement of permittees, such as specific location of the vessel and its discharge. When
determining whether vessels eligible for coverage under the sVGP should be required to submit
1315
-------
NOIs, the EPA found that the volume of discharges incidental to the normal operation of these
smaller vessels are limited. Furthermore, the EPA noted the discharge from small vessels
"reduced the likelihood for the introduction of significant quantities of toxic and conventional
pollutants make requiring an NOI for these vessels to be of little value at this time." In the realm
of ballast water, the actual quantity of water being released, and its relation to the spread of
aquatic invasive species is not the concern. The concern should be focused on the fact that ballast
water is being released. The NOI puts the EPA on notice that a particular vessel will be
discharging ballast water. Furthermore, the administrative aspect of an NOI is relatively simple,
with great benefits.
Though the purpose of the PARI is to certify that the owner/operator has read and agreed to
comply with the terms of the permit, it limits the ability of the EPA to manage the oversight of
potential ballast water disposal. The purposes of the PARI and the NOI are different, and it
would be useful for the EPA to revisit the underlying needs for these two procedural
requirements. The NOI is a procedural tool for the EPA to maintain oversight on the issues of
ballast water, and moreover, is potentially useful towards the development of future ballast water
technology.
Response: Comments specifically regarding the sVGP are outside the scope of today's VGP
issuance. However, EPA notes that similar comments were submitted in the sVGP docket, and
responses will be provided upon issuance of the sVGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0536-A2
4
No
Comment: sVGP
1. Graywater - Michigan requests Section 2.7 of the draft sVGP be revised to clarify that Section
312 of the federal Clean Water Act prohibits "commercial" vessels from discharging graywater
when operating on the Great Lakes.
2. Notification - Michigan requests Section 4.11 of the draft sVGP be revised to require vessel
owners/operators to immediately notify the relevant state authority (in addition to the USEPA)
when they become aware that a discharge from their vessel causes or contributes to an
exceedance of an applicable water quality standard.
Response: While comments specifically regarding the sVGP are outside the scope of today's
VGP issuance, EPA notes that an identical comment was submitted on the sVGP by this
commenter and can be found in docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150. For a response to this
comment, see the responses provided to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0413-A2 in the
response to comments docket developed for the sVGP.
1316
-------
Commenter Name: Beth Moore, General Permit Coordinator, Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0537-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Late Comment? No
Comment: COMMENTS REGARDING THE DRAFT NPDES SMALL VESSEL GENERAL
PERMIT (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150 for the DRAFT sVGP)
2.8 Fish Hold Effluent requires the following:
(a) If you are unloading your catch at a shore-based seafood processor or other pier and a shore-
based discharge facility is available and economically achievable, you must discharge your
effluent (including dirty ice) to that shore-based facility instead of discharging to surrounding
waters. DEQ's Comment: Part 2.8 refers to two shore-based facilities. Is shore-based the same as
land-based? Please clarify what is meant by "that" shore-based facility in (a) above.
Response: Comments specifically regarding the sVGP are outside the scope of today's VGP
issuance. However, EPA notes that similar comments were submitted in the sVGP docket, and
responses will be provided upon issuance of the sVGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. Guy Kaulukukui, Acting Administrator, State of
Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources
(DLNR)
State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources
(DLNR)
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0572-A2
4
No
Comment: DLNR supports the introduction of a new vessel general permit for small vessels
(sVGP) and in section 2.9, the requirement that ballast water (BW) management occurs for all
commercial vessels, irrespective of BW capacity. As mentioned earlier, DLNR is also in support
of the minimization of AIS spread through vessel biofouling. We are encouraged by the new
requirement in section 2.6 that vessels being moved overland to new water bodies be inspected
for visible organisms and where found, removed and disposed of on land.
Response: Comments specifically regarding the sVGP are outside the scope of today's VGP
issuance. However, EPA notes that similar comments were submitted in the sVGP docket, and
responses will be provided upon issuance of the sVGP.
Commenter Name: Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law Division, New
York City Law Department
1317
-------
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
New York City Law Department
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0598-A2
10
No
Comment: Draft 2012 Small Vessel General Permit Comments
3.1 Recordkeeping Requirements, pg. 9.
The City requests that the requirement that all vessel owner/operators maintain a PARI form on
board at all times be modified to allow for the use of a launch log in lieu of the PARI. Many
vessels already maintain launch logs to record vessel activity, including discharges and other
incidents related to the vessel. Allowing vessels to use their launch logs in lieu of the PARI will
reduce administrative efforts and costs.
3.2 Quarterly Visual Inspection Requirements, pg. 9.
The City requests clarification on the following question: If vessels are moored on a boat lift out
of the water for extended time periods, are quarterly visual inspections still required?
Appendix A - Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection (PARI) Form, pg. 20.
The City requests that EPA define who can sign the Permit Authorization and Record of
Inspection Form (PARI).
Appendix B - Annual Non-Compliance Form, pg. 22.
As above, the City requests that EPA define who can sign this form.
Response: Comments specifically regarding the sVGP are outside the scope of today's VGP
issuance. However, EPA notes that similar comments were submitted in the sVGP docket, and
responses will be provided upon issuance of the sVGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0752-A2
18
No
Comment: Small Vessel General Permit Comments:
• All vessels should be required to maintain a copy of a letter/documentation granting
coverage. This will ensure that any enforcement actions via through boarding vessels is
easier, (page 1)
• State that discharges from vessels must meet all other state and federal applicable laws. In
particular, many states have separate ballast water regulations that still must be met. (page 2)
• Require zero graywater discharges in marine sanctuaries, national wildlife refuges, national
wild and scenic rivers, and national wilderness areas. There is no reason a vessel should
discharge in such sensitive and pristine areas designated due to their ecological importance,
(page 6)
1318
-------
• Under compliance with other statues and regulations, state that discharges from vessels must
meet all other state and federal applicable laws. In particular, many states have separate
ballast water regulations that still must be met. (page 8)
• Quarterly inspections are not sufficient. Visual inspections need to be conducted at a
minimum monthly, in not more frequently. Responsible vessel operators should be doing this
on a regular basis anyway so this should not be an additional burden, (page 9)
• For alternative permits, particularly the individual permit, the EPA needs to ensure an
appropriate public process for comment is available, (page 10)
• What constitutes "reasonable time" under Section 4.4? This should be more definitive or
have some parameters or deadlines to guide staff and the permittees, (page 11)
• The definition of "Phosphate Free" should include "and containing compounds which would
readily be converted to phosphate in the aquatic environment." Additionally, it could help to
identify what term such as "phosphate encompasses phosphoric acid, phosphonates,
organophosphates, any salt of a hydrogen phosphate, and any salt of a phosphate" and
"Derivatives of phosphate include polyphosphates such as sodium tripolyphosphate,
pyrophosphate, and phosphorus oxoacids." (page 17)
Response: Comments specifically regarding the sVGP are outside the scope of today's VGP
issuance. However, EPA notes that similar comments were submitted in the sVGP docket, and
responses will be provided upon issuance of the sVGP.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 21
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: Small VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT EPA-HQ-OW-2011-01S0 (sVGP)
First we request that in the final draft permit, the PARI form be simplified and written in
language eliminating the need to look up references in the Code of Federal Register. Most
fishermen will find it difficult to look up the references provided in the draft sVGP permit unless
a link to the exact spot in the federal register is provided.
Discharges Currently or Previously Covered by Another NPDES Permit on page 2: This
draft sVGP states that a vessel is not covered under this permit if covered by another NPDES
permit. Some Commercial fishing vessels are permitted under the NPDES Permit AK-G52-0000
for Alaska Seafood Processors or the AK-G52-4000 offshore Alaska Seafood Processors permit
yet these permits do not cover all the same discharges that are covered under the sVGP permit
for the incidental to the normal operation of vessels. How does a vessel reconcile the permit
applicable to their operation since neither permit covers the full scope of their operations?
Vessel Discharges Not Eligible for Coverage on page 1 section 1.5: The U.S. Coast Guard,
Dept of Commerce and Regional Fishery Management Councils defines "seafood processing" as
the commercial preparation of fish or fish products other than by gutting, decapitating, gilling,
skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling. Section 1.5 states that discharges described
1319
-------
in 40 CFR 122.3 include but are not limited to, discharges from industrial operations (e.g.
seafood processing ... are not covered by this permit). The draft permit needs to contain the
definition of seafood processing and should use the already accepted definition provided above
and include allowances for the discharges not already covered created by gutting, decapitating,
gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling as normal incidental operation of a
commercial fishing vessel. Annex V of Marpol excludes "fresh fish and parts thereof, generated
during the normal operation of the ship and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically"
... again bringing us back to the assumption that these operations should be covered under this
permit.
Effluent Limits and Related Requirements on page 2: The draft sVGP states "In the limits
below and throughout this permit, the term "minimize " means reduce and/or eliminate to the
extent achievable using control measures (including best management practices) that are
technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light o/best marine
practice". The section on definitions should contain the word "minimize" and contain this
definition, and should provide more guidance on when technologically available and/ or
economically practicable is the standard that takes precedence. The term "minimize" as defined
does not clarify the point between compliance and non-compliance and what must be recorded
and submitted on the Annual Non-compliance form.
General Requirements on page 3 section 2.1:
(b) Annex 5 of Marpol regulates garbage. This is unnecessary and duplicative language.
(d) Minimize foam or floating solids. See previous comment above about seafood processing and
the guts, gills, shells etc would be solids disposed of that might at times float for short intervals.
Foam can be created by circulating seawater for keeping shellfish species alive.
(h) EPA should develop a list of approved soaps, detergents or cleaners that meet the
requirements for non-toxic, phosphate-free and biodegradable to prevent unnecessary burden on
the commercial fishermen and unnecessary enforcement actions.
Engine and Oil Control page 4, section 2.3: UF A is concerned about the requirement in the
draft permit for environmentally acceptable lubricants being accessible in Alaska especially in
the more remote communities and the cost. The Aleutians East Borough (AEB) found one
environmentally acceptable hydraulic oil, sold in Anchorage, was more than double the cost of a
standard petroleum 5 gallon bucket. Has EPA considered the cost of switching lubricants and
oils since you generally can't just switch over and start using a synthetic product?
Solid and Liquid Waste Management on page 5, section 2.4: This section should be deleted
since Annex V of Marpol regulations cover all these situations and is referenced in section 2.11
Compliance with other Statues and Regulations.
Quarterly Visual Inspection Requirements on page 9 section 3.2 also in the Overview page
1, section 1.3: The quarterly visual inspection requirement is overly burdensome particularly in
short lived fisheries lasting about a month and then pulled out of the water such as Bristol Bay. A
more practical and less encumbered method would be a pre-season inspection, a quarterly
inspection during active fishing seasons and post-season inspection. Requiring a vessel owner to
1320
-------
go to remote locations for quarterly inspections would be costly and possibly infeasible if the
boats were buried under snow.
Definitions on page 14-18: The following definitions should be added to this section Seafood
Processing, ballast water, ballast tank, and fishing hold.
Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold Cleaning Wastewater Discharge Report (Supporting
Documents): This report contains false and misleading information. The descriptions of types of
vessels, discharges, and practices should be re-examined. It is obvious that this was written by
individuals with no knowledge of commercial fishing.
Response: Comments specifically regarding the sVGP are outside the scope of today's VGP
issuance. However, EPA notes that similar comments were submitted in the sVGP docket, and
responses will be provided upon issuance of the sVGP.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0819-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 29
Late Comment? Yes
Comment: Small VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT EPA-HO-OW-2Q11-0150 (sVGP)
First we request that in the final draft permit that the PARI form be simplified and written in
non-regulatory language (simple) eliminating the need to look up references in the Code of
Federal Register. Most fishermen find it difficult to look up the references provided in the draft
sVGP permit unless a link to the exact spot in the federal register is provided. Second we would
request that the PARI, form only require quarterly inspections in quarters that active fishing
occurred. It is easy for enforcement to prove or disapprove if a vessel participated in a
commercial fishery by fish tickets. We request that the quarterly inspection whether it is every
quarter or only in quarters where active fishing takes place how compliance will consider
quarterly reporting - do you determine the year and what is a quarter - is it exactly 90 days from
the date of the last inspections, can you assume a calendar year and perform an inspection on
March31 & another on April 1st and cover the first two quarters of the year?
Eligibility on page 1. Section 1.1: An outstanding issue is it is not clear that uninspected
charter vessels carrying passengers are covered by this permit or the exemption provided for
recreational vessels. This permit should clarify this issue.
Discharges Currently or Previously Covered by Another NPDES Permit on page 2. Section
1.4: The draft sVGP states that a vessel is not covered under this permit if covered by another
NPDES permit. Some commercial fishing vessels are permitted under the NPDES Permit AK-
G52-0000 for Alaska Seafood Processors or the AK-G52-4000 Offshore Alaska Seafood
Processors permit yet these permits do not cover all the same discharges that are covered under
the sVGP permit for the incidental discharge to the normal operation of vessels. How does a
vessel reconcile the permit applicable to their operation since neither permit covers all of the
1321
-------
operations or incidental discharges for the vessel? In addition, we noticed that the Seafood
Processors permits show more knowledge and understanding of the seafood fishing/processing
industry than EPA has shown in the draft sVGP & VGP permits, but it is still a permit
burdensome with unrealistic expectation for the fishermen to comply with.
Vessel Discharges Not Eligible for Coverage on page 1 section 1.5: The U.S. Coast Guard,
Dept of Commerce and Regional Fishery Management Councils defines "seafood processing"
means the commercial preparation of fish or fish products other than by gutting, decapitating,
gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling. Section 1.5 states that discharges
described in 40.CFR 122.3 and include but are not limited to, discharges from industrial
operations (e.g. seafood processing ... are not covered by this permit. The draft permit needs to
contain the definition of seafood processing and should use the already accepted definition
provided above and most importantly provide for allowing the discharges not already covered
created by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling
normal incidental operation of a commercial fishing vessel. Annex V of MARPOL excludes
"fresh fish and parts thereof, generated during the normal operation of the ship and liable to be
disposed of continuously or periodically" ... again bringing us back to the assumption that these
operations should be covered under this permit.
General Requirements on page 3 section 2.1:
(b) Annex5 of MARPOL regulates garbage. This is unnecessary and duplicative language.
(d) Minimize foam or floating solids. See previous comment above about seafood processing and
the guts, gills, shells etc would be solids disposed of that might at times float for short intervals.
Foam can be created by circulating seawater for keeping shellfish species alive.
(h) EPA should develop a list of approved soaps, detergents, cleaners and sanitizers that meet the
requirements for non-toxic, phosphate-free and biodegradable to prevent an unnecessary burden
on the commercial fishermen or unnecessary enforcement actions.
Engine and Oil Control page 4, section 2.3: SEAFA is concerned about the requirement in the
draft permit for environmentally acceptable lubricants being accessible in Alaska especially in
the more remote communities and the cost. The Aleutians East Borough (AEB) found one
environmentally acceptable hydraulic oil sold in Anchorage that was more than double the cost
for a 5 gallon bucket. Has EPA considered the cost of switching lubricants and oils since you
generally can't just switch over and start using a synthetic product?
Solid and Liquid Waste Management on page 5, section 2.4: This section should be deleted
since Annex V of MARPOL regulations cover all these situations and is referenced in section
2.11 Compliance with other Statues and Regulations.
Deck Washdown and Runoff and Above Water Line Hull Cleaning on page 5, section
2.5:The AK-G52-4000 Offshore Alaska Seafood Processors permit addresses the deck wash-
down issue in this section much simpler. The AK-G52-4000 permit states "Wash-down water,
which includes EPA-approved disinfectants added to the wash down water to facilitate the
removal of wastes and to maintain sanitary standards during processing or to sanitize seafood
processing areas." You could use this language and end. after ... sanitary standards. In addition
this language acknowledges that we are in the food production- industry and that, sanitation is a
1322
-------
priority. Run off of rain and seawater from waves is an act of nature and should not be required
to be permitted nor treated to meet standards.
Graywater on page 6, section 2.7: The draft permit stipulates that excess oils used during
cooking not be discharged. How is a small commercial fishing vessel with minimal galley space
going to meet a zero discharge of cooking oils when washing dishes? This sentence should be
deleted as other federal regulations make it clear that dumping a pan of cooking oil overboard is
illegal.
The EPA proposed that all vessels must minimize graywater discharges in port. (Again the
definition of "in port" would mean any place the vessel is anchored even in remote locations
taking refuge from weather and not a port as in a harbor with many vessels and likely not much
flushing action.) Most commercial fishing vessels don't have the capacity or ability to store
graywater so there is no choice but to discharge some amount of graywater when tied up in the
harbor. Vessel owners and crewmembers at times live on the vessel during the fishing' season
while in ports thus complicating the requirement to minimize graywater discharge and
production. EPA has not provided any guidance or standard of "minimize" discharge vis a vis,
compliance. SEAFA recommends that EPA strike the word "must" from this section and
encourage an operator to minimize graywater discharge as reasonably able to do so.
Fish Hold Effluent on page 7, section 2.8: The prohibition on the discharge of unused bait is
ridiculous. The bait used during the course of fishing whether on hooks or in pots would have
already introduced to the waters being fished. What makes the unused bait different? You would
already have introduced invasive species to the waterway. This section needs to be deleted and
bait that is from the local waters, been frozen or cured is exempted from any discharge
prohibitions. In other words prohibit the use of live bait that is not from the local areal water
body to prevent the spread of invasive species.
The requirements to off load fish hold effluent at a shoreside facility should be deleted and
instead a simple best management practice be recommended instead that states "fish hold
effluent pumps will be screened to prevent particles larger than a 1/2" from being pumped
overboard. Larger particles separated from the effluent must be disposed of as garbage per
Marpol Annex 5 regulations or at a shoreside facility disposal site. The restrictions of pumping
fish hold effluent and ice in port is problematic particularly with the definition of "in-port".
Requiring processors to handle all fish hold effluent is an economic hardship, causes backup in
the plants because it ties up the unloading facilities.
Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge on page 8. section 2.10: The EPA requirement to
discharge seawater cooling overboard when the vessel is underway and run on shore power when
in port is technologically infeasible. Some vessels are seawater cooled and must be run in port in
order to move, another use is refrigeration condensers and freezer plates which run continuously
while products are on board, requiring the generator/engine to circulate ambient seawater as
necessary to maintain efficient cooling. There is no way to capture this discharge so it should not
be a requirement to do so. In Alaska, adequate shore based power, is not readily or economically
available since many remote communities run on diesel generators anyways, thus there is no
alternative for vessels but to run auxiliary engines for power generation in port and out.
1323
-------
Quarterly Visual Inspection Requirements on page 9 section 3.2 also in the Overview page
1. section 1.3:The quarterly visual inspection requirement is overly burdensome particularly in
short lived fisheries lasting about a month and then pulled out of the water such as Bristol Bay. A
more practical and less burdensome method would be a quarterly inspection during active fishing
seasons. Requiring a vessel owner to go to remote locations for quarterly inspections would be
costly and possible infeasible if the boats were buried under snow.
Permit Compliance on page 11. Section 4.3: Asking for self-reporting of non-compliance
which generally tends to be an accident and not on purpose and then levying extremely high
fines tends to minimize cooperation with self-reporting requirements and the regulations
themselves.
Definitions on page 14-18. section 6: Definitions of "Fish Hold", "Ballast water" and "Ballast
Tank" should be included in these draft permits. The criteria for whether a vessel needs a VGP or
sVGP is related to length (greater or less than 79 feet) as well as capacity of ballast water
(greater or less than 8 cubic meters). While the draft permit makes the distinction in categories
between "fish hold effluent" and "ballast water", no definitions are provided.
The USCG defines ballast water in 33 CFR 151.1504 in relation to vessel stability. The
definition refers to "water and suspended matter taken on board a vessel to control or maintain,
trim, draught, stability, or stresses of the vessel" Additional clarity can be found in USCG NVIC
Circular 07-04 Change 1 (Oct 29, 2004) which states that ballast tanks filled with fresh water
from municipal or commercial water supplies do not count as ballast water. Nor do tanks .that
are permanently ballasted (with the exception of being emptied for dry docking or hauling out).
NVIC 07-04 reiterates that ballast water is related to water taken on board for trim or stability.
We recommend that EPA make it explicitly clear that water taken onboard a commercial fishing
vessel in a fish hold for purposes of fishing and tendering (fish and shellfish) is not defined as
ballast water. It should be made clear that a fish hold is not a ballast tank - regardless of whether
the fish hold is greater than 8 cubic meters or not. Additionally, that vessels with continuous
circulating ambient seawater to keep shellfish species alive is exempted from fish hold effluent,
discharge prohibitions and from considerations of being ballast water.
Additionally, the threshold of 8 cubic' meters is not the handiest unit of measure for commercial
fishing vessels. That translates to 2113 gallons = 283 cu ft = or a ballast tank that measures
slightly over 6.5' X 6.5' feet X 6.5' feet. EPA should provide units of measure more commonly
used on vessels than cubic meters.
"Oil"(sVGP section 6 page 16) The draft permit defines "oil" as "oil of any kind or in any form,
including but not limited to petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes
other than dredged spoil." Through the course of normal fishing operations, the fish which
contain naturally occurring oils both internally and externally may be released, either by contact
with fishing gear, compression in the nets, heading/gutting or other means. Depending upon the
vessel and fishing gear, fish oil residue may remain on the vessel surfaces and fishing gear" and
may, be subsequently washed overboard by precipitation, water spray, runoff, wash-downs, gear
1324
-------
deployment etc. We recommend that EPA revise the definition of Oil in the Draft VGP& sVGP
to explicitly exclude fish oils and fish oil residue or to adopt a definition of "oil" that does not
include animal based oil.
"In Port" is currently defined in the draft permit as "for the purposes of this permit, anchored,
moored, or otherwise secured while located in waters subject to this permit which are inside the
baseline of the U.S. territorial sea. A more appropriate definition would be "moored or otherwise
secured at a pier or dock".
"Seafood Processing" should be defined as the commercial preparation of fish or fish products
other than by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling.
See comments below in the sVGP section of comments.
"Vessel Length" One of the main differences between the sVGP and VGP is the 79 foot vessel
length. Length of vessel is not defined, is it overall, documented/registered length, or keel
length? SEAFA recommends that vessel length be defined.
Recordkeeping Confidentiality: EPA does not address whether the logbooks and reports
required will be considered and kept confidential or will be provided on request under the
Freedom of Information Act and citizen suit provisions. SEAFA strongly recommends that data
be kept confidential.
Economic Analysis: We briefly reviewed the economic analysis provided and find it very sparse
and difficult to read but can state that the costs estimated for Alaska (Region 10) are significantly
underestimated- for the populated areas not to mention the increased costs for rem6fe~unities.
For example the economic analysis estimates the price for OIL PADS range from $0.15 to $0.48,
the cost in Southeast Alaska is approximately $0.75 to $1.25.
sVGP Fact Sheet: Page 7 - We believe that the economic analysis underestimates the cost of
compliance and paperwork burden. For example just to perform the quarterly inspections for
some vessel operators will be thousands of dollars each trip just to travel to the vessel to perform
the inspection and a boat watcher is not qualified as the PARI form is currently written. See
comments on Economic analysis section for additional information.
Page 16 - section 3.7.1 (2nd paragraph and footnote 6) states "Vessels that are not being operated
in the capacity of a means of transportation include vessels. .. or vessels that are secured to a
storage facility or a seafood processing facility ... "is not covered under the permit. How does
this work - how can a vessel by tying up to the processor, the vessel is no longer be covered by
the sVGP and the incidental discharges be prohibited and immediately stopped? What is
happening if it is raining when you tie up to the dock - do you have to suddenly prevent any deck
runoff? Who is responsible for the incidental discharges of the vessel, the seafood processor?
This makes no sense as written in the different sections and needs to be revised and made
consistent.
Page 29 - Graywater 4.7 (2nd paragraph) The fact sheet "prohibits the addition of cooking oils to
graywater systems" while the sVGP permit states "excess oils, must not be added to the
1325
-------
graywater system or into any other discharge covered by this permit. This section should be
deleted in both areas are at least consistent with each other taking out the word "must".
EPA Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold Cleaning Wastewater Discharge Report (Supporting
Document): This report contains false and misleading information. The descriptions of types of
vessels, discharges, and practices should be reexamined. It is obvious that this was written by
individuals with no knowledge of commercial fishing.
Page 3 - 3rd paragraph: We believe that the statement, Almost all purse seiners, tenders and
crabbing vessels have RSW systems, while hook ,and line and set net vessels use ice tanks. A
vessel with an installed RSW system would not use the tanks as ice tanks even if their gear type
changed." To state that most crabbing vessels have RSW tanks is not accurate. The vessels that
SEAFA represent are multi-gear and the type of refrigeration depends upon the vesse. 1 and the
species/fishery. There are vessels, that have RSW systems installed on board that will use the
RSW for salmon, circulating seawater for crab and ice for halibut.
Page 4-2.1 Lobster/Crabber - 1st paragraph: Vessels catch Dungeness, king and snow crab are
typically 50 feet and 150 feet in length and are larger than crab boats used along the East Coast
and Gulf Coast for catching blue crabs. This is untrue in Southeast Alaska, Dungeness crab boats
are open skiffs to larger vessels, SE Red King Crab, Golden King Crab and Tanner crab vessels
are average length of 45 foot to 80 foot, while crab vessels in the Bering Sea are probably closer
to 100 to 150 feet in length.
Page 4- 2.3 Fish Tenders: Tenders participate in a variety of fisheries including but not limited to
crab, salmon, groundfish, and halibut. In Southeast Alaska tenders purchase on the grounds all
species of salmon not just chum, they also tender in other fisheries such as crab.
Page 5 - 2.4 Gillnetter: In Alaska, most salmon caught by gillnetters are sold and delivered in the
round not gutted on-board as provided in the description. Not all fish harvested by a gillnetter are
dead when pulled onboard. Whether a fish is alive or dead is dependent upon the amount of time
between setting and picking the net. Fishermen are encouraged to keep their nets picked often in
order to produce a better quality product (i.e. pick the net while the fish are alive).
Page 5-2.5 Longliner: In Alaska, longliners are quite diverse in length from skiffs to large
vessels and it is impossible to put an average size to the vessels just as you can't generalize the
length of a longline and the amount of soak time. In many areas in Alaska if you soaked a
longline more than 6 hours you wouldn't have a fish left because of the sand fleas. Some
longlines are fairly short with a hundred hooks. The fact sheet also misquotes Alaska Longline
Fishermen's Association that some longliners "clean their fish holds between each off-load while
others add fresh ice . to the tanks before leaving on another fishing trip and dean their fish holds
periodically". What Attachment A (page A-4) states is .that "long liners almost always clean
their tanks between each offload".
Page 10 - Section 4, 4th paragraph: It states that "small fishing vessels such as salmon trailers
and longliners in Alaska, off-load the catch daily and also clean the fish hold tanks daily. "In the,
descriptions previous, you describe trailers as skiffs to large ocean-going vessels and Longliners
1326
-------
as vessels typically 50 to 100 feet so how did they now get to be small vessels. We also do not
believe that even the small vessels within these fleets deliver daily and clean the fish hold tanks
daily. A typical trip would be five days long. Occasionally a vessel will do a short day trip for a
variety of reasons but it is -not the standard for the majority of troll species harvested and
longline trips, unless the amount of quota left to harvest is that small.
Page 11 -'Table should be reevaluated completely. Since you are using the US Coast Guard
database for vessels and not factoring in state registered vessels, we believe that you have not
accurately reflected the fishing fleet in Alaska. (We can't speak for the rest of the Country since
we are not familiar with the different fisheries.)
Page 12 - Section 5, 3rd paragraph: The description of Seafood Producers Cooperative (SPC)
located in Sitka, Alaska is in inaccurate. The majority of their fleet is made up of Trailers,
followed by long liners and then gillnetters.
Page 14 - Section 6, 2nd paragraph: While some facilities may have the capability to accept fish
hold effluent, you are not considering the economic impact on the seafood processor in terms of
cost (Alaska is high electricity costs, lost production because unloading the ice is taking the same
length of time as it would for the next vessel to unload, and the workforce/labor to handle the
dirty ice/fish hold effluent This is not practical. The 'draft sVGP permit did not consider those
areas including harbors and by processing plants where there is sufficient tidal action that fish
hold effluent shouldn't be an issue due to the flushing action in the area.
Attachment A - page A-2: Telephone Call Record for Sitka Sound Co-op - name is actually
Seafood Producers Cooperative (SPC) it states in the third paragraph that, "Salmon and Black
Cod are sold as whole fish so require little processing at the facility itself." While this is true of
black cod, the majority of the salmon are troll dressed (Le. gutted & gilled).
Attachment A - page A-7: Telephone Call Record for United Fishermen of Alaska. In the third
paragraph, it states that an installed RSW system would not use the tanks as ice tanks even if
their gear type changed. This is not necessarily true, some vessels with RSW capability will still
use slush ice or ice depending upon the fishery they are participating in and the cost that the
processors will pay for the type of chilling system used. Processors will on some species pay
more for fish that are RSW chilled and therefore it is cost effective for the fishermen to run the
engine for the RSW. If the processor isn't paying the extra money then the fisherman might
choose to get ice from the processor and use slush ice instead. Processors prefer halibut to be dry
iced rather than held in slush ice or RSW.
Conclusion: These proposed permits will affect 10,000 commercial fishing vessels in Alaska.
Within Alaska there is a very diverse range of fishing vessels in regards to length; gear type and
area of operation. The current draft permits attempts to impose uniform regulations across
broadly diverse fleets with little consideration given to the inherent diversity as well as other
types of vessels. The draft permits proposed include duplicative, unnecessary, and unduly
burdensome provisions for commercial fishing vessels in Alaska in the aggregate as well as
presenting specific issues and problems for vessels participating in specific fisheries. The
number of fishing vessels is a big enough universe that a permit for the commercial fishing
1327
-------
industry sector would have been appropriate and would have provided a better fit for conditions
and best management practices and would have made all fishing vessels participating in the same
fisheries to meet the same standards.
At a minimum we request that you seriously consider the recommendations provided by
commercial fishing associations and processors as you proceed forward or start a process that
would provide for stakeholder involvement. The hearings held on this permit were held on the
East Coast and none in Alaska or the West Coast where the greatest concentration of commercial
fishing boats are located.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this serious issue that will have far
reaching economic effects on our members. Should you have any questions or need additional
information regarding these comments or other issues raised in the draft sVGP, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Response: Comments specifically regarding the sVGP are outside the scope of today's VGP
issuance. However, EPA notes that similar comments were submitted in the sVGP docket, and
responses will be provided upon issuance of the sVGP.
1328
------- |