## U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2008 Final Issuance of 

# National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel General Permit (VGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of
Vessels
Fact Sheet

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Action: Notice of NPDES General PermitVessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. General Information......................................................................................................... ....... 1 1.1 Does this Action Apply to Me? ...................................................................................... 1
1.2 Public Comment............................................................................................................. . 1
1.3 Further Information........................................................................................................ . 1 2. Background.................................................................................................................. ........... 2
2.1 The Clean Water Act ...................................................................................................... 2 2.2 History of the Exclusion of Vessels from the NPDES Permitting Program................... 2 2.3 Legal Challenge to the Exclusion of Vessels.................................................................. 3
2.4 Court Decisions............................................................................................................ ... 4 2.5 Congressional Legislation............................................................................................... 5
2.6 General Permits............................................................................................................ ... 6 2.7 EPA’s Federal Register Notice Soliciti ng Information on Vessel Discharges............... 6 2.8 Comments Received on this proposed Permit ................................................................ 7 2.9 Economic Impacts........................................................................................................... 7
3. The Permit.................................................................................................................. ............. 9 3.1 Geographic Scope of the Permit ..................................................................................... 9 3.2 Structure of the Permit (Part 1.1).................................................................................. 10 3.3 What is the Vessel Universe Affected by This Permit?................................................ 10 3.4 Regulation of Constituents in th e Discharges Under the Permit .................................. 12 3.4.1 Aquatic Nuisance Species..................................................................................... 13
3.4.2 Nutrients................................................................................................................ 14 3.4.3 Pathogens .............................................................................................................. 16
3.4.4 Oil and Grease....................................................................................................... 17
3.4.5 Metals................................................................................................................... . 18
3.4.6 Toxic and Non-Conventional Pollu tants with Toxic Effects................................ 19
3.4.7 Other Non-Conventional a nd Conventional Pollutants (Except Fecal Coliform) 20 3.5 Coverage Under the Permit........................................................................................... 22 3.5.1 Eligibility (Part 1.2) .............................................................................................. 22
3.5.1.1 Deck Washdown and Runoff and A bove Water Line Hull Cleaning............... 23 3.5.1.2 Bilgewater......................................................................................................... 23
3.5.1.3 Ballast Water..................................................................................................... 23 3.5.1.4 Anti-Fouling Leachate from Anti-Fouling Hull Coatings ................................ 23 3.5.1.5 Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF).............................................................. 24
3.5.1.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown.......................................................................... 24
3.5.1.7 Cathodic Protection........................................................................................... 24
3.5.1.8 Chain Locker Effluent....................................................................................... 24 3.5.1.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and other Oil to Sea Interfaces including Lubricati on discharges from Paddle Wh eel Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Thruster Bearings, Stabilizers, Rudder B earings, Azimuth Thrust ers, Propulsion Pod Lubrication, and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment Subject to Immersion. ............ 24
3.5.1.10 Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine ....................................................... 25
3.5.1.11 Elevator Pit Effluent ..................................................................................... 25 3.5.1.12 Firemain Systems.......................................................................................... 25 3.5.1.13 Freshwater Layup.......................................................................................... 25

iVessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

3.5.1.14 Gas Turbine Water Wash.............................................................................. 26 3.5.1.15 Graywater...................................................................................................... 26 3.5.1.16 Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge ............................................. 26 3.5.1.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater................................................................. 26 3.5.1.18 Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge ............................................... 26 3.5.1.19 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (Including Non-Contact Engine Cooling Water, Hydraulic System Cooling Water, Refrigeration Cooling Water) .......... 26 3.5.1.20 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention........................................................ 27 3.5.1.21 Boat Engine Wet Exhaust ............................................................................. 27 3.5.1.22 Sonar Dome Discharge ................................................................................. 27 3.5.1.23 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges...................................................... 27 3.5.1.24 Welldeck Discharges .................................................................................... 27 3.5.1.25 Graywater Mixed with Sewage from Vessels............................................... 27 3.5.1.26 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge............................................... 28 3.5.2 Discharge Types Specifically Not Authorized By This Permit............................ 28 3.5.2.1 Discharges not Subject to Former NP DES Permit Exclusion including Vessels Being Operated in a Capacity other th an as a Means of Transportation .......................... 28 3.5.2.2 Sewage from Vessels ........................................................................................ 29 3.5.2.3 Used or Spent Oil.............................................................................................. 29 3.5.2.4 Rubbish, Trash, Garbage or Other Materials Discharged Overboard............... 29 3.5.2.5 Photo Processing Waste.................................................................................... 29 3.5.2.6 Effluent from Dry Cleaning Operations ........................................................... 29 3.5.2.7 Discharges of Medical Wast e and Related Materials ....................................... 30 3.5.2.8 Discharges of Noxious Liqui d Substance (NLS) Residues .............................. 30 3.5.2.9 Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) degreasers........................................ 30 3.5.2.10 Discharges Currently or Previ ously Covered by Another Permit................. 30 3.6 Permit Compliance (Part 1.4) ....................................................................................... 31 3.7 Authorization Under the Permit (Part 1.5).................................................................... 31 3.7.1 No Requirement to Submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Certain Vessels............ 31 3.7.2 How to Obtain Authorization (Part 1.5.1) ............................................................ 33 3.7.2.1 Owner/Operators Required to Submit NOIs (Part 1.5.1.1)............................... 33 3.7.2.2 Owner/Operators Not Required to Submit NOIs (Part 1.5.1.2)........................ 34 3.7.3 Continuation of the Permit (Part 1.5.2)................................................................. 35 3.8 Terminating Coverage (Part 1.6) .................................................................................. 35 3.8.1 Submitting a Notice of Termination (NOT) (Part 1.6.1.1) ................................... 35
3.8.2 When to Submit a Notice of Term ination (Part 1.6.1.2 and Part 1.6.2) ............... 35 3.8.2.1 Terminating Coverage for Vessels Required to Submit an NOI ...................... 35 3.8.2.2 Terminating Coverage for Vessels not Required to Submit an NOI ................ 36 3.9 Certification (Part 1.7) .................................................................................................. 36 3.10 Alternative Permits (Part 1.8) ....................................................................................... 37 3.10.1 EPA Requiring Coverage under an Alternative Permit (Part 1.8.1)..................... 37 3.10.2 Permittee Requesting Coverage under an Alternative Permit (Part 1.8.2) ........... 37 3.11 Permit Reopener Clause (Part 1.9)................................................................................ 37 3.12 Ocean Discharge Criteria.............................................................................................. 38 3.13 Other Conditions (Parts 1.11, 1.12, and 1.13) .............................................................. 40
4. Effluent Limitations........................................................................................................ ...... 41

iiVessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

4.1 Background................................................................................................................. .. 41 4.1.1 The Clean Water Act Requires EPA to Develop Effluent Limitations that Represent the Following: ...................................................................................................... 4 1 4.1.1.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) ................... 41
4.1.1.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)................................. 41 4.1.1.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)......................... 42
4.1.2 Numeric Limitations Are Infeasible ..................................................................... 42 4.2 Technology-Based Effluent Limits............................................................................... 43 4.2.1 Types of Technology-Based Effluent Limits........................................................ 43 4.2.2 Inclusion of Non-Numeric Technolog y-Based Limits in NPDES Permits .......... 44 4.2.3 EPA’s Decision to Include Non-Numeric Technology-Based Effluent Limits in This Permit and Rationale for Why the Limits Represent the Appropriate (BPT, BCT or BAT) Level of Control.......................................................................................................... 45 4.3 Technology-Based Effluent Limits and related requirements in the Permit................. 49 4.3.1 General Effluent Limits (Part 2.1) ........................................................................ 49 4.3.1.1 Material Storage (Part 2.1.1)............................................................................. 49 4.3.1.2 Toxic and Hazardous Materials (Part 2.1.2) ..................................................... 50 4.3.1.3 Fuel Spills/Overflows (Part 2.1.3) .................................................................... 50 4.3.1.4 Discharges of Oil, Including Oily Mixtures (Part 2.1.4) .................................. 51 4.3.1.5 Compliance with Other Statutes a nd Regulations Applicable to Vessel Discharges (Part 2.1.5)...................................................................................................... 51 4.4 Effluent Limits and related requirements fo r Specific Discharge Cate gories (Part 2.2) ..

.............................................................................................................................. ......... 54 4.4.1 Deck Washdown and Runoff including A bove Water Line Hull Cleaning (Part 2.2.1) ........................................................................................................................ ....... 54 4.4.2 Bilgewater (Part 2.2.2).......................................................................................... 55 4.4.3 Ballast Water (Part 2.2.3)...................................................................................... 56 4.4.3.1 Mandatory Exchange for Vessels Enga ged in Pacific Nearshore Voyages...... 59 4.4.3.2 Mandatory Saltwater Flushing.......................................................................... 60 4.4.3.3 Vessels that Complete Ballast Water Exchange Must Do So as Early as
Practicable......................................................................................................................... 62 4.4.3.4 Requirements for Tankers Engaged in the Coastwise Trade............................ 62 4.4.3.5 Development of a Living Or ganism Discharge Standard................................. 62
4.4.3.6 Onshore Treatment............................................................................................ 63 4.4.4 Antifouling Hull Coating Leachate (Part 2.2.4).................................................... 64 4.4.5 Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) (Part 2.2.5) .............................................. 65 4.4.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown (Part 2.2.6) .......................................................... 67 4.4.7 Cathodic Protection (Part 2.2.7)............................................................................ 67 4.4.8 Chain Locker Effluent (Part 2.2.8) ....................................................................... 68 4.4.9 Controllable Pitch Propelle r (CPP) and Thruster Hydrau lic Fluid and other Oil to Sea Interfaces including Lubr ication Discharges from Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Thruster Bearings, Stabilizers Rudder Bearings, Azimuth Thrusters, and Propulsion Pod Lubrication and Wire Rope and Mechan ical Equipment Subject to Immersion........... 68
4.4.10 Distillation and Reverse Os mosis Brine (Part 2.2.10) .......................................... 70 4.4.11 Elevator Pit Effluent (Part 2.2.11) ........................................................................ 70 4.4.12 Firemain Systems (Part 2.2.12)............................................................................. 70

iiiVessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

4.4.13 Freshwater Layup (Part 2.2.13) ............................................................................ 71 4.4.14 Gas Turbine Wash Water (Part 2.2.14)................................................................. 71 4.4.15 Graywater (Part 2.2.15)......................................................................................... 71 4.4.16 Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge (Part 2.2.16) ................................ 72 4.4.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater (Part 2.2.17).................................................... 73 4.4.18 Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge (Part 2.2.18) .................................. 73 4.4.19 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (Including Non-Contac t Engine Cooling Water; Hydraulic System Cooling Water, Re frigeration Cooling Water) (Part 2.2.20)....... 73 4.4.20 Seawater Piping Biofouli ng Prevention (Part 2.2.21)........................................... 74 4.4.21 Boat Wet Engine Exhaust (Part 2.2.22)................................................................ 74 4.4.22 Sonar Dome Discharge (Part 2.2.23) .................................................................... 75 4.4.23 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges (Part 2.2.25)......................................... 75 4.4.24 Welldeck Discharges (Part 2.2.26) ....................................................................... 76 4.4.25 Discharges of Graywater C ontaining Sewage (Part 2.2.27) ................................. 76 4.4.26 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge (Part 2.2.28).................................. 77 4.5 Water Quality-Based Efflue nt Limits (Part 2.3)........................................................... 78 5. Corrective Actions (Part 3) ................................................................................................. .. 81 5.1 Purpose of Corrective Action Schedules ...................................................................... 81 6. Inspections, Monitoring, Reporti ng, Recordkeeping (Part 4)............................................... 83 6.1 Self-Inspections and monitoring (Part 4.1)................................................................... 83 6.2 Drydocking Inspection Reports .................................................................................... 84 6.3 Recordkeeping Requirements (Parts 4.2 and 4.3)......................................................... 85 6.4 Reporting (Part 4.4) ...................................................................................................... 8 6 7. Additional technology based and related Pe rmit Requirements Based on Class of Vessel (Vessel Class-Specific Requirements) (Part 5)............................................................................. 88 7.1 Large Cruise Ships (Part 5.1)........................................................................................ 88 7.1.1 Graywater Management........................................................................................ 88
7.1.1.1 Pierside Limits .................................................................................................. 90 7.1.1.2 Operational Limits ............................................................................................ 90 7.1.1.3 Limits Applicable to Operation in Nutrient Impaired Waters .......................... 91 7.1.1.4 Graywater Treatment Standards ....................................................................... 91 7.1.1.5 Sculleries and Galleys....................................................................................... 91
7.1.1.6 Other Materials ................................................................................................. 92 7.1.1.7 Pool and Spa Discharges................................................................................... 92 7.1.2 Monitoring Requirements (Part 5.1.2).................................................................. 93 7.1.2.1 Untreated Graywater......................................................................................... 93 7.1.2.2 Treated Graywater ............................................................................................ 93 7.1.2.3 Initial Monitoring.............................................................................................. 94 7.1.2.4 Maintenance Monitoring................................................................................... 94 7.1.2.5 Treated Pool and Spa Discharges (5.1.2.3)....................................................... 94 7.1.2.6 Monitoring Reporting ....................................................................................... 95 7.1.2.7 Reserved Authority ........................................................................................... 95 7.1.3 Education and Training Re quirements [Part 5.1.3] .............................................. 95 7.2 Medium Cruise Ships [Part 5.2].................................................................................... 96 7.2.1 Differences between the Requirements for Large Cruise Ships and Medium Cruise Ships .......................................................................................................................... 97

ivVessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

v 7.2.1.1 Different Requirements in Nutr ient Impaired Estuaries ................................... 97 7.2.1.2 Differences in Annual Reporting Requirements to EPA. ................................. 97 7.2.1.3 Differences for Existing Medium Cruise Ships Unable to Voyage more than 1 nm from Shore and Any Ne w Medium Cruise Ship......................................................... 98 7.3 Large Ferries [Part 5.3]................................................................................................. 98 7.4 Barges (including hopper barges, chemical ba rges, fuel barges, crane barges, dry bulk cargo barges) [Part 5.4]....................................................................................................... .... 100 7.5 Oil and Petroleum Tankers [Part 5.5] ......................................................................... 101 7.6 Research Vessels [Part 5.6]......................................................................................... 101 7.7 Emergency Vessels [Part 5.7]..................................................................................... 102 7.8 Vessels employing experimental Ballast Water Treatment Systems [Part 5.8].......... 102 8. State or Tribal Requirements [Part 6] ................................................................................. 106 9. Definitions [Part 7] ........................................................................................................ ..... 107 10. Notice of Intent and Notice of Termination [parts 10 and 11] ....................................... 108 11. Waters Federally Protected wholly or in part for Conservation Purposes [part 12]....... 109 12. Other Legal Requirements .............................................................................................. 110 12.1 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) ................................................................... 110
12.2 Essential Fish Habitat Consultation............................................................................ 110 12.3 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act...................................................... 110 12.4 Oil Spill Requirements................................................................................................ 111 12.5 Paperwork Reduction Act........................................................................................... 111
13. References................................................................................................................. ...... 112

Table 1: Estimates of Invasive Specie s in Several Major Water Systems.................................... 13
Table 2: AWT Effluent Concentrati ons and Removals for Nutrients........................................... 89Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

1 1. 

### GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 D OES THIS A CTION A PPLY TO M E ?

This action applies to all vesse ls operating in a capacity as a means of transportation, except recreational vessels as defined in CWA §502(25), P.L. 110-288, that have discharges incidental to their normal operations into waters subject to this permit. With respect to (1) commercial fishing vessels of any size as de fined in 46 U.S.C. § 2101 and (2) those nonrecreational vessels that are less than 79 feet in lengt h, the coverage under this permit is limited to ballast water discharges only and these vessels generally do not require permit coverage for other discharges. Unless otherw ise excluded from coverage by Pa rt 6 of the permit, waters subject to this permit, means waters of the U.S. as define d in 40 CFR§122.2. That provision
defines “waters of the U.S.” as certain inland wate rs and the territorial sea, which extends three miles from the baseline (as used in this document, mile means nautical mile, i.e

., 6076 feet). 1 Note that the Clean Water Act (CWA) does not require NPDES permits for vessels or other floating craft operating as a means of transpor tation beyond the territorial seas, i.e., in the contiguous zone or ocean as defi ned by the CWA §§ 502(9), (10). See CWA §502(12) and 40 CFR §122.2 (definition of “discharge of a pollutant ”). This permit, therefore, does not apply in
such waters.

1.2 P UBLIC C OMMENT

EPA received over 170 comments and attachments on the proposed permit. EPA has prepared a response to comments document which is available in the docket for this permit.
Comments were used to inform decision maki ng in finalizing this final permit and EPA’s responses are reflected in the response to comment document available in today’s docket.

Supporting information and materials for this permit are included in Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OW-2008-0055 available at: www.regulations.gov

.

1.3 F URTHER I NFORMATION

For further information on the final VGP, please send an email to commercialvesselpermit@epa.gov or contact Ryan Albert at ( 202) 564-0763 or Juhi Saxena at (202) 564-0719.

1 More specifically, CWA section 502(8) de fines “territorial seas” as “the belt of the seas measured from the line of the ordinary low water along that portion of the coast wh ich is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters, an d extending seaward a distance of three miles.”Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

2. 

### BACKGROUND

2.1 T HE C LEAN W ATER A CT

Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA ) provides that “the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful” unless the discharge is in compliance with certain other sections of the Act. 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). Th e CWA defines “discharge of a pollutant” as “(A) any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, (B) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of th e contiguous zone or the ocean fr om any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(12) . A “point source” is a “discernible, confined and discrete conveyance” and incl udes a “vessel or other floati ng craft.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(14).”

The term “pollutant” includes, among other things, “garbage... chemical wastes ...and industrial, municipal, and agri cultural waste discharged into water.” The Act's definition of “pollutant” specifically excludes “sewage from ve ssels or a discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces” within the meaning of CWA §312. 33 U.S.C. 1362(6).

One way a person may discharge a pollutant without violating the section 301 prohibition is by obtaining authorization to discharge (refer red to herein as “cove rage”) under a section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syst em (NPDES) permit (33 U.S.C. 1342). Under section 402(a), EPA may “issue a permit for the di scharge of any pollutant , or combination of pollutants, notwithstanding section 1311(a)” upo n certain conditions required by the Act.

2.2 H ISTORY OF THE E XCLUSION OF V ESSELS FROM THE NPDES P ERMITTING P ROGRAM

Less than one year after the CWA was en acted, EPA promulgated a regulation that excluded discharges incidental to the normal operation of ve ssels from NPDES permitting. 38 FR 13528, May 22, 1973. After Congress re-author ized and amended the CWA in 1977, EPA invited another round of public comment on the regulation. 43 FR 37078, August 21, 1978. In 1979, EPA promulgated the final revi sion that established the regul ation largely in its current form. 44 FR 32854, June 7, 1979. That regulation identi fies several types of vessel discharges as being subject to NPDES permitting, but specifically excludes discha rges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. The exclusion reads:

The following discharges do not require NPDES permits:

(a) Any discharge of sewage from vessels, e ffluent from properly functioning marine engines, laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes, or any ot her discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. This excl usion does not apply to rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials dischargedoverboard; nor to other discharges when the vessel is operating in a cap acity other than as a means of transportation such as when used as an energy or mining facility, a storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to a storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when
secured to the bed of the ocea n, contiguous zone or waters of the United States for the purpose of mineral or oil explora tion or development. 40 CFR 122.3(a).

2Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

Although other subsections of 40 CFR 122.3 and its predecessor were th e subject of legal challenges (See NRDC v. Costle , 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977)), following its promulgation, the regulatory text relevant to discharges in cidental to the normal ope ration of vessels went unchallenged, and has been in effect ever since.

2.3 L EGAL C HALLENGE TO THE E XCLUSION OF V ESSELS

In December 2003, the long-standing exclusion of discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels from the NPDES program b ecame the subject of a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit arose from a January 13, 1999, rulemaking petition submitted to EPA by a number of parties concerned about the effects of ballast water discharges. The pe tition asked the Agency to re peal its regulation at 40 CFR 122.3(a) that excludes certain disc harges incidental to the norma l operation of vessels from the requirement to obtain an NPDES permit. The petiti on asserted that vessels are “point sources” requiring NPDES permits for discharges to U.S. waters; that EPA lacks authority to exclude point source discharges from vessels from th e NPDES program; that ballast water must be regulated under the NPDES program because it cont ains invasive plant and animal species as well as other materials of concern (e.g., oil, chip ped paint, sediment and toxins in ballast water sediment) and; that enactment of CWA section 312(n) (Uniform National Discharge Standards, also known as the UNDS program) demonstrated Congress’ rejection of the exclusion.

In response to the 1999 petition, EPA first prep ared a detailed report for public comment, Aquatic Nuisance Species in Ballast Water Discharges: Issues and Options (September 10, 2001). See 66 FR 49381, September 27, 2001. After considering the comments received, EPA declined to reopen the exclusion for additional rulemaking, and denied the petition on September 2, 2003. EPA explained that since enactment of th e CWA, EPA has consiste ntly interpreted the Act to provide for NPDES regulation of discharges from industrial operati ons that incidentally occur onboard vessels (e.g., seafood processing facilities or oil exploration operations at sea) and of discharges overboard of materi als such as trash, but not of di scharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel (e.g., ballast water) subjec t to the 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion. EPA further explained that Congress had expressly considered and accepted the Agency’s regulation in the years since its promulgation, and th at Congress chose to regulate discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels through programs other than CWA section 402 permitting. Thus, it was EPA’s understanding that Congress had acquies ced to EPA’s long-sta nding interpretation of how the CWA applies to vessels.

Denial of the petition did not reflect EPA’s dismissal of the significant impacts of aquatic invasive species, but rather the understandi ng that other programs had been enacted to specifically address the issue and that the CW A does not currently provide an appropriate framework for addressing ballast water and othe r discharges incidental to the normal operation of non-military vessels.

In the denial of the petition, EPA noted th at when Congress specifically focused on the problem of aquatic nuisance species in ballast wa ter, it did not look to or endorse the NPDES program as the means to address the problem. Instead, Congress enacted new statutes which directed and authorized the U.S. Coast Guard, rath er than EPA, to establish a regulatory program for discharges incidental to the normal ope ration of vessels, incl uding ballast water (e.g.,

3Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention an d Control Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. 4701 et

seq .; Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq .) Furthermore, Congress made no effort to legislatively repeal EPA’s interp retation of the NPDES program or to expressly mandate that discharges incide ntal to the normal operation of vessels be addressed through the NPDES permitting program. EPA reasoned that this Congressional action and inaction in light of Congress’ awareness of the regulatory excl usion confirmed that Congress accepted EPA’s interpretation and chose the Coast Guard as the lead agency under other statutes.

In addition, EPA found signifi cant practical and policy r easons not to re-open the longstanding CWA regulatory exclusion, reasoning that there are a number of ongoing activities within the Federal government rela ted to control of invasive speci es in ballast water, many of which are likely to be more effective and effi cient than use of NPDES permits under the CWA. EPA also noted that nothing in the CWA prevents states from independe ntly regulating ballast water discharges under State law, should they choose to do so, pursuant to CWA section 510.

After EPA’s September 2003 denial of the petitio n, a number of groups filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Northwest Envtl. Advocates et al. v.
United States EPA , 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5373 (N.D. Cal 2005). The complaint was brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq., and set out two causes of action. First, the complaint challe nged EPA’s promulgation of 40 CFR 122.3(a), an action the Agency took in 1973. The second cause of action challenged EPA’s September 2003 denial of their petition to repe al the Section 122.3(a) exclusion.

2.4 C OURT D ECISIONS

On March 30, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Northern Dist rict of California determined that the exclusion exceeded the Ag ency’s authority under the CWA. Specifically, the District Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs:

The Court DECLARES that EPA’s exclus ion from NPDES permit requirements for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel at 40 CFR 122.3(a) is in excess of the Agency’s authority under the Clean Water Act . . .

Northwest Envtl. Advocates et al. v. United States EPA , 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5373 (N.D. Cal2005)

After this ruling, the Court gran ted motions to intervene on beha lf of the Plaintiffs by the States of Illinois, New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and on behalf of the Government-Defendant by the Sh ipping Industry Ballast Water Coalition.

Following submission of briefs and oral ar gument by the parties and intervenors on the issue of a proper remedy, the District Court i ssued a final order in September 2006 providing
that:

The blanket exemption for discharges incide ntal to the normal operation of a vessel, contained in 40 CFR 122.3(a), shall be vacated as of September 30, 2008.

4Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

Northwest Envtl. Advocates et al. v. United States EPA , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69476 (N.D. Cal. 2006)

EPA appealed the District Court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit, and on July 23, 2008, the Court upheld the decision. Northwest Envtl. Ad vocates v. EPA, 537 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2008). EPA subsequently petitioned the District Court to extend the date for vacatur of the 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion to December 19, 2008; on August 31, 2008 the District Court granted this request. Northwest Envtl. Advocates et al. v. United States EPA, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66738 (N.D. Cal. August 31, 2008).

This means that, effective December 19, 2008, except for those vessels exempted from NPDES permitting by Congressional legislation (see Part 2.5 of this Fact Sheet), discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels currently excluded from NPDES permitting by 40 CFR 122.3(a), will be subject to CWA section 301’s prohibition against discharging, unless covered under an NPDES permit. The CWA auth orizes civil and criminal enforcement for violations of that prohibition and also allows for citizen suits against violators.

2.5 C ONGRESSIONAL L EGISLATION

In late July 2008, Congress enacted two pieces of legislation to exempt discharges incidental to the normal operation of certain type s of vessels from the need to obtain an NPDES permit.

The first of these, entitled the Clean Boati ng Act of 2008, amends the CWA to provide that discharges incidental to the normal operation of recreational vessels are not subject to NPDES permitting, and instead, creates a new regulatory re gime to be implemented by EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard under new 312(o) of the CWA. S. 2766, Pub. L. 110-188 (July 29, 2008). As defined in § 3 of that law, recr eational vessels subject to its NP DES exclusion are any vessel that is manufactured or used primarily for pleasure or leased, rented, or chartered to a person for the pleasure of that person, but do not include a vessel that is subject to Coast Guard inspection and that is engaged in commercial use or carries pa ying passengers. As a resu lt of this legislation, discharges incidental to the normal operation of recreational vessels are not subject to NPDES permitting and are not included in the VGP.

The second piece of legislation provides for a temporary moratorium on NPDES permitting for discharges subject to the 40 CFR 1 22.3(a) exclusion from (1) commercial fishing vessels (as defined in 46 U.S.C. § 2101 and regardless of size) and (2) from those other nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. S. 3298, Pub. L. 110-299 (July 31, 2008). The statute’s NPDES permitting moratorium runs fo r a two year period beginning on its July 31, 2008 enactment date, during which time EPA is to study the relevant discharges and submit a report to Congress. In addition, the statute’s NPDES permitting moratorium does not extend to ballast water discharges. That moratorium also does not extend to other discharges, which on case-by-case basis, EPA or the State, as appropriate, determine contribute to a violation of water quality standards or pose an unacceptable risk to hu man health or the environment. As a result of this legislation, except for any ballast water disc harges, discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial fishing vessels (regardless of size) and those other non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length ar e not currently subject to the VGP.

5Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

2.6 G ENERAL P ERMITS

An NPDES permit authorizes the discharge of a specified amount of a pollutant or pollutants into a receiving wa ter under certain conditions. Th e two basic types of NPDES permits are individual and gene ral permits. Typically dischargers seeking coverage under a general permit are required to submit a notice of intent (NOI) to be covered by the permit. Section III(e) of this f act sheet discusses the NOI requireme nts of the permit in more detail.

An individual permit is a permit specifically tailored for an individual discharger. Upon receiving the appropriate application(s), the permitting authority generally develops a draft permit for public comment for that particular di scharger based on the information contained in the permit application (e.g., type of activity, nature of discharg e, receiving water quality). Following consideration of public comments, a final permit may then be issu ed to the discharger for a specific time period (not to exceed 5 year s), with a provision for reapplying for further permit coverage prior to the expiration date.

A general permit is also subj ect to public comment and is developed and issued by a permitting authority (in this case, EPA). A general permit covers multiple facilities within a specific category for a specific period of time ( not to exceed 5 years), after which the permit expires. Like individual permits, general permits may be re-issued. Under 40 CFR 122.28, general permits may be written to cover categories of point sources having common elements,
such as facilities that involve the same or subs tantially similar types of operations, that discharge the same types of wastes, or that are more appr opriately regulated by a general permit. Given the vast number of vessels requiring NPDES permit c overage and the discharges common to these vessels, EPA believes that it makes administrative sense to issue the general permit, rather than issuing individual permits to eachvessel. Courts have approved of the use of general permits.

See e.g., Natural Res. Def. Council v. Costle , 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977); EDC v. US EPA

, 344 F.3d 832, 853 (9 th Cir. 2003). The general permit approach allows EPA to allocate resources in a more efficient manner and to provide more ti mely coverage, particularly in light of the time constraints imposed by the Court’s vacatur. As with any permit, the CW A requires the general permit to contain technology-base d effluent limits, as well as a ny more stringent limits when necessary to meet applicable state water quality standards. State water quality standards apply in the territorial seas, defined in section 502(8) of the CWA as extending three miles from the
baseline. Pacific Legal Foundation v. Costle , 586 F.2d 650, 655-656 (9 th Cir. 1978); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. EPA , 863 F.2d 1420, 1435 (9 th Cir. 1988). In addition, discharges to the territorial seas are required to meet requirements to comply with section 403(c) of the CWA Ocean Discharge Criteria (40 CFR Part 125 Subpart M). As discussed in III(a)(v) of this fact sheet, the owner/opera tor of a vessel, after being cove red by the permit, may request to be excluded from such coverage by applying fo r an individual permit. In addition, EPA may subsequently require a vessel to obtain an indi vidual permit instead of receiving coverage under the general permit.

2.7 EPA’ S F EDERAL R EGISTER N OTICE S OLICITING I NFORMATION ON V ESSEL D ISCHARGES

On June 21, 2007, EPA issued a Federal Register notice to provide the public with early notice of EPA's intent to begin development of NPDES permits under section 402 of the CWA for discharges incidental to the normal ope ration of vessels. The notice sought relevant

6Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

7 information from the public to further help the Agency in the timely development of an NPDES permitting framework, which the Agency had not gath ered to date for discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels. The notice request ed information and technical input from the public on matters associated with the development of such permits , such as existing public and private data sources available for use in id entifying, categorizing, and describing the numbers and various types of commercial and recreational vessels currently operati ng in waters of the U.S. and that may have discharges incidental to their normal operation. Desirable information
included either citations to data bases or documents where such information is available, or, the
submission of actual information on vessel numbe rs and categories together with supporting citations to the underlying source. See the Fact Sheet for the proposed permit for a detailed
discussion of comments received in response to this notice.

2.8 C OMMENTS R ECEIVED ON THIS PROPOSED P ERMIT

EPA announced the availability of this proposed permit in the Federal Register on June 17, 2008. In that notice, EPA established a 45-da y comment period, ending August 1, 2008. EPA’s Docket registered more than 170 comment submissions, totaling 3102 pages (including attachments) on the draft VGP. Comments were r eceived from numerous stakeholders, including states, local governments, industry groups, e nvironmental groups, and private citizens. Commenters raised a wide range of technical, policy, legal, and implementation issues which
were considered in finalizati on of this permit. EPA has prepared a response to comments document which is available in the docket for this permit.

2.9 E CONOMIC I MPACTS

Pursuant to EPA’s commitment to operate in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) framework and requirements during the Agency’s issuance of Clean Water Act general permits, 2 EPA performed an economic assessment of this general permit, including an examination of the economic impact this permit may have on small businesses. This economic analysis is included in the docket for this perm it. Based on this assessment, EPA concludes that despite a minimal economic impact on all entities, including small businesse s, this permit is not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of sm all entities. Including the ballast water and other discharge requirements, the economic impact analysis indicates that the best management practices in this perm it would cost between $ 6.7 million and $16.7 million annually. Including paperwork requ irements, the permit is estimated to cost between $7.7 and $21.9 million dollars annually for domestic vessels. In cluding estimates of ballast water costs for foreign vessels, the permit is expected to cost between $8.9 and $23.0 million dollars annually. Depending upon sector (vessel type), median costs per firm range from $1 to $795 in the low end assumptions and from $5 to $1,967 in the high end assumptions (excluding median values from commercial fishing vessels which are e xpected to be $0). Costs for the 95 th percentile range from $7 for the Deep Sea Coastal and Great Lakes Passenger Vessels to $20,355 for marine cargo handling under low end cost estimates and fr om $88 to $35,190 for the same vessel classes for high end cost estimates (see table 7.1 of the economic assessment cost estimates across vessel classes). EPA applied a cost-to- revenue test which calculates a nnualized pre-tax compliance cost

2 For more information, see the RFA section of the Federal Register notice announcing the availability of today’s final permit.Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

as a percentage of total revenues and used a thre shold of 1 and 3 % to id entify entities that would be significantly impacted as a result of this Pe rmit. The total number of entities expected to exceed a 1% cost ratio ranges from 213 under lo w cost assumptions to 308 under high cost assumptions. Of this universe, the total number of entities expected to exceed a 3 % cost ratio ranges from 55 under low cost assumptions to 73 under high cost assumptions. The total domestic flagged vessel universe that would be affected by this permit includes approximately 61,000 vessels. Accordingly, EPA conc ludes that this permit is unlik ely to result in a significant economic impact on any businesses, a nd in particular, small businesses.

8Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

3. 

### THE PERMIT

Today’s permit is being issued pursuant to EPA’s authority to issue permits under Clean
Water Act Section 402. Clean Water Act Section 402 and its implementing regulations contain standards that govern EPA’s imposition of NPDES permit conditions. See e.g., 40 CFR Part 122 (“EPA Administered Permit Programs: The Nationa l Pollutant Discharge Elimination System”). The provisions of today’s permit are established under th ese authorities.

3.1 G EOGRAPHIC S COPE OF THE P ERMIT

This permit is applicable to discharges in cidental 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,
which means “waters of the U.S.” as defined in 40 CFR 122.2, except as otherwise excluded by Part 6 of the permit. This includes the territor ial seas, defined in sec tion 502(8) of the CWA, extending to three miles from the baseline. Pacific Legal Foundation v. Costle , 586 F.2d 650, 655-656 (9 thCir. 1978); Natural Resources Defens e Council, Inc. v. U.S. EPA , 863 F.2d 1420, 1435 (9 th Cir. 1988).

The general permit will cover vessel discharges into the waters of the U.S. in all states and territories, regardless of whether a state is auth orized to implement other aspects of the NPDES permit program within its jurisd iction, except as otherwise excl uded by Part 6 of the permit. While, pursuant to CWA section 402(c), EPA typical ly is required to suspend permit issuance in authorized states, EPA may issue NPDES permits inauthorized states for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a ve ssel because 402(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act prohibits EPA from issuing permits in authorized states only for “those discharges subject to [the state’s authorized] program.” Discharges excluded under 40 CF R 122.3 are not “subject to ” authorized state programs. The vessel discharges that will be co vered by the permit are discharges excluded from NPDES permitting programs under 40 CFR 122.3. Ther efore the discharges at issue are not considered a part of any currently authorized state NPDES program. See 40 CFR 123.1(i)(2) (where state programs have a gr eater scope of coverage than “required” under the federal program, that additional coverage is not part of the authoriz ed program) and 40 CFR 123.1(g)(1) (authorized state programs are not required to prohibit point s ource discharges exempted under 40 CFR122.3).

EPA will continue to work with state CWA pe rmitting authorities on authorization issues associated with discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels and plans to provide guidance on such issues in the near future. . EPA plans to outline how states may obtain approval to implement NPDES permitting for vessel discharges within their jurisdictions. In addition, EPA plans, to the extent permitted by the CWA, to provide states with the opportunity to decline to regulate these discharges by obt aining status as a part ial NPDES program under CWA 402(n).

9Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

10 3.2 S TRUCTURE OF THE P ERMIT (P ART 1.1) 3

This general permit addresses all vessels operating in a capacity as a means of transportation, except recreational vessels, that have discharges incidental to their normal operations into waters subject to this permit. With respect to (1) commercial fishing vessels of any size as defined in 46 U.S.C. § 2101 a and (2) those non-recreational vesse ls that are less than 79 feet in length, the coverage under this permit is limited to ballast wate r discharges only. This is because, as explained in Part 2.5 of this Fact Sheet, non-ballas t water incidental discharges from these two types of vessels are subj ect to a moratorium on NPDES permitting.

Many characteristics of vessels and vessel discha rges generally apply to all vessel classes. Hence, general requirements that apply to all e ligible vessels are found inParts 1 through 4 of the permit. Part 1 of the permit contains general conditions, authorized and ineligible discharges, and explains who must file a notice of intent to receive permit coverage. Part 2 of the permit discusses effluent limits applicable to vessels. Part 3 of the permit lists required corrective actions that permittees must take to remedy deficiencies and viola tions. Part 4 of the permit lists visual monitoring, self-inspection, and record keeping and reporting requirements. Due to specific concerns arising from certain types of ve ssels, in Part 5 of the permit, EPA has identified select categories of vessel t ypes that have supplemental require ments. States, territories, and
certain Tribes have the author ity to require additional require ments under Section 401 of the CWA. These additional requirements have been incorporated into Part6 of the permit (see also Part 12 of the Fact Sheet “Other Legal Requirements”).

The Appendices, listed in this permit as Part s 7 through 15, include definitions, the notice of intent form, the notice of termination form, and the one-time report form.

3.3 W HAT IS THE V ESSEL U NIVERSE A FFECTED BY T HIS P ERMIT ?

A short summary of the vessel universe requ iring permit coverage and common locations
of those vessels follows.

According to data published by the U.S. Ar my Corps of Engineer s in their annual Waterborne Transportation Line s of the United States (WTLUS) report (USACE, 2005a), a total of 41,028 U.S.-flagged cargo and passenger commercial vessels were operating in U.S. waters as of the end of 2005. The vast majority (78%) of th ese vessels primarily opera te in the Mississippi River System and the Gulf Intracoastal Wate rway. Twenty-one percent operate along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coas ts, and just over 1% mainly ply the waters of the Great Lakes. These data include both self-pr opelled (e.g., tankers, towboats, dry cargo) and non-self-propelled (e.g., barges) vessels. Volume 2 of the WTLUS report states that a total of 2,732 Transportation Series Operator (TSO) companies ow ned these 41,028 vessels (USACE, 2005b).

An additional source of commercial vessel data is the U.S. Coast Guard’s Merchant Vessels of the United States (VESDOC) database , which contains information on all domestic
merchant vessels with a valid Certificate of Documentation (COD) (USCG, 2007). Updated

3 Throughout this fact sheet, parenthetical citations in headings refer to parts of the proposed permit to serve as an
aid to the reader.Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

through May 2007, VESDOC breaks vessels down into more types th an WTLUS, making a direct comparison of the data difficult. Howeve r, VESDOC provides information on vessels that WTLUS does not. According to the VESDOC data, there are 33,550 U.S.-owned commercial fishing vessels with a COD in U.S. waters (any vessel owned by a U.S. citizen that commercially fishes in U.S. waters must have a COD). Othe r vessel types that are included in the VESDOC data, but not in the WTLUS data, include industr ial (e.g., cable layer, dredge, crane barge) (823 vessels); mobile offshore drilling units (118 vesse ls); research vessels (234 vessels); and oil recovery (372 vessels) (USCG, 2007).

Data on foreign commercial vessels is more limited, but was approximated by consulting the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) r ecords on vessels entering the U.S. CBP records contain the flag of every ve ssel entering U.S. waters (U.S. CBP, 2007). The flag flown by a vessel represents only the vessel’s registration and not the country which that vessel last visited. In 2005, 7,726 unique (different) vessels entered U. S. waters, and approximately 90% (6,982) of these flew a non-U.S. flag. These foreign-flagged vessels represen ted 83 different countries. The three foreign countries with th e most vessel entrances in 2005 were Panama, the Bahamas, and Liberia (U.S. CBP, 2007).

The U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) doc uments the number of vessel calls (i.e.

, visits) to U.S. ports by self-propelled vessels greater than 10,000 tons deadweight (MARAD, 2006). In 2005, 61,047 vessel calls were made to U. S. ports, the majority (31% or 18,683) to ports in the Gulf of Mexico region (this region includes ports from Key West, FL to Brownsville, TX). In the Gulf region, the following ports had the greatest number of calls in 2005 (in descending order): Houston, TX; New Orleans, LA; Port Arthur, TX; Texas City, TX and; Tampa, FL. The South Atlantic re gion (from Alexandria, VA to Miam i, FL) had the next greatest number of calls with 11,709, with the ports getting the most calls including Virginia Ports, VA, Savannah, GA, Miami, FL, Jacksonville, FL, and PortEverglades, FL. On the Pacific coast, Los Angeles/Long Beach, CA and San Francisco, CA had the most calls, followed by Columbia River, OR, Tacoma, WA, and Seattle, WA. Fina lly, in the North Atlantic, New York, NY and Philadelphia, PA received the most calls, followed by Baltimore, MD.

The U.S. CBP vessel entrances records documen t the last port a ve ssel visited before entering U.S. waters, whether foreign or domes tic (U.S. CBP, 2007). In 2005, 94% of the vessels calling at Seattle, WA cited their previous port as “foreign,” the mo st of any U.S. port (the most often cited foreign “port” was Canada). Nearly 87% of the vessels calling at San Juan, Puerto Rico, and over 85% of the vessels calling at Port Everglades, FL, cited thei r last ports as foreign (most often cited “ports” were the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Bahamas, respectively) (U.S. CBP, 2007).

All told, EPA currently estimates that ther e will be approximately 61,000 U.S. flagged vessels that may be eligible for coverage unde r this permit. Additionally, EPA estimates that there are up to 8,000 additional foreign flagged vessels that may need coverage under this permit.

11Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

12 3.4 R EGULATION OF C ONSTITUENTS IN THE D ISCHARGES U NDER THE P ERMIT

In today’s permit, EPA is establishing effluent limitations to control a variety of materials, which, for the purposes of this fact sheet, have been classified into 7 major groups: Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS), nutrients, pathogens (including E. Coli & fecal coliform), oil and grease, metals, most conventional polluta nts (Biochemical Oxygen Demand, pH, Total Suspended Solids), and other toxic and non-conven tional pollutants with toxic effects. EPA is establishing effluent limitations to control th ese materials, because such materials are constituents in the, depending on the particular vessel, industrial waste, chemical waste and/or garbage “pollutant” discharge resulting from the activities of these vess els. “Industrial waste,” “chemical waste” and “garbage” are expressly incl uded in the CWA’s definition of “pollutant,” which governs, among other things, which discha rges are properly subject to CWA permitting. See CWA § 402(a) (allowing EPA to issue permits for a “discharge of any pollutant”); CWA § 502(12) (defining “discharge of a pollutant” to include “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source”); and CWA § 502(6) (defining “pollutant” as “dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewa ge, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive material s, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial , municipal and agricultural waste discharged into water” [emphasis added]). The discharge from vessels addressed in today’s permit – a worthless or useless flow discharged during a vessel’s normal operations – falls within those broad pollutant categories. See, e.g., Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary (1988) (defining “waste” as “a worthless or useless by-product” or “somet hing, such as steam, that escapes without being used”; “industrial” as “of, relating to, or derived from i ndustry” and “industry as “the commercial production and sale of goods and servi ces”; “chemical” as “of or relating to the action of chemicals”; and “garbage” as “worthless matter, trash”). 4

EPA understands that a lot of attention has been paid to whether, under various circumstances, ANS are properly considered “ pollutants” under CW A §502(6). Today’s permit
controls ANS because such ANS are one constituent of concern in the waste stream that constitutes the “pollutant” s ubject to today’s permit. See CWA § 402(a)(1)(A) and 301(b)(1) (requiring permits to include “effluent limita tions”) and CWA §502(11) (defining “effluent
limitations” to include “restrictions established by . . . the Administrator on . . . chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents whic h are discharged from point sources . . .” [emphasis added]). Under these circumstances, there is no need to a ddress the question of whether ANS in and of themselves may be c onsidered “pollutants” under CWA section 502(6). In addition, EPA’s conclusion that ANS are proper ly controlled in today’s vessel permit does not speak as to how ANS are regulated by the CWA under any other circumstances.

Short summaries of each of the constituen t types regulated in today’s permit follow.

4 The Agency’s view on what is considered “industrial waste,” “chemical wast e” or “garbage” as discussed in this
fact sheet is limited to use of those terms in the definitio n of “pollutant” in the Clean Water Act and should not be considered in interpreting those or similar terms in any other statute or regulation.Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

3.4.1 Aquatic Nuisance Species

Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS), also known as invasive species, are a persistent problem in U.S. coastal and inland waters. ANS may be introduced through a variety of vectors, including ballast water and sediment from ballast tanks, ch ain lockers, anchor chains, and vessel hulls.
These vectors have been associated with introdu ctions of highly damagi ng species in the past. Though no reliable and comprehensive estimates of total ANS introductions nationwide exist, case studies of several major bodies of water across the coun try, as summarized in Table 1, provide a sense of the extent of the problem.

Table 1: Estimates of Invasive Species in Several Major Water Systems

Region Estimated Rate of

Invasion 1 Estimated Total Invasions

to Date 2

Great Lakes Once every 28 weeks 3 162 Mississippi River System Unknown 100 San Francisco Bay Once every 24 weeks 4 212

Lower Columbia River Basin Once every 5 months 5 81

Gulf of Mexico Unknown 579

1 Ruiz and Reid (2007) suggest that these figures may not reliab ly represent the true rate of introduction, as they are based on discovery data, which may not always track with the underlying rate of introduction.

2 All figures in this column are taken from USCG 2004.

3 NOAA (2007).

4 Cohen and Carlton (1995).

5 Sytsma et al. (2004).

ANS pose several dangers to aquatic ecosystem s, including outcompeting native species, threatening endangered species, damaging habi tat, changing food webs, and altering the chemical and physical aquatic environment. Furthermore, ANS have been documented to damage recreational and commercial fisheries, infrastructure, and wate r based recreation and
tourism.

One of the most well-known examples of ANS is the Zebra Mussel. Zebra Mussels are native to Eurasia, near the Black and Caspian Seas , and were first discovered in U.S. waters in 1988. Populations of Zebra Mussels were establ ished in the Great Lakes and are now found throughout most of the Eastern Un ited States and in some West ern States. Zebra Mussels are filter feeders and can remove algae from the water column that other native species depend on as a food source and, therefore, Zebra Mussels ou tcompete native (and sometimes endangered)
mollusks and other filter feeders. Zebra Mussels also damage public infrastructure and have been
estimated to cause tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses per year to the Great Lakes
alone.

EPA recommends the following sources for additional information on aquatic invasive species and the vectors (pathways) by which they are spread:

Barnes, D.K.A. (2002) Invasions by marine life on plastic debris. Nature , 416, 808-809.

13Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

Carlton, J.T. (1996) Pattern, process, a nd prediction in marine invasion ecology. Invasion Biology , 78, 97-106.
Carlton, J.T. (2001) Introduced species in U. S. coastal waters: environmental impact and management priorities. Pew Oceans Co mmission, Arlington, Virginia. 28 pp.
Cohen, A.N. & Carlton, J.T. (1995) . Nonindigenous aquatic species in a United States estuary: a case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. Rep. No.
NOAA Grant Number NA36RG0467.
Doblin, M., Coyne, K., Rinta-Kant o, J., Wilhelm, S., & Dobbs, F. (2007) Dynamics and shortterm survival of toxic cyanobacteria speci es in ballast water from NOBOB vessels transiting the Great Lakes-imp lications for HAB invasions. Harmful Algae , 6, 519-530.
Drake, J.M. & Lodge, D.M. (2007) Rate of species introductions in the Great Lakes via ships'
ballast water and sediments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences , 64,
530-538.
Drake, L., Doblin, M., & Dobbs, F. (2007) Poten tial microbial bioinvasio ns via ships' ballast water, sediment, and biofilm. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 55, 333-341.
Endresen, Ø., Behrens, H.L., Brynestad, S., Ande rsen, A.B., & Skjong, R. (2004) Challenges in global ballast water management. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 48, 615-623.
Fountain, A.N.C.J.T.C.M.C. (1995) Introduction, di spersal and potential impacts of the green crab Carcinus maenas in San Francisco Bay, California. Marine Biology , 122, 225-237.

Julie L. Lockwood, P.C., Tim Bl ackburn (2005) The role of propa gule pressure in explaining species invasions. Invasions, guest edited by Michae l E. Hochberg and Nicholas J.
Gotelli , 20, 223-228.
Lovell, S.J. & Stone, S.F. (2005) The Economic Im pacts of Aquatic Invasi ve Species. Working Paper #05-02. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
M.G.G., F., C.D., L., M.R., T., & M.R., L. (2003) Di spersion of discharged ship ballast water in Vancouver Harbour, Juan De Fuca Strait, a nd offshore of the Washington Coast. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science , 2, 163-176.
Roman, J. (2006) Diluting the founder effect: cryp tic invasions expand a marine invader's range. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences , 273, 2453-
2459.
Ruiz, G.M., Rawlings, T.K., Dobbs, F.C., Drake, L.A., Mullady, T., Huq, A., & Colwell, R.R. (2000) Global spread of microorganisms by ships . Nature, 408, 49-50

. Sytsma, M.D., J.R. Cordell, J.W. Chapman, and R.C. Draheim. Lower Columbia River Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Survey 2001-2004: Final Technical Repor t. Prepared for the U.S.
Coast Guard and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available at: http://www.clr.pdx.edu/docs/LCRANSFina lReport.pdf. Accessed December 31, 2007.

3.4.2 Nutrients

Nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and nu merous micro-nutrients are constituents of vessel discharges. Though traditi onally associated with discharges from sewage treatment facilities and runoff from agricu ltural and urban stormwater s ources, nutrients resulting from vessels are also thought to be discharged from deck runoff, vessel graywater, and vessel

14Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

bilgewater, among other sources. In creased nutrient discharges fr om human sources are a major source of water quality degradation throughout the United States (USGS 1999).

Nutrients are associated with a variety of negative environmental impacts, the most notable of which is eutrophicati on, which can lead to reduced leve ls of dissolved oxygen due to increased demand (sometimes to the extremes of hypoxia), reduced levels of light penetration and increased turbidity, and changes in the com position of aquatic flora and fauna, and helps to fuel harmful algal blooms (HABs), which can have devastating impacts on both aquatic life and human health (National Research Council 2000, WHOI 2007). The National Research Council (2000) found that:

• Nutrient over-enrichment of coastal ecosyste ms generally triggers ecological changes that decrease the biological dive rsity of bays and estuaries.

• While moderate nitrogen enrichment of some coastal waters may increase fish production, over-enrichment generally degrad es the marine food web that supports commercially valuable fish.

• The marked increase in nutrient pollution of coastal waters has been accompanied by an increase in harmful algal blooms, and in at least some cases, pollution has triggered these blooms.

• High nutrient levels and the changes they cause in water quality and the makeup of the algal community are detrimental to the health of coral reefs and the diversity of animal life supported by seagrass and kelp communities.

• Nitrogen is the chief culprit in eutrophi cation and other impacts of nutrient overenrichment in temperate coastal waters, while phosphorus is most problematic in eutrophication of freshwater lakes.

• Human conversion of atmospheric nitrog en into biologically useable forms, principally synthetic inorganic fertilizers, now matches the natural rate of biological nitrogen fixation from all the land surfaces of the earth.

EPA recommends the following sources for additional information on nutrient pollution and impacts on waters:

Correll, D.L. (1987) Nutrients in the Ch esapeake Bay. In Contaminant Problems and Management of Living Chesapeake Bay Resour ces. (eds. S.K. Majumdar, W. Hall Jr. & H.M. Austin), pp. 298-320. The Pennsylvania Academy of Science. Horne, A.J. & Goldman, C.R. (1994). Limnology , 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexi co Watershed Nutrient Task Force (2007). Gulf hypoxia action plan 2008: draft version for public review, Washington DC.
National Research Council (2000) Clean Coas tal Waters: Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution, Ocean Studi es Board and Water Science and Technology
Board.
US EPA (2004) National Coastal Co ndition Report II, Washington DC.

15Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) (2007) Harmful Algae: What are Harmful Algal Blooms (HABS).
US EPA (2007) Draft cruise ship discharge assessment report. Office of Water. Washington D.C.
US EPA (1986) Quality criteria for Water Washington DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/watersci ence/criteria/goldbook.pdf.

3.4.3 Pathogens

Pathogens are another important constituent of discharges from vessels, particularly in graywater and potentially from ballast water di scharges. Though fecal coliform is considered a conventional pollutant, it is di scussed here since it shares ch aracteristics with many other pathogens potentially discharged from vessels.

EPA’s study of graywater discharges from cr uise ships found that levels of pathogen
indicator bacteria exceeded enterococci standard s for marine water bathing and fecal coliform standards for harvesting shellf ish 66% and over 80% of the time, respectively (EPA 2007c). Specific pathogens of concern found in sewage include Salmonella spp. , E. coli , enteroviruses, hepatitis and pathogenic protists (National Research Council 1993), but there are multiple sources for such pathogens. Elevated levels of these pathogens have increasingly resulted in beach closures in recent years, primarily from on-shore sources such as urban stormwater runoff and sewage overflows, which in turn has reduced the recreational value of impacted beaches. Additional pathogens have been associated with ballast water di scharges, including E. coli

, enterococci

, Vibrio cholerae

, Clostridium perfingens

, Salmonella spp. Cryptosporidium spp., and Giardia spp., as well as a variety of viruses (Kni ght et al. 1999; Reynolds et al. 1999; Zo et al. 1999). Johengen et al. (2005) show the potential for pathogens to be transported in ballast water tanks, even when they are not filled. The study found that viru s-like particle (VLP) concentrations in sampled ballast tanks range d from 107 to 109 per ml in residual unpumpable ballast water and from 107 to 1011 per ml in se diment porewater. Bacteria concentrations under the same conditions were 105 to 109 per ml and 104 to 108 per ml, respectively.

Though it is difficult to determine the contributio n of vessel discharges to infections by these organisms it is likely that they are not a pr imary source. Epidemiologists have attempted to quantify the proportion of total infections that ar e waterborne. For example, waterborne infection may account for as many as 60 % of Giardia infec tions and 75 % of pathogenic E. coli infections (National Research Council 1993). Graywater di scharges may be a significant source of pathogenic microorganisms within some regulated waters, and reducing graywater discharges may provide some human health benefits.

For additional information on the environmenta l impact of pathogens, or their affiliation with vessel discharges, the follo wing sources are recommended:

Dobbs, F., Doblin, M., & Drake, L. (2006) Pathogens in ships' ballast tanks. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union , 87.
Knight, I.T., Wells, C.S., Wiggins, B., Russell, H., Reynolds, K.A., & Huq., A. (1999) Detection and enumeration of fecal indicators and pathoge ns in the ballast water of transoceanic

16Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

cargo vessels entering the Great Lakes. In General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, pp. 546, Chicago, IL, Abstract Q71.
National Research Council (1993) Managing Wastew ater in Coastal Urban Areas, Water Science and Technology Board.
Reynolds, K., Knight, I., Wells, C., Pepper, I ., & Gerba, C. (1999) Detection of human pathogenic protozoa and viruses in ballast water using conventional and molecular methods. In General Meeting of the Am erican Society for Microbiology, pp. 594, Chicago, IL, Abstract Q318.
U.S. EPA (2007) Draft cruise ship discharge a ssessment report. Office of Water. Washington

DC.

Zo, Y., Grimm, C., Matte, M., Matte, G., Kni ght, I.T., Huq, A., & Colwell, R.R. (1999) Detection and Enumeration of Pathogenic B acteria in Ballast Water of Transoceanic Vessels Entering the Great Lakes and Resist ance to Common Antibiotics. In General Meeting of the American Society for Mi crobiology, Chicago, IL, Abstract Q317.

3.4.4 Oil and Grease

Oil and grease are another known component of vessel discharges with potentially harmful impacts to humans and to aquatic life. Vessels discharge oil in ever y day operation, including lubricating oils, hydraulic oils, and vegetable or organic oils. Oil conc entrations in vessel discharges must not exceed quant ities that are harmful, and as a result, may not cause a film, sheen, discoloration, sludge, emulsion or violatio n of water quality standards. However, vessel discharges may still contain enough oil to do ec ological damage in confined areas or where vessels are concentrated, even if they meet these requirement s. Oils are highly toxic and carcinogenic, and can also taint organisms that are consumed by humans, which is a potential source of adverse health impacts. Oil and grease measured by Method 1664A constitutes a conventional pollutant. Oil and grease that is commingled with other toxic pollutants may be controlled as a toxic pollu tant under this permit.

The following sources provide additional info rmation on oil discharges from vessels:

Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) ( 2003) Effects of Oil on Wildlife. Available at: http://www.amsa.gov.au/Marine_Environment_Pr otection/Educational_resources_and_in formation/Teachers/The_Effects_of_Oil_on_Wildlife.asp . Last accessed on 2/5/2008.
DeCola, E. (2000) International Oil Spill Stat istics: 2000. Cutter Information Corporation, Arlington, MA.
GESAMP (1993) Impact of oil and related chem icals and wastes on the marine environment. International Maritime Organization, London.
GESAMP (2007) Estimates of oil entering the ma rine environment from sea-based activities International Maritime Organization, London.
Lucas, Z. & MacGregor, C. (2006) Characteriza tion and source of oil contamination on the beaches and seabird corpses, Sable Island, Nova Scotia, 1996-2005. Marine Pollution
Bulletin , 52, 778-789.

17Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

NOAA (2008) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Oil and Chemical Spills. http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/topic_subtopic_ent ry.php?RECORD_KEY%28entry _subtopic_topic%29=entry_id,sub topic_id,topic_id&entry_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=359 &subtopic_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=9&topic_ id(entry_subtopic_topic)=2. Accessed on February 5, 2008.
Rützler, K. & Sterrer, W. (1970) Oil pollution. Damage observed in trop ical communities along
the Atlantic seaboard of Panama. BioScience , 20, 222-224.
Shaw, D.G., Hogan, T.E., & McIntosh, D.J. ( 1985) Hydrocarbons in the sediments of Port Valdez, Alaska: Consequences of five years' permitted discharge. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science , 21, 131-144.
Stekoll, M.S., Clement, L.E., & Shaw, D.G. (19 80) Sublethal effects of chronic oil exposure on
the intertidal clam Macoma balthica. Marine Biology , 57, 51-60.
Suchanek, T.H. (1993) Oil impacts on marine invertebrate populations and communities. American Zoologist , 33, 510-533.
Wiese, F.K. & Ryan, P.C. (2003) The extent of chronic marine oil pollution in southeastern Newfoundland waters assessed through beached bird surveys 1984-1999. Marine
Pollution Bulletin , 46, 1090-1101.

3.4.5 Metals

Metals are a diverse group of pollutants, many of which are toxic to aquatic life and humans. Vessel discharges can contain a variety of metal constituents which can come from a variety of on-board sources. For example, EPA’s study of cruise ship graywater found a total of
13 different metals in at least 10% of samples, with copper, nickel and zinc detected in 100% of samples (EPA 2007c). Bilgewater has also beenshown to contain numerous metals, the exact constituents of which vary dependent upon onboard activities on the vessel and the materials
used in the construction of the vessel. Other metals, such as copper, are know n to leach from vessel hulls and can cause exceedances of water qua lity standards. For example, Srinivasan and Swain (2007) found significant leaching of copper from the hulls of sailboats, powerboats, and cruise ships.

While some metals, including copper, nickel and zinc, are known to be essential to organism function, many others, including thallium and arsenic, are non-essentia l and/or are known to have only adverse impacts. Even essential metals can do serious damage to organism function in sufficiently elevated concentrations . Adverse impacts can include impaired organ function, impaired reproduction and birth defects, and, at ex treme concentrations, acute mortality. For example, Katranitsasa et al. ( 2003) noted that the copper released from copper anti-fouling paints are toxic to non-targeted aquatic organisms. Additionally, 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 (U.S. EPA 2007e).

The following sources provide additional in formation describing metals in aquatic environments and their discharges from vessels:

18Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

Bentivegna, C.S. & Piatkowski, T. (1998) Effect s of tributyltin on meda ka (Oryzias latipes) embryos at different stages of development. Aquatic Toxicology , 44, 117-128
Haynes, D. & Loong, D. (2002) Antifoulant (buty ltin and copper) concentrations in sediments
from the Great Barrier Reef Worl d Heritage Area, Australia. 120, 391-396.

Katranitsasa, A., Castritsi-Cath arios, J., & Persoone, G. (2003) The effects of a copper-based antifouling paint on mortality and enzymatic activity of a non-target marine organism.
Marine Pollution Bulletin , 46, 1491-1494.
Negri, A.P., Hales, L.T., Batters hill, C., Wolff, C., & Webster, N.S. (2004) TBT contamination
identified in Antarctic marine sediments. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 48, 1142-1144.
Negri, A.P. & Heyward, A.J. (2001) Inhibition of coral fertilization and larval metamorphosis by tributyltin and copper. Marine Environmental Research , 51, 17-27.
Orange County Coastkeeper (2007). Lower New port Bay copper/metals marina study, Newport
Beach.
Ruiz, J.M., Bryan, G.W., & Gibbs, P.E. (1995) E ffects of tributyltin (TBT) exposure on the veliger larvae development of the bi valve Scrobicularia plana (da Costa). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology , 186, 53-63.
Schiff, K., Diehl, D., & Valkirs, A. (2004) Copper emissions from antifouling paint on
recreational vessels. Marine Pollution Bulletin 48, 371-377.

Srinivasan, M. & Swain, G.W. (2007) Managing the Use of Copper-Based Antifouling Paints. Environmental Management , 39, 423-441.
Trocine, R.P. & Trefry, J.H. (1996) Metal concen trations in sediment, wa ter and clams from the Indian River Lagoon, Florida. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 32, 754-759.
U.S. EPA (2007) Draft cruise ship discharge assessment report. Office of Water. Washington

DC.
V. Axiak, Sammut, M., Chircop, P., Vella, A., & Mintoff, B. (1995) Laboratory and field investigations on the effects of organotin (tributyltin) on the oyster, Ostrea edulis. Environmental Toxicology: Hazards to the Environment and Man in the Mediterranean Region, 171, 117-120.

3.4.6 Toxic and Non-Conventional Pollutants with Toxic Effects

The term “toxic and non-conventional pollutant s with toxic effects, ” as it applies to constituents of vessel discharges, encompasses a variety of chemical compounds known to have a broad array of adverse impacts on aquatic spec ies and human health. For example, EPA’s study of cruise ship graywater found a total of 16 different volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds in at least 10% of samples, for wh ich the most significant rates and levels of detection were phthalates, phenol, and tetrachloroethylene. Other notable toxics detected
included free residual chlorine and chloride s and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) found in some firefighting foam (AFFF).

These compounds can cause a variety of adverse impacts on ecosystems and living marine resources, including fisheries. Phthalates are known to interfere with reproductive health, liver and kidney function in both animals and human s (Sekizawa et al. 2003, DiGangi et al. 2002). Chlorine, though toxic to humans at high concentrations, is of mu ch greater concern to aquatic

19Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

species, which can experience respiratory proble ms, hemorrhaging, and acute mortality even at relatively low concentrations (U.S. EPA 2007c). PFOS and PFOA, potentially found in AFFF discharges, are persistent, bioa ccumulative, toxic and carcinogenic chemical compounds. The health impacts of PFOA and its telomers are notentirely understood, part icularly in aquatic environments, but EPA’s Science Advisory Boar d has concluded that PFOA “is likely to be carcinogenic in humans” (SAB 2006).

The following sources provide additional inform ation describing other toxic pollutants in aquatic environments:

DiGangi, J., Schettler, T., Cobbing, M., & Rossi, M. (2002) Aggregate exposures to phthalate in
humans. Health care without harm.
Horne, A.J. & Goldman, C.R. (1994) Limnology , 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
U.S. EPA (2008) Disinfection byproducthealth effects. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/icr/dbp_health.html. Accessed on June 21, 2007
U.S. EPA (2004). National Coastal Condition Report II, Washington DC.
U.S. EPA (2002a) National Water Quality I nventory. EPA-841-R-02-001, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA (2007) Draft cruise ship discharge assessment report. Office of Water. Washington

DC.
U.S. EPA (1986). Quality criteria fo r Water Washington DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/watersci ence/criteria/goldbook.pdf.

3.4.7 Other Non-Conventional and Conventional Pollutants (Except Fecal Coliform)

The category “other non-conventional and conve ntional pollutants” as applied to vessel discharges also consists of multiple pollutants w ith disparate impacts. Discharges of graywater, bilgewater, seawater cooling ove rboard, and other vessel waste st reams or effluent can include pollutants that affect pH, add h eat, and/or increase turbidity or discharge suspended sediment.

Some vessel discharges are more acidic or basic than the rece iving waters, which can have a localized effect on pH (ADEC 2007). Though no research has been done linking vessel pollution specifically to pH impact s on aquatic ecosystems, extensiv e literature on the impacts of pH changes in the contexts of aquaculture a nd acid rain does exist. For nearly all fish populations, pH more acidic than 5 or more basi c than 10 will cause rapi d mortality. In addition, many individual species are sensitive to more mo derate changes in pH (Wurts and Durborrow 1992).

Some vessel discharges may al so affect temperature locally (Battelle 2007). Thermal impacts of vessel discharges are generally much smaller than those from better known sources such as dams, power plant cooling water, and ru noff. However, even small temperature changes can impact some sensitive organisms’ growt h, reproduction, and even survival, which implies that some vessel discharges may have loca lized adverse impacts on aquatic organisms (Abbaspour et al. 2005, Ca irns 1972, Govorushko 2007).

Some vessel discharges, such as those from ballast water and bilgewater, can contain suspended sediments and have elevated turbidity. Loadings of sediment from vessel discharges

20Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

are likely much smaller than from other sour ces such as constructi on, urban stormwater, and agriculture. The most significant sources of sediment from vesse l discharges likely come from areas in the vessel where water is held, sedime nt settles out of solution and accumulates over time, and then is later periodically resuspended before discharging.

Designated uses such as navigation, drinki ng water, recreation, and agriculture are impaired by excess suspended sediments (U.S . EPA 2003). When sediments diminish water quality to support aquatic life, other human uses of the same wate rbodies such as recreational or commercial fishing may also be diminished. Furtherm ore, there is evidence that aquatic life uses are one of the most sensitive endpoints to alte rations in sediment lo ading. Direct effects on invertebrates and fish are complex, ranging from behavioral to physiologi cal to toxicological. Suspended sediments have been documented to have a negative affect on the survival of fish, freshwater mussels, and other bent hic organisms. In a frequently cited review paper prepared by Newcombe and Jensen (1996), sublethal effects (e.g. increased respiration rate) were observed in eggs and larvae of salmonids and nonsalmonids, as well as in adult estuarine and freshwater nonsalmonids, when exposed to Total Suspended Solids concentrations as low as 55 mg/L for one hour. Mussels compensate for increased le vels of suspended sediment by increasing filtration rates, increasing the pr oportion of filtered material that is rejected, and increasing the selection efficiency for organic matter. Excess sediment smothers benthic organisms and the surface layer of the benthos can be heavily impact ed and altered. Increased turbidity associated with suspended sediments can reduce primary productivity of algae as well as growth and reproduction of submerged vegeta tion (Jha, 2003). In addition, on ce in the system, resuspension and deposition can “recycle” sediments so that they exert water column and benthic effects repeatedly over time and in multiple locations.

The following sources provide additional info rmation describing other non-conventional and conventional pollutants:

Abbaspour, M., Javid, A.H., Moghimi, P., & Kayha n, K. (2005) Modeling of thermal pollution
in coastal areas and its economical and environmental assessment. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology , 2, 13-26.
Horne, A.J. & Goldman, C.R. (1994) Limnology , 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Jha, M. (2003) Ecological and toxicological effects of suspended and bedded sediments on aquatic habitats - a concise re view for developing water qualit y criteria for suspended and bedded sediments (SABS) (Office of Water, U.S. EPA, August 2003.).
National Research Council (1993). Managing Wa stewater in Coastal Urban Areas, Water Science and Technology Board.
Newcombe, C.P. & Jensen, J.O.T. (1996) Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis for quantitative assessmen t of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Managemen t 16, 693-727.
US EPA (1986). Quality criteria for Water Washington DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/watersci ence/criteria/goldbook.pdf

21Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

3.5 C OVERAGE U NDER THE P ERMIT

3.5.1 Eligibility (Part 1.2)

Vessels Not Eligible for Coverage

Recreational vessels and vessels of the United States Armed Forces are not eligible for coverage under this permit. All other vessels, less than 79 feet in length and all commercial fishing vessels (regardless of size) are excluded fr om this permit, except for discharges of ballast water. If auxiliary vessels or craft, such as lifeboats or rescue boa ts onboard larger vessels require permit coverage (i.e. they are greater th an 79 feet in length), they are eligible for coverage under this permit and are covered by subm ission of the Notice of Intent for the larger
vessels.

Vessel Discharges Eligible for Coverage

The discharges eligible for coverage under the permit are those discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel covered by the exclus ion in 40 CFR 122.3(a) prior to any vacatur of that exclusion (see discussion above in Parts 2.2 and 2.4 ). Discharges incidental to normal operation include deck runoff from routine deck cleaning, bilgewater fr om properly functioning oily water separators, an d ballast water. Some potential disc harges are not incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. For example, intenti onally adding used motor oil to the bilge tank will result in a discharge that is not incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. Furthermore, any discharge that results from a failure to properly maintain the vessel and equipment, even if the discharge is of a type that is otherwise covered by the perm it, is not eligible for permit coverage. Discharges that are ne ither covered by this permit nor ex empt from section 402 of the
Clean Water Act must be covered under a separate individual or general permit.

Information on vessel discharges and ship ope rations was gathered from UNDS, MARAD, public comments solicited from the June 21, 2007, Federal Register notice available in the docket for the permit, and comments submitted in response to the proposed VGP. The discharges that were selected for coverage under the perm it have been identified by EPA, in consultation with other Federal agencies, as discharges inci dental to the normal operation of a vessel. EPA
did not have a sufficient amount of time to i ndependently investigate vessel operations and resulting discharges extensively. However, EPA ha s relied on the most accurate and up-to-date
information available.

The following list identifies and describes each effluent stream eligible for coverage under the permit. The summaries are based on the Un iform National Discharg e Standards technical development document for Phase I (UNDS), the t echnical analysis prepared by Battelle for the permit (the “Battelle Report”), and public comment. The Battelle Report is a technical report that examines the nature of vessel discharges, vesse l discharges’ effect on the environment, and describes some Best Management Practices that are available (Battelle, 2007). Both the UNDS technical development document and the Battelle report are available in the docket for this permit. The public comments are available in docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055. The
docket is available at www.regulations.gov

.

22Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

3.5.1.1 Deck Washdown and Runoff and Above Water Line Hull Cleaning

Deck runoff occurs from all vessels as a re sult of precipitation or deck cleaning. Above water line hull cleaning discharges occur when areas of the hull or other ex terior portions of the vessel undergo regular cleaning. The constituents can include deterg ent, soap, and residues from any on-deck or above water line hull cleaning activity. Constituents and volumes of deck runoff vary widely and are highly dependent on a vesse l’s purpose, service, a nd practices. Deck runoff and above water line hull cleaning discharges eligible for coverage under the permit include those from all deck and bulkhead areas, associated equipment, and areas of the hull and exterior
of the vessel above the water line.

3.5.1.2 Bilgewater

Bilgewater consists of water and other resi due that accumulates in a compartment of the vessel’s hull. The source of bilgewater is typi cally drainage from interior machinery, engine rooms, and from deck drainage. Constituents of b ilgewater include seawater, oil, grease, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, inorganic salts, and metals.

3.5.1.3 Ballast Water

Ballast water is water taken onboa rd into ballast water tanks, a nd assists with vessel draft, buoyancy, and stability. Ballast water tanks ar e typically found only on commercial vessels. Discharge volumes and rates vary by vessel type, ballast tank capacity, a nd type of deballasting equipment. Typical cruise ships have a ballas t capacity of 1,000 cubic meters (approximately 264,000 gallons) of water and can discharge at 250- 300 cubic meters per hour. Cargo ships carry anywhere from 2,900 cubic meters (approximately 766,000 gallons) to 93,000 cubic meters (approximately 24,568,000 gallons) of water. Balla st water may contain rust inhibitors, flocculent compounds, epoxy coating materials, zinc or aluminum (from anodes), iron, nickel, copper, bronze, silver, and other material or sediment from inside th e tank, pipes, or other machinery. Ballast water may also contain marine organisms that originate where the water is collected. When transported to non-native waters , these organisms may upset the environment or food web as “invasive species.”

3.5.1.4 Anti-Fouling Leachate from Anti-Fouling Hull Coatings

Vessel hulls are often coated with antifouling com pounds to prohibit the attachment and growth of aquatic life. Coatings are formulat ed for different conditi ons and purposes and many
contain biocides. Those that cont ain biocides prevent the attachme nt of aquatic organisms to the hull by continuously leaching substances that are t oxic to aquatic life into the surrounding water. While a variety of different ingredients may be used in these compounds, the most commonly used is copper. Copper can inhibit photosynthesis in plants and interfere w ith enzyme function in both plants and animals in concentrations as low as 4 μg/l. Additional releases of these substances are caused by hull cleanin g activities, particularly if hu lls are cleaned within the first 90 days following application.

A second metal-based biocide is organotin ba sed, typically tributyl tin (TBT), which was historically applied to vessel hulls. Due to its acute toxicity, there will be a zero discharge standard for TBT or any other organotin com pound under this permit. TBT and other organotins

23Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

cause deformities in aquatic life, including defo rmities that disrupt or prevent reproduction.
Numerous studies and several peer reviewed publications (B entivegna & Piatkowski, 1998; Haynes & Loong, 2002; Negri et al ., 2004; Negri & Heyward, 2001; Ru iz et al., 1995; V. Axiak et al., 1995) examine the environmental impact s of anti-foulant paint leachate containing tributyltin (TBT). TBT and other organotins are also stable and persistent, resisting natural degradation in water bodies.

3.5.1.5 Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF)

AFFF is a synthetic firefighting agent consistin g of fluorosurfactants and/or fluoroproteins. It serves as an effective firefighting agent by forming an oxygen-excluding barrier over an area. In order to produce AFFF, a concentrated solution of the foam forming agen t is injected into the water stream of a fire hose. Vessels equipped with AFFF equipment must periodically (annually or semi-annually) test the equipment for maintenan ce, certification, or tr aining purposes resulting in discharge overboard or onto the deck.

3.5.1.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown

Boiler blowdown occurs on vessels with steam propulsion or a steam generator to control anti-corrosion and anti-scaling treatment concentrations and to remove sludge from boiler systems. The blowdown involves releasing a volume of 1% – 10% of water from the boiler system, usually below the waterline.

3.5.1.7 Cathodic Protection

Vessels use cathodic protection systems to prev ent steel hull or meta l structure corrosion. The two types of cathodic protection are sacrif icial anodes and impre ssed current cathodic protection (ICCP). Using the firs t method, anodes of zinc or aluminum are “sacrificed” to the corrosive forces of the seawater, which create s a flow of electrons to the cathode, thereby preventing the cathode from corroding. These sacrific ial metals are then released to the aquatic environment. Using ICCP, a DC electrical curre nt is passed through the hull such that the electrochemical potential of the hull is sufficiently high enough to prevent corrosion.

3.5.1.8 Chain Locker Effluent

Chain locker effluent is water that collects in the below-deck stor age area during anchor retrieval. A sump collects the liquids and material s that enter the chain locker and discharges it overboard or into the bilge tank. Chain locker e ffluent can contain marine organisms and residue such as rust, paint chips, grease, and zinc.

3.5.1.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and other Oil to Sea Interfaces including Lubrication dischar ges from Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Thruster Bearings, Stabilizers, Rudde r Bearings, Azimuth Thrusters, Propulsion Pod Lubrication, and Wire Rope and Mec hanical Equipment Subject to Immersion.

Oil to Sea interfaces include any mechanical or other equipment where seals or surfaces may release small quantities of oil to the sea. Examples include controllable pitch propellers

24Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

(CPPs). CPPs are variably-pitched propeller blades used to change the speed or direction of a vessel and are used in addition to the main pr opulsion system. Hydraulic oil can leak from the CPP if the protective seals are worn or defective and large am ounts may be discharged during maintenance and repair. Another example incl udes rudder bearings, which allow a vessel’s rudder to turn freely and can be either grease-, oi l-, or water-lubricated. An additional example is
the stern tube. The stern tube is the casing or hole through the hull of the vessel through which the propeller shaft connects the engine of the vessel to the pr opeller. The propeller shaft and its supporting bearings require lubri cation oil. Discharges can occu r if the protective seals or bearings are not maintained and develop leaks or if they are damage d. Yet another example would be wire ropes and cable s that have lubricated surf aces which contact the sea.

3.5.1.10 Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine

Discharges of brine can occur from onboard plan ts that distill seawater or utilize reverse osmosis (RO) to generate fresh water. Distillatio n effluent may be at el evated temperatures and may contain anti-scaling treatment, acidic clean ing compounds, or metals. RO effluent is
concentrated brine.

3.5.1.11 Elevator Pit Effluent

Large vessels with multiple decks are equipped with elevators to facilitate the transportation of maintenance e quipment, people, and cargo between decks. A pit at the bottom
of the elevator shaft collects li quids and debris from elevator operations, and may include oil and hydraulic fluid. Pits can be emptied by gravity drai ning, discharge using the firemain, transfer to bilgewater systems, or contai nerized for onshore disposal.

3.5.1.12 Firemain Systems

Firemain systems draw in water through the sea chest to supply water for fire hose stations, sprinkler systems, or AFFF dist ribution stations. Firemain sta tions can be pressurized or nonpressurized and are often used for secondary purposes onboard vessels (e.g., deck and equipment washdowns, machinery cooling water, ballast tank filling). However, when used for secondary purposes that result in other incide ntal discharges listed in the perm it, that discharge is regulated by the relevant effluent limitation associated with that activity (e.g., rinsing off the anchor chain).

3.5.1.13 Freshwater Layup

Seawater cooling systems condense low pressu re steam from propulsion plant or generator
turbines on some vessels. When a ve ssel is pierside or in port for more than a few days, the main steam plant is shut down and the condensers do not circulate. This can cause an accumulation of biological growth within the system; consequentl y, a freshwater layup is carried-out by replacing the seawater in the system with potable or surrounding freshwater (e.g. lake water). The freshwater remains stagnant for two hours before being blown overboard using pressurized air. After this, the condensers are cons idered flushed and are then ref illed for the actual layup. After 21 days this fillwater is discharged and replaced and this is done on a 30-day cycle thereafter. Freshwater layup discharges resi dual saltwater, freshwater, tap wa ter, and metals leached from the pipes or machinery into the environment.

25Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

3.5.1.14 Gas Turbine Water Wash

Gas turbines are used for propulsion and electr icity generation. Occasionally, they must be cleaned to remove byproducts that can accumula te and affect their operation. These byproducts include salts, lubricants, and combustion residuals. The wastewat er from the cleaning process may include cleaning compounds as well.

3.5.1.15 Graywater

Graywater is water from showers, baths, sinks, and laundry facilities. Graywater can contain high levels of pathogens, nutrients, soaps and detergents, and organics. Untreated graywater is much more likely to cause environmental impact when it is generated in large volumes (i.e., from cruise ships). Some vessels ha ve the capacity to collect and store graywater for later treatment and disposal. Those that do not have graywater hold ing capacity continuously discharge it. For commercial vess els operating on the Great Lakes, graywater is included in the definition of sewage under CWA §312. Section 5 02(6)(A) of the CWA ex cludes sewage within the meaning of CWA section 312 from the definition of “pollutant.” Hence, graywater discharges from commercial vessels on the Gr eat Lakes are not regulated by this permit.

3.5.1.16 Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge

Motor gasoline is transported on vessels to operate vehicles and other machinery. As the fuel is used, ambient water is added to the fuel tanks to replace the weight. This ambient water is discharged when the vessel refills the tanks wi th gasoline or when performing maintenance and
can contain residual oils. Most vessels are designed not to have motor gasoline and compensating discharge.

3.5.1.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater

Non-oily machinery wastewater systems are in tended to keep wastewater from machinery that contains no oil separate from wastewater th at has oil content. Vessels can have numerous sources of non-oily machinery wastewater, includ ing distilling plants star t-up discharge, chilled water condensate drains, fresh and saltwater pump drains, potable water tank overflows, and leaks from propulsion shaft seals.

3.5.1.18 Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge

Condensation from cold refrigeration or evaporator coils of air conditioning systems drips from the coils and collects in drip troughs wh ich typically channel to a drainage system. Condensate discharge may contain detergents, seawater, food residue , and trace metals.

3.5.1.19 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (I ncluding Non-Contact Engine Cooling Water, Hydraulic System Cooling Wa ter, Refrigeration Cooling Water)

Seawater cooling systems use ambient water to absorb the heat from heat exchangers, propulsion systems, and mechanical auxiliary systems. The water is typically circulated through an enclosed system that does not come in dir ect contact with machiner y, but still may contain sediment from water intake, traces of hydraulic or lubricating oils, and tr ace metals leached or

26Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

eroded from the pipes within the system. Additionally, because it is used for cooling, the effluent will have an increased temperature.

3.5.1.20 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention

Vessels that utilize seawat er cooling systems introduce anti-fouling compounds (e.g., sodium hypochlorite) in their interior piping a nd component surfaces to inhibit the growth of fouling organisms. These anti-fouling compound s are then typically discharged overboard.

3.5.1.21 Boat Engine Wet Exhaust

Large vessels covered by the permit often have several small boats onboard. Small boat engines use ambient water that is injected in to the exhaust for cooling and noise reduction purposes. This wet engine exhaust can contai n numerous pollutants when discharged.

3.5.1.22 Sonar Dome Discharge

Water is used to maintain the shape and pr essure of domes that house sonar detection, navigation, and ranging equipment. Discharges occur when the water must be drained for maintenance or repair or from the exterior of the sonar dome.

3.5.1.23 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges

Underwater ship husbandry is grooming, maintena nce, and repair activit ies of hulls or hull appendages completed while the vessel is locate d in the water, including hull cleaning, hull repair, fiberglass repair, welding, sonar dome repa ir, non-destructive testi ng, masker belt repairs, and painting operations. Underwater ship husbandry discharges are considered incidental to the normal operation of a vessel when ships are ma intained in proper operating order and the cleaning is done on a reasonable schedule. For drydock and other large cleaning activities, once every few years may be considered a reasonable schedule.

3.5.1.24 Welldeck Discharges

The welldeck is a floodable platform used for launching or loading small satellite vessels, vehicles, and cargo. Welldeck discharges may in clude water from precipitation, welldeck and storage area washdowns, equipm ent and engine washdowns, and leaks and spills from stored machinery.

3.5.1.25 Graywater Mixed with Sewage from Vessels

Depending on how the vessel is designed, graywa ter and sewage may be combined into one effluent stream. Discharges of graywater that contain sewage are eligible for coverage under this permit (except for commercial vessels in the Great Lakes) and must meet the discharge limitation requirements under Part 2, as well as any requirements applicable to sewage, although these are not contained in this permit.

27Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

3.5.1.26 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge

Exhaust gas scrubber washwater discharge (EGS washwater discharge) occurs as a result of operating or cleaning the exhaust gas cleani ng systems (e.g. scrubbers) for marine diesel engines. After the washing solutio n is returned from the scrubber, the washwater can be either treated and discharged overboard, or alternatively, it can be piped to a clean bilge water tank or other suitable holding tanks. While many of the captured contaminants (sludge) are transferred to the vessel’s sludge tank, the constituents of EGS washwater discharge can include residues of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions captured by the scrubbers. EGS washwater discharge can also contain traces of oil, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals and nitrogen. Depending on the geogra phic location of the EGS washwater discharge, the pH level and turb idity of the receiving water may be altered.

3.5.2 Discharge Types Specifically Not Au thorized By This Permit

EPA has identified several discharge types that would not be authorized by this permit because, among other things, the discharge is not within the scope of the current 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion or not within the scope of EPA’s NPDES permitting authority.

3.5.2.1 Discharges not Subject to Former NPDES Pe rmit Exclusion including Vessels Being Operated in a Capacity other t han as a Means of Transportation

This permit is in response to the vacatur of the NPDES permit exclusion set out in 40 CFR 122.3(a). Any discharge that was not subject to that exclusion as of December 18, 2008, would not be authorized under the permit. The date of December 18, 2008 is the day before the date of the vacatur of the regulatory exclusion.

The regulatory exclusion does not apply when the vessel is operating in a capacity other than as a means of transportati on. Vessels that are not being oper ated in the capacity of a means of transportation include vessels being used as energy or mining facilities, storage facilities, seafood processing facilities, or vessels that are secu red to a storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone, or water of the United States for the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or developm ent. Similarly, vessels, when in drydock, also do not operate in a capaci ty as a means of transportation. Vessels that operate in a capacity other than as a means of transportation ge nerally have not been excluded from NPDES permitting under 40 CFR Part 122.3(a).

“Floating” craft that are permanently moored to their piers, such as “floating” casinos, hotels, restaurants, bars, etc. are not covered by the current vess el exclusion and thus would not be covered by the vessel permit. These structur es are outside the scope of the 40 CFR Part 122.3(a) exclusion because they opera te "in a capacity other than as a means of transportation." They are best characterized as casinos, hotels, rest aurants, bars, etc. that happen to be located on water instead of land, much like, for example, the water-based storage facilities mentioned in 122.3(a) as being outside the scope of the exclusion.

With respect to vessels under construction, whenthe vessel is engaged in sea trials which result in operational discharges , because testing is a critical part of vessel operation, such discharges would be incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, and thus eligible for coverage

28Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

under this VGP. However, any discharges resultin g from construction activities are not covered by the VGP as they are incidental to vessel co nstruction, not vessel operation. With respect to vessels engaged in dredging operations, the resulting discharges of dredged or fill material generated by their dredging activity is covered by a CWA § 404 permit or MPRSA ocean dumping permit, and such discharges are excluded from CWA § 402 permitting. The incidental discharges (e.g. graywater, bilgewater) coming from the dredging vessels th emselves are eligible for coverage under this permit (because they move as they dredge and thus are still operating as a means of transportation), but, the industrial

- like activity from these ve ssels is covered by a CWA § 404 permit or MRPSA ocean dumping permit and by statute is not subject to the requirement for a § 402 permit.

3.5.2.2 Sewage from Vessels

The definition of “pollutant” in the CleanWater Act 502(6)(A) specifically excludes “‘sewage from vessels’ within the meaning of [S ection 312 of the Clean Water Act].” These discharges are instead regulated under section 312 of the CWA.

3.5.2.3 Used or Spent Oil

The discharge of used or spent oil no longe r being used for its intended purpose is not eligible for coverage under the permit. This also prohibits the discharge of used or spent oil by adding it to a discharge stream that is otherwise eligible fo r coverage under the permit.

Discharges of small amounts of oil incident al to the normal operation of a vessel are permissible provided appropriate e ffluent limits are met, including th at oil is not discharged in quantities that are harmful, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 110.3. See the discussion of limitations for specific waste streams in Part 4 of this fact sheet below.

3.5.2.4 Rubbish, Trash, Garbage or Other Materials Discharged Overboard

Rubbish, trash, garbage or other materials di scharged overboard are not eligible for coverage under the permit because such mate rials are not subject to the 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion. As stated in VGP Part 1.2.3.4, “garbag e” includes bulk dry cargo residues, as defined by USCG regulations (33 C.F.R. 151.66 (see , 73 Fed. Reg. 56492 (September 29, 2008)) and agricultural cargo residues (e.g., re sidue from agricultural cargo car ried in bulk, such as corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, and grains (see, H. Rept. 107-777 at pg 90 (November 13, 2002)), Thus discharges of such residues are ou tside the scope of this permit.

3.5.2.5 Photo Processing Waste

Photo processing waste includes a wide variet y of compounds, such as ammonia, sulfuric acid, and silver. It is not eligible for coverage under the permit; it is generated in small quantities and can be held for proper disposal onshore.

3.5.2.6 Effluent from Dry Cleaning Operations

Tetrachloroethylene, also known as TCE, perc hloroethylene, or PERC, is a highly toxic substance primarily used by the dry cleaning indu stry. When humans are exposed to TCE it can

29Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

cause dizziness, headache, nausea, nervous system problems, unconsciousne ss, and death. It is a probable human carcinogen. TCE is toxic at low levels and can contaminate soil and water. TCE discharges associated with dry- cleaning activities on ve ssels are not eligible for coverage under the permit because they are not incidental to the normal operation of a vessel.

3.5.2.7 Discharges of Medical Waste and Related Materials

The discharge of medical waste as define d in 33 U.S.C. 1362(20), spent or unused pharmaceuticals, formaldehyde or other biohazar ds no longer being used for their intended purposes are not eligible for coverage under this permit. EPA considers these discharges as not being subject to the NPDES permit exclusion. Fo r purposes of this permit, the liquid produced by dialysis treatment of humans is not deemed to be “medical waste,” and, like other human body waste (i.e., sewage), is exempt from NPDES permitting under 33 U.S.C. 1362(6). Like other sewage, this liquid is regulated, howev er, under VGP Part 2.2.6 if added to a blackwater system combined with a graywater system and is otherwise subject to the requirements of 33 U.S.C 1322 and its implementing regulations. . The direct overboard discharge of such liquid without treatment is not authorized by the VGP.

3.5.2.8 Discharges of Noxious Liqui d Substance (NLS) Residues

The permit does not authorize the discharges of noxious liquid substance (NLS) residues subject to 46 CFR 153.1102. Under 46 CFR 153.1102, discharges of NLS residues are either prohibited or, if allowable, may only take place at sea at least 12 nautical miles from the nearest shore. In light of this, the perm it does not authorize such discharges within waters subject to the permit (i.e., inland waters and the waters of the 3 mile territorial sea). The relevant Coast Guard definition of the term "noxious liquid substance" (see 46 CFR 153.2) is set out in the definition section of the permit.

3.5.2.9 Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) degreasers

Any degreasers containing TCE are not authorized for discharge into waters subject to this permit. For the proposed permit, EPA specifica lly solicited comments on whether uses of TCE other than from dry cleaning opera tions should be explicitly in cluded or excluded from permit coverage. TCE can also be found in cleani ng and degreasing products. Several comments received in the public comment period suppor ted EPA not authorizi ng the discharge of tetrachloroethylene because of its highly toxic nature. EPA has compared the cost of TCE degreasers to products not cont aining TCE and determined that other viable products are available and use of those products is economically practicable and achievabl e. This analysis is available in the economic analysis f ound in the docket for this permit.

3.5.2.10 Discharges Currently or Previous ly Covered by Another Permit

Any vessel discharge that is currently or has previously been covered by either an individual NPDES permit or another general NP DES permit is not eligible for coverage under the permit. The vessel general permit is not inte nded to supplant or replace any current or previous NPDES permit.

30Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

3.6 P ERMIT C OMPLIANCE (P ART 1.4)

Part 1.4 of the permit is intended to inform th e permittee of the potential consequences of failure to comply with the conditi ons of the permit. Part 1.4 explai ns that any failure to comply with the conditions of the permit constitutes a viol ation of the Clean Water Act. Also applicable to all permittees is the standard NPDES permit condition for the “duty to comply” (see 40 CFR 122.41(a)). Where requirements and schedules fo r taking corrective actio ns are included, the time intervals are not grace periods, but are sche dules considered reasonable for making repairs and improvements. For provisions specifying a tim e period to remedy noncompliance, the initial failure, such as a violation of a numeric or non- numeric effluent limit, constitutes a violation of the VGP and the Clean Water Act (unless specifi cally otherwise stipulated), and subsequent failure to remedy such deficiencies within the specified time periods constitutes an independent, additional violation of the permit and the CWA.

As provided in Part 1.1 of the VGP, the perm it allows additional time (60 days) for permittees to come into compliance with insp ection, training, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to address concerns by the regulate d community that such time was necessary to put compliance procedures in place. Note th at this provision does not apply to inspection, training, recordkeeping and reportin g conditions that are required to be in all NPDES permits under 40 CFR 122.41 (see Part 1.13 of the permit), and does not apply to any such conditions resulting from state 401 certificat ions or CZMA review contained in Part 6 of the Permit.

3.7 A UTHORIZATION U NDER THE P ERMIT (P ART 1.5)

3.7.1 No Requirement to Submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Certain Vessels

Under 40 CFR § 122.28 (b)(2)(v), some discharger s may, at the discretion of the Director, “be authorized to discharge under a general pe rmit without submitting a notice of intent where
the Director finds that a notice of intent requirement would be in appropriate.” In making such a determination, the Director must consider: the ty pe of discharge; the e xpected nature of the discharge; the potential for t oxic and conventional pollutants in the discharges; the expected volume of the discharges; other means of identifying discharges covered by the permit; and the estimated number of discharges to be covere d by the permit. Based on consideration of these regulatory factors, EPA is exerci sing its discretion and not requiri ng operators of certain vessels to submit NOIs: namely, those that are smaller th an 300 gross tons, and do not have the capacity to carry more than 8 cubic meters (2113 gallons) of ballast water. The reasons for this approach are explained below:

EPA estimates that there are approximately69,000 vessels that may be covered by the permit. The size of the permitted universe means that this permit will cover one of the highest numbers of dischargers among any of the genera l NPDES permits issued by either EPA or any State. To require all these vesse ls to submit an NOI would be an extremely large administrative burden. In general, the use of NOIs for most point sources provides permitting authorities with useful information to assist in oversight and enforcement of permittees, such as the specific location of the facility and its di scharge. However, because vessels are mobile point sources that

31Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

do not operate from a fixed location and may discharge to multiple receiving waters, the usefulness of requiring the entire universe of point sources cove red by this general permit to submit NOIs is questionable.

In order to determine which vessels would a ppropriately be require d to submit NOIs, EPA
looked at the universe of vessels that would be covered by this permit and found a logical break between larger and smaller vessels, based on the types of discharges from these vessels, the variety of discharges containing conventional and toxic pollutants, and the vol ume and nature of those discharges. The volume of the discharges incidental to th e normal operation of the vessel is expected to vary proportionately to the size of the vessel. Larger vessels will ea ch individually have a greater volume of discharge and are more lik ely to have greater volume of discharges of concern (i.e., graywater and an tifoulant leachate). The expected volume of discharges for large vessels is significant for each individual vessel. For instance, a container ship can discharge thousands of cubic meters (millions of gallons) of ballast water; pounds of anti-foulant leachate, and significant quantities of bilgewater. Cruise ships have the potenti al to discharge large volumes of graywater due to th e sizeable on-board ship popul ations, in addition to other discharges typical of such large ve ssels (for example, ba llast water, bilge water, etc.). Therefore, larger vessels are far more likely to discharg e larger quantities of toxic and conventional pollutants than smaller vessels due to a number of factors including the range of constituents in the discharge. EPA expects that smaller commercial vessels will have a smaller range of discharge types than larger commercial vessels. Some of the typical discharges eligible for coverage under the permit are nearly ubiquitous for most vessels, including deck runoff, bilge water, and leachate from anti-f oulant hull coatings. However, larger commercial vessels have a greater range of discharges which will be of greater volume. Thus, the limited range of discharge types from smaller vessels and the reduced likelihood for the introdu ction of significant quantities of toxic and conventiona l pollutants make requiring an NOI for these vessels to be of little value at this time. In addition, EPA has access to other sources of data available for identifying discharges from vessels covere d by the permit, including state registration information, MARAD vessel calls, U.S. Coast Guar d registration and customs records, and data
from the National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse (NBIC). From these sources, EPA
can obtain information from which we can deduce the nature of ship and boat discharges from
these smaller vessels.

Based on the analysis outlined above, EPA has determined that it would be inappropriate to require smaller commercial vessels to provi de information about their discharges through
submission of an NOI. The cutoff for submission of an NOI of 300 or more gross tons is consistent with U.S. Coast Guard requiremen ts, including those for environmental pollution control (33 CFR 155.320), Automatic Identifica tion System (AIS) carriage requirements (33 CFR 164.46), port security requirements, fuel oil and bulk lubricating oil discharge containment requirements (33 CFR 155.320), and requirements fo r radar observers and chief engineers (33 CFR 15.820 and 33 CFR 15.820).

The criterion of vessels equippe d to hold or discharge more th an 8 cubic meters of ballast water was established for two reasons. First, as of this time, there is not a method by which EPA can predict invasions from any vessel source. However, the greater th e number of viable organisms released into the receiving water, th e greater the propagule pressure, which increases the risk for a successful invasion by an aquatic nuisance species. The volume of water discharged

32Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

likely correlates to the number of organisms discharged; hence, lower volumes of water should contain fewer potential organisms which can successfully establish themselves. A vessel that carries and discharges 2500 cubic meters of ballas t water poses a greater risk to receiving waters
than the vessel that carries 5 cubic meters. Th erefore, the greater the volume of ballast water discharge, the greater the lik elihood of creating enough propagule pressure to result in an enhanced risk of the spread of aquatic nuisanc e species. Secondly, the 8 cubic meter threshold is generally consistent with provi sions in the recent In ternational Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Se diments (2004) providing for an “equivalent compliance regime” for certain vessels in lieu of compliance with all provisions of the treaty. Hence, this is a recogniz ed standard among mariners.

In addition, because of the large number of ve ssels that will be required to submit NOIs and the number of discharges from those vesse ls, the permit includes provisions that delay submission of an NOI for a six to nine month pe riod after the permit is issued for those vessels for which an NOI is required. This will provid e EPA with time to develop an appropriate and effective electronic system to receive and process NOIs for this new universe of NPDES permittees. Prior to submitting NOIs, these vessels will automatically be covered under this permit and will be required to co mply with all of the applicab le terms and conditions of the permit. This authorization will expire after the time period to submit NOIs has expired (see Part 3.8.2 of this Fact Sheet, entitled “How to Obta in Authorization”) if the operator has not
submitted a valid NOI.

3.7.2 How to Obtain Authorization (Part 1.5.1)

To obtain authorization under the permit, ope rators must meet th e Part 1.2 eligibility requirements and, if required by Part 1.5.1.1 of th e permit, submit a complete and accurate NOI according to the requirements in Appendix E (Part 10 in the Permit), no later than 9 months after the permit effective date.

Part 1.5.1.1 describes which operators of a vesse l are required to submit an NOI, and Table
1 sets out the timeframes within which an NOI must be submitted. An operator is required to submit an NOI for its vessel if the vessel meets either of the following two criteria:

• The vessel is greater than or equal to 300 gross tons, or

• The vessel has the capacity to hold or di scharge more than 8 cubic meters (2113 gallons) of ballast water.

3.7.2.1 Owner/Operators Required to Submit NOIs (Part 1.5.1.1)

Owner/operators required to submit an NOI for their vessel must submit an NOI in accordance with Table 1 of the permit. When co mpleting the NOI form, the owner/operator is asked to select which discharge types the vessel is likely to pr oduce. All discharges covered by the permit will be covered for the vessel, even if the owner/operator does not select all discharges. The form will allow EPA to better understand which vessel types typically produce which discharges, but will not limit permit coverage for the vessel owner/operator as long as the vessel is in compliance with the permit requirement s. Table 1 specifies applicable deadlines for different categories of operators to submit NOIs. For vessels delivered to the owner/operator on

33Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

or before September 19, 2009, an NOI must be su bmitted between six months and nine months
after the effective date of this permit. Upon permit issuance, thes e vessels are covered, but this coverage will not extend beyond September 19, 2009, unless owner/operators of these vessels submit NOIs prior to that time. for review of the NOI after posting on EPA’s website for these existing vessels. A 30-day delay could allow EPA the option to review submitted NOIs for completeness and compliance with the permit befo re long-term coverage was granted and would be a logical time for EPA to re quire an individual permit appli cation where necessary. However, for the initial issuance of the pe rmit, EPA is anticipating that te ns of thousands of NOIs will be submitted immediately upon completion of the eNOI system. Currently, it is infeasible for EPA to review such a large number of NOIs in su ch a limited timeframe. Making long-term coverage
effective on the date the NOI is received will en sure that vessels are provided with continuous permit coverage once NOI submission is required. All NOIs will be made available for public review through posting on the inte rnet. EPA may request that the owner/operator seek coverage under Part 1.8 of the permit (Altern ative Permits) if appropriate.

When the ownership or operation of a vessel th at is already covered under this permit is transferred, the new owner/operato r must submit to EPA an NOI for the vessel by the date of
transfer. The new NOI then becomes effective on the date the transfer takes place, or on the date EPA receives the NOI, whichever is later.

For new vessels delivered to the owner/opera tor after September 19, 2009, the deadline for submission of an NOI is no later than 30 days before the vessel will discharge into waters subject to this permit. Because this is likely to in clude a limited number of vessels, the discharge authorization date for these vessels is 30 days after the complete NOI is received by EPA, in order to give EPA time to review those NOIs, as discussed above.

For existing vessels delivered to the owner/ operator after September 19, 2009, that were not previously covered under this permit, the d eadline for submission of an NOI is no later than 30 days before the vessel will discharge into waters subject to this permit. The discharge authorization date for these vessels is 30 days after the complete NOI is received by EPA, in order to give EPA time to review those NOIs, as discussed above.

Based on a review of the NOI or other info rmation, EPA may delay the authorization of the owner/operator’s discharge or may deny cove rage under the permit and require submission of an application for an individual NPDES permit, as detailed in Part 3.10.1. EPA will notify the owner/operator in writing of any such delay or the request for submi ssion of an individual NPDES permit application. For existing vessels cove red under this general permit at the time it is issued, EPA will allow a reasonable time period to obtain alternate permit coverage before coverage under this permit is terminated.

3.7.2.2 Owner/Operators Not Required to Submit NOIs (Part 1.5.1.2)

An operator of a vessel is not required to submit an NOI pursuant to Part 1.5.1.2 of the permit if the vessel is less than 300 tons and does not have the capacity to hold or discharge more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water. Owner/ope rators that are not required to submit an NOI would automatically receive coverage under the pe rmit for their vessel and would be authorized to discharge in accordance with the permit re quirements. Nonetheless, EPA emphasizes that

34Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

these owner/operators would still be subject to all applicable re quirements contained within the permit. If an owner/operator not required to submit an NOI wishes EPA to consider alternative permit requirements for the vessel, he or she must apply to EPA for a substitute permit applicable to his or her vessel as required by Part 1.8 of the permit (Alternative Permits).

3.7.3 Continuation of the Permit (Part 1.5.2)

If the permit is not reissued or replaced prio r to its expiration date , existing dischargers
will continue to be covered under an administra tive continuance, in accordance with section 558(c) of the APA and 40 CFR 122.6. The current pe rmit will remain in effect for discharges that were covered prior to expiration until EPA ac ts on a permit renewal. If coverage is provided to a permittee prior to the expiration date of the permit, the permittee would automatically be covered by the permit until the earl iest of: (1) the authorization for coverage under a reissuance or replacement of the permit, following timely a nd appropriate submittal of a complete NOI, if required; (2) submittal of a Notice of Termination; (3) issuance or denial of an individual permit for the permittee’s discharges; or (4) formal pe rmit decision by EPA not to reissue the general permit, at which time EPA will identify a reasonable time period for covered dischargers to seek coverage under an alternative genera l permit or an individual permit.

EPA has followed this approach in order to extend coverage for these permittees under a permit vehicle until re-issuance of the permit or coverage under some other permit. For more information, see 40 CFR 122.6. EPA does not have th e authority to provide coverage to “new” vessels seeking coverage under an expired permit (i.e., vessels th at were not covered under the permit prior to expiration).

3.8 T ERMINATING C OVERAGE (P ART 1.6)

3.8.1 Submitting a Notice of Term ination (NOT) (Part 1.6.1.1)

Part 1.6.1 of the permit encourages those perm ittees that are required to submit NOIs to use the eNOI system to file NOTs. If a permitt ee who is required to submit an NOI wishes to terminate coverage under the proposed permit, he/she must submit a NOT in accordance with Appendix F. The permittee’s authorization to di scharge under the permit terminates at 11:59 pm on the day that a complete NOT is processed and posted on EPA’s website (www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/eNOI). However, th e NOT is invalid and the permittee must continue to comply with the permit if none of the conditions identified in Part 1.6.2 are met. The permittee has a continuing responsibility for th e discharges from its vessel until the NOT is submitted and processed by EPA. See below for a more detailed discussion of Part 1.6.2.

3.8.2 When to Submit a Notice of Termination (Part 1.6.1.2 and Part 1.6.2)

3.8.2.1 Terminating Coverage for Vessels Required to Submit an NOI

If a permittee was required to submit an NOI, and subsequently meets one of the conditions identified in Part 1.6.1.2, he/she must submit an NOT, preferably to the eNOI system. An NOT is required to be submitted within 30 days after one or more of the following conditions has been met: (1) a new owner or operator has assumed responsibil ity for the vessel; (2)

35Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

operation of the vessel has permanently ceased in waters subject to this permit and there are no longer vessel discharges; or (3) permit covera ge has been obtained unde r an individual or alternative general permit for all discharges requiring NPDES permit coverage, unless the permittee is directed by EPA to obt ain this coverage. EPA uses the term ‘permanently ceased’ in this context to mean that the vessel owner/ope rator does not intend to resume operations in waters subject to this permit during the permit te rm. A vessel owner is not required to submit an NOT every time the vessel leaves waters subject to this permit if the vessel may return to waters subject to this permit during the permit term. This allows a vessel to maintain coverage under the permit, as long as the permit’s terms and conditi ons continue to be met when the vessel is operating in waters subject to this permit.

The permittee’s authorization to discharge unde r the permit terminates at 11:59 pm on the day that a complete NOT is posted on EPA’s website ( www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/enoi ). However, even if the NOT has been posted on the website, the NOT is invalid and the permittee must continue to comply with the permit if none of the conditions identified in Part 1.6.2 are met. The permittee has a continuing responsibilit y for the discharges from its vessel until a compliant NOT is submitted to EPA and posted on EPA’s website.

3.8.2.2 Terminating Coverage for Vessels not Required to Submit an NOI

If a vessel owner/operator is not required to submit an NOI, the vessel’s permit coverage is automatically terminated if: (1) a new owner or operator has assumed responsibility for the vessel; (2) operation of the vessel has permanently ceased in waters subject to this permit and there are no longer vessel disc harges; or (3) permit coverage has been obtained under an individual or alternative gene ral permit for all discharges requiring NPDES permit coverage.

3.9 C ERTIFICATION (P ART 1.7)

Today’s permit contains a requirement thatany person signing the NOI, NOT, and any reports (including any monitoring data) submitted to EPA, in accordance with the permit must
include the certification statement available in Part 1.7. This certificati on statement includes an
additional sentence than has not been included in previous EPA issued NPDES general permits. The sentence reads: “I have no personal knowledg e that the information submitted is other than true, accurate, and complete.” EPA believes this addition to the cer tification language is necessitated by the recent decision in U.S. v. Robison , 505 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2007). In
Robison , the Court of Appeals struck down the defe ndant's conviction for a false statement on the grounds that the certifica tion language did not require him to have personal knowledge regarding the truth or falsity of the information submitted to EPA. Rather, the court reasoned that EPA's certification required the defe ndant to certify, in part, that he made an inquiry of the persons who prepared and submitted the information and based on that inquiry, the information was accurate to the best of his knowledge. Th e court further reasoned that there is no requirement in the certification that the pers on attest to his personal knowledge regarding the information submitted. The government had argued at trial that the defendant had personal knowledge that the facility had committed violations . As a result, EPA feels it is necessary to include language which clarifies that the signatory is certifying that he or she has no personal knowledge that the information submitted is other than true, accurate, and complete.

36Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

3.10 A LTERNATIVE P ERMITS (P ART 1.8)

3.10.1 EPA Requiring Coverage under an Alternative Permit (Part 1.8.1)

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. These regulations also provide that any interested part y may petition EPA to take such an action. The issuance of an individual permit will be in accordance with 40 CFR Part 124 and provide for public comment and appeal of any final permit decision. The circ umstances in which such an action would be taken are set forth at 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3).

3.10.2 Permittee Requesting Coverage under an Alternative Permit (Part 1.8.2)

After issuance of the permit, the permittee may request to be excluded from such coverage by applying for an individual permit. In such a case, the permittee must submit an individual permit application, no later than 90 days after the date of publi cation of final permit in the Federal Register, in accordance with 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3)(iii), along with a statement of reasons supporting the request, to the applicable EPA Regiona l Office listed in Part 7 of this permit. The request may be granted by issuance of an individu al permit or authorizatio n of coverage under an alternative general permit if the reasons are adequate to support the request. Under this scenario, if an individual permit is issued, or author ization to discharge under an alternative NPDES permit is granted, your authorization to discharg e under this permit is automatically terminated under 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3)(iv) on the effective date of the individual permit or the date of authorization of coverage under the alternative general permit.

3.11 P ERMIT R EOPENER C LAUSE (P ART 1.9)

This permit contains a re-opener clause allo wing 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 result if new information, not available at the time of permit issuance, is received that would have justified the applic ation of different permit conditions at the time of issuance. As discussed elsewhere in this fact sheet (s ection 4.4.3.5), due to the current unavailability of reliable and demonstrated ballast water treatment technologies for use on ships, the requirements for ballast water discharges in this permit primarily rely on use of ballast water exchange and/or saltwater flushing of ballast tanks. Although ballast wate r treatment technologies are still in the developmental stage, some of these technolog ies might become available for installation on board vessels during the term of the permit. EPA will continue to consider the availability of ballast water treatment technologies over the life of this permit, in cluding consideration of ballast water technology reviews conducted under the au spices of the International Maritime Organization and activities by the U.S. Coas t Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and others in the evaluation or demonstration of ballast water technologies.
Should such new information show that ballast wa ter treatment technologies, which are at least as effective as ballast water exchange, have become commercially available for installation on ships, EPA may determine this to be new info rmation justifying modifi cation of the permit under 40 CFR 122.62(a)(2).

37Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

3.12 O CEAN D ISCHARGE C RITERIA

The Ocean Discharge Criteria (40 CFR Part 125, Subpart M) establish regulations for issuance of NPDES permits for discharges into th e territorial seas, the contiguous zone and the
ocean as these terms are defined in the CWA. Th e permit includes coverage of vessels operating as a means of transportation when within the terri torial seas. It thus is subject to the Ocean Discharge Criteria regulation with respect to discharges incide ntal to the normal operation of
such vessels into the terr itorial seas. For purposes of this eval uation, the territorial seas means the
belt of the seas measured from the line of or dinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters, and extending seaward a distance of three miles (33 U.S.C. 1362(8)).

Under 40 CFR 125.123(a), if EPA, on the basis of available information determines prior to permit issuance that the discharges authorized will not cause unreasonable degradation of the marine environment, EPA may issue an NPDES permit, which may be conditioned as necessary to assure that the discharge will not cause unreasonable degradation. Th e regulations (40 CFR 125.121(e)) define unreasonable degradation of the marine environment as meaning:

1. Significant adverse changes in ecosystem di versity, productivity and stability of the biological community within the area of discharge and surrounding biological communities,

2. Threat to human health through direct expos ure to pollutants or through consumption of exposed aquatic organisms, or

3. Loss of aesthetic, recreational, scientific or economic valu es which is unreasonable in
relation to the benefit deri ved from the discharge.

The Ocean Discharge Criteria require that EP A consider a number of factors in the determination of the degree of de gradation to the marine environm ent. These factors include the amount and nature of the pollutants, the potential transport of the pollutants, the character and uses of the receiving water and its biological comm unities, the existence of special aquatic sites (including parks, refuges, etc.), any applicab le requirements of an approved Coastal Zone Management plan, and potential impacts on wate r quality, ecological health and human health and any other factors the Admini strator deems appropriate. 40 C. F.R. 125.122(a). In addition, the Ocean Discharge Criteria establish a presumption that discharges in compliance with state water quality standards will not cause unreasonable degr adation with respect to the pollutants subject to those standards. 40 C.F.R. 125.122(b). After c onsideration of the OceanDischarge Criteria, EPA has determined that the discharges authoriz ed by the NPDES permit into the territorial seas in accordance with permit requirements will not cause unreasonable degradation of the receiving

waters.

The discharges authorized by the permit are lim ited to those discharges incidental to the normal operation the vessel, and except for ball ast water and graywater from cruise ships, typically will be of limited volumes. In addition, b ecause vessels in the terri torial seas are likely to be underway as part of their voyage, any disc harges incidental to th eir normal operation would typically be well-mixed upon discharge before they are subject to further dispersal and transport beyond the area of the vessel’s operation.

38Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

In the case of ballast water, the permit cont ains conditions (Part 2.2.3 of the permit) related to exchange of ballast water and saltwater flus hing of empty ballast tanks beyond the outer limits
of the territorial seas to reduce the risk of intr oduction of invasive spec ies resulting from vessel discharges to waters of the United States with in the territorial seas. EPA believes that these controls will prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine environment. With respect to graywater from cruise ships, the permit also in cludes (Parts 5.1 and 5.2 of the permit) additional conditions to reduce the impacts of graywater di scharges to acceptable levels. EPA believes that these provisions will prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine environment.

In developing the permit, the Agency has taken into consideration that discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels are subject to the permit have the potential to be contaminated with oil or other potentially pers istent or bioaccumulativ e pollutants. The permit
therefore contains a number of best management practices in tended to avoid or reduce the potential for such contamination (e.g., secti on 2.1). In addition, the permit requires (section 2.1.5) compliance with all federal environmental laws that establish controls on oily or hazardous discharges, including among others, CWA section 311 (33 U.S.C. 1321), the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 190-1915), the Federal Insectic ide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. ), and the Oil Pollution C ontrol Act , 33 U.S.C. 2701-2761. EPA believes that these controls will preven t unreasonable degradation of the marine
environment.

The Agency also has taken into account the biological communities and receiving waters that would be exposed to the discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels that will be authorized by the permit. This consideration ha s necessarily been complicated by the fact that vessels have the potential to trav erse vast distances in the terr itorial sea while discharging. The Agency has taken an approach of identifying potentially sensitive areas in which vessels may operate and providing for additional controls when discharges occur in such areas. In addition to requiring compliance with marine sanctuaries provi sions of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. ) and implementing regulations found at 15 C.F.R. Part 922 and 50 C.F.R. Part 404 (Part 2.1.5), the permit includes other conditions to impose additional controls and requirements on covered discharges in sensitiv e receiving waters (Part 2.3 of the permit). EPA has also determined that issuance of this permit will not adversely affect essential fish habitat (see 12.3 of this Fact Sheet).

Finally, this permit applies to discharges to the outer limit of the three mile territorial sea. State water quality standards also apply within these waters and th e permit thus contains effluent limitations as necessary to meet those applicable water quality standards (Parts 2.3 and 6 of the Permit). In addition, EPA has requested states’ certifications under se ction 401 of the Clean Water Act, and requested concurrence on EPA’s c onsistency determination for this permit from state coastal management agencies, in accordan ce with section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Additional conditions ha ve been incorporated into Part 6 of the permit, pursuant to CWA section 401, CZMA sec tion 307(c), and implementing regulations. Under 40 C.F.R. 125.122(b), EPA presumes that discharges in compliance with state water quality standards will not to cause unreasonabl e degradation of the ma rine environment with respect to specific pollutants or conditi ons specified in such standards.

In light of the foregoing, EPA has determined that issuance of the permit will not cause:

39Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

1. Significant adverse changes in ecosystem di versity, productivity and stability of the biological community within the area of discharge and surrounding biological communities,

2. Threat to human health through direct expos ure to pollutants or through consumption of exposed aquatic organisms, or

3. Loss of aesthetic, recreational, scientific or economic valu es which is unreasonable in
relation to the benefit deri ved from the discharge.

Accordingly, in accordance with 40 CFR 125.12 3(a), the Agency has determined that issuance of the permit with the controls include d will not cause unreasonable degradation of the
marine environment.

3.13 O THER C ONDITIONS (P ARTS 1.11, 1.12, AND 1.13)

This permit contains savings clauses which state that nothing in the permit shall be construed to preclude th e institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties esta blished pursuant to any a pplicable state law or regulation under authority preserved by section 510 of the Clean Water Act or applicable requirements or prohibitions under other provisions of Federal law or regulations. In addition, Federal regulations require that the standard permit conditions provided at 40 CFR 122.41 be applied to all NPDES permits As provided by the introductory text of 40 CFR 122.41 and the regulation at 40 CFR 122.43(c), all of the standard permit conditions published in federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41 (2008) are incorporated into the pe rmit by reference. The permit requires permittees to comply with al l applicable standard conditions.

40Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

4. 

### EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

4.1 B ACKGROUND

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that all point source discharges must meet technology-based effluent limitati ons representing the applicable levels of technology-based control. Water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) are required as necessary where the technology-based limitations are not sufficient to meet applicable wa ter quality standards (WQS). See P.U.D. No. 1 of Jefferson County et al. v. Washington Dept. of Ecology , 511 U.S. 700, 704 (1994). Water quality-based requirements will be discussed in greater depth in Section 4.3. Both technology-based and water quality-based effluent limitations are implemented through NPDES permits containing such li mitations issued to point sour ces. CWA sections 301(a) and (b).

4.1.1 The Clean Water Act Requires EPA to Develo p Effluent Limitations that Represent the Following:

4.1.1.1 Best Practicable Control Technol ogy Currently Available (BPT)

The CWA requires BPT effluent limitations for conventional, toxic, and non-conventional pollutants. Section 304(a)(4) de signates the following as conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined by the Administ rator as conventional. The Ad ministrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional pollu tant on July 30, 1979. 40 CFR 401.16. EPA has identified 65 pollutants and classes of polluta nts as toxic pollutants, of which 126 specific substances have been designated priority t oxic pollutants. 40 CFR 401.15 and 40 CFR Part 423 Appendix A. All other pollutants are considered to be non-conventional.

In specifying BPT, under CWA section 301(b)(1)(A); 304(b)(1)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(d)(1),
EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first c onsiders the total cost of applying the control technology in relation to the effl uent reduction benefits. The Agen cy also considers the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed, and any required process changes, engineering aspects of the c ontrol technologies, non-water qu ality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such ot her factors as the EP A Administrator deems appropriate. Traditionally, EPA es tablishes BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performance of facilities within the industry of various ag es, sizes, processes, or other common characteristics. Where existing performa nce is uniformly inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than curr ently in place in an industrial cat egory if the Agency determines that the technology can be practically applied.

4.1.1.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)

The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT fo r discharges from existing industrial point sources. CWA section 301(b)(2)(E); 304(b)(4 )(B); 40 CFR 125.3(d)(2). In addition to considering the other factors specified in sec tion 304(b)(4)(B) to establish BCT limitations, EPA

41Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

42 also considers a two part “cost-reasonablene ss'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in 1986. 51 FR 24974 (July 9, 1986).

4.1.1.3 Best Available Technology Ec onomically Achievable (BAT)

For toxic pollutants and non-conventional pollutants, EPA promulgates effluent limitations based on BAT. CWA section 301(b )(2)(A); 304(b)(2)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(d)(3). In establishing BAT, the technology must be technologically “a vailable” and “economical ly achievable.” The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential process changes, nonwater quality environmental impacts, including en ergy requirements, and other such factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight accorded to these factor s. BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions attainable through ch anges in a facility's processe s and operations. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may re flect a higher level of performance than is currently being achieved within a particular subcategory based on technology transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT may be based upon proce ss changes or internal controls, even when these technologies are not common industry practice.

This permit contains effluent limits that co rrespond to required levels of technology-based control (BPT, BCT, BAT) for various discharges under the CWA. Some effluent limits have been established by examining other existing laws and requirements. Where these laws already exist, it was deemed feasible for the operators to implement these practices as effluent limits in this permit. Because these are demonstrat ed practices, EPA has found that they are technologically available and economically prac ticable (BPT) or achievable (BAT). In some cases, such as with discharges of oils, includi ng oily mixtures and graywater discharges from cruise ships (under certain circumstances), numer ic effluent limits ha ve been established.

4.1.2 Numeric Limitations Are Infeasible

Because of the nature of vessel discharges, it is not practicable to rely on numeric effluent limits to achieve these levels of control for the large majority discharge types until greater information is available. Constituents in properly controlled discharges may vary widely based upon vessel type, size, and activities occurring on board the vessel. In such situations, the CWA authorizes EPA to include non-numeric effluent limits in NPDES permits. 5 40 CFR 122.44(k)(3). The VGP includes such non-numeric effl uent limits developed for discharges for which developing numeric effluent limits are infeas ible to calculate at this time. Many of these non-numeric effluent limits require permittees to engage in specific behaviors or best management practices (BMPs).

For example, some permittees must conduct sa ltwater flushing to minimize the discharge of living organisms. Several other BMPs require vessels to “minimize” pollutant discharges. For purposes of this permit and consistent with the technology-based requi rements of the CWA,

5 Refer to more detailed discussion below under “EPA’s Authority To Include Non-Numeric Technology-Based Effluent Limits In NPDES Permits,” “EPA’s Decision To Include Non-Numeric Technology-Based Effluent Limits In This Permit” and 40 CFR 122.44(k)(3).Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

EPA is clarifying that the term “minimize” mean s to reduce and/or elim inate to the extent achievable using control measures (includi ng best management practices) that are technologically available and econom ically practicable and achievab le in light of best marine practice.

This permit defines the term “minimize” in order to provide a reasonable approach by which EPA, permittees, and the public can determin e/evaluate appropriate control measures for vessels to control specific di scharges. 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 disc harges, highly engineer ed, complex, treatments systems that are reliable and approved for use on ve ssels are not currently available. The specific limits included in Part 2 of the permit emphasize effective pollution prevention controls, such as requiring phosphorus free soap, storing chemi cals in protected areas of the vessel, and minimizing production of graywater in port. In other cases, they require more complex behavioral practices such as sa ltwater flushing or ballast water exchange. In yet other cases, more advanced treatment may be necessary, such as that needed to meet water quality-based
effluent limits.

4.2 T ECHNOLOGY -B ASED E FFLUENT L IMITS

EPA has determined that the technology-based numeric and non-numeric effluent limits in this permit, taken as a whole, constitute the first level of control (BPT for all pollutants) and the second level of control (BAT for toxic a nd non-conventional polluta nts and/or BCT for conventional pollutants) for discharg es from vessels. For all of the discharges in this permit, the technology-based limits are based on best pr ofessional judgment, as authorized under CWA section 402(a)(1) and 40 CFR 125.3.

4.2.1 Types of Technology-Based Effluent Limits

As stated above, the CWA establishes two leve ls of technology-based controls. The first level of control, “best practicable control techno logy currently available,” or “BPT” applies to all pollutants. CWA section 304(b)(1)(B); 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(1)(B) . BPT represents the initial stage of pollutant discharge reduction, de signed to bring all sources in an industrial category up to the level of the average of the be st source in that category. See EPA v. National Crushed Stone

Association , 449 U.S. 64, 75-76 (1980). In the second le vel of control, all point sources are required to meet effluent limita tions based on “best conventiona l pollutant control technology,” or “BCT” CWA section 304(b)(4)(B); 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(4)(B) or “best available technology economically achievable,” or “BAT” CWA section 301(b)(2)(A); 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A ), depending on the types of pollutant s discharged. BCT applies to conve ntional pollutants, listed at 40 CFR 401.16 (biological oxygen demand (BOD), pH, fecal coliform, TSS, and oil and grease). BAT applies to toxic and non-conventional pollutant s. Technology-based lim its are to be applied throughout industry without regard to receiving water quality. Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA

, 671 F.2d 801 (4th Cir. 1982).

43Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

4.2.2 Inclusion of Non-Numeric Technol ogy-Based Limits in NPDES Permits

NPDES permits are required to contain technology-based limitations. CWA sections 301(b)(1)(A)(BPT); 301 (b)(2)(A)(BAT), 301(b)(2)(E) ( BCT); 40 CFR 122.44(a)(1). Technology-based limits in the permit represent the BPT (for conventi onal, toxic, and nonconventional pollutants), BCT (for conventiona l pollutants), and BAT (for toxic and nonconventional pollutants) level of control for the applicable pollutants. Where EPA has not promulgated ELGs for an industry, or if an operato r is discharging a pollutant not covered by the effluent guideline, permit limitations may be based on the best professional judgment (BPJ, sometimes also referred to as best engineer ing judgment) of the permit writer. 33 U.S.C. 1342(a)(1); 40 CFR 125.3. See Student Public Interest Group v. Fritzsche, Dodge & Olcott , 759 F.2d 1131, 1134 (3d Cir. 1985); American Petroleum Inst. v. EPA , 787 F.2d 965, 971 (5th Cir. 1986). For this general permit, all of the te chnology-based limits are based on BPJ decisionmaking because no ELGs apply.

Most of the BPJ limits in the permit are in the form of non-numeric control measures, commonly referred to as best management pract ices (BMPs). Non-numeric limits are employed under limited circumstances, as described in 40 CF R 122.44(k). As far back as 1977, courts have recognized that there are circumstances when numer ical effluent limitati ons are infeasible and have held that EPA may issue permits with c onditions (e.g., BMPs) designed to reduce the level of effluent discharges to acceptable levels. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Costle , 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir.1977).

Through the Agency’s NPDES permit regula tions, 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, standard s, and other permit conditions (applicable to State NPDES programs ...),” provides that perm its may include BMPs to control or abate the discharge of pollutants when: (1) “[a]uthorized under section 304(e) of th e CWA for the control of toxic pollutants and hazardous substances fr om ancillary industrial activities”; (2) “[a]uthorized under section 402(p) of the CWA for the control of stormwater discharges”; (3) “[n]umeric effluent limitations are infeasible”; or (4) “[t]he practices ar e reasonably necessary to
achieve effluent limitations and standards or to carry out the pur poses and intent of the CWA.” 40 CFR 122.44(k).

And, as recently as 2006, courts have held that the CWA does not require the EPA to set
numeric limits where such limits are infeasible. 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.”

Additionally, the Sixth Circuit cited to Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA , 673 F.2d 400, 403 (D.C. Cir.1982), noting that “section 502 (11) defines ‘efflue nt limitation’ as ‘ any restriction’ on the amounts of pollutants discharged, not just a numerical restriction.”

44Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

4.2.3 EPA’s Decision to Include Non-Numeric Te chnology-Based Effluent Limits in This Permit and Rationale for Why the Limits Represent the Appropriate (BPT, BCT or BAT) Level of Control

Non-numeric limits

With the exception of graywater and pool and spa discharges from cruise ships, oily discharges, including oily mixtures, and resi dual biocide limits from vessels utilizing experimental ballast water treatment systems, num eric effluent limitations are not feasible to calculate for vessel discharges in this permit ite ration. EPA may develop nu meric effluent limits for certain discharge types for the next permit iteration, if applicable. Vessels vary widely by type and/or class, size, and activity. Furthermore, most ve ssel designs are unique, onboard space is highly limited, and information on the characteristi cs of all discharges from these vessels is limited. Hence, vessels can discharge a wide variety of waste streams, whose volume will vary dependent upon seas, cargo carried, and age of the vessel. Additionally, vessel operators cannot install equipment onboard their vessels until th at equipment has been approved by the Coast Guard and, in some cases, their class societies. Hence, EPA could not require experimental equipment or technologies in de velopment that would conflict with the requirements of these organizations without fully understanding th e implications of these requirements.

These factors create a situation where, at this time, it is generally not feasible for EPA to calculate numeric effluent limitations to effectively regulate vessel discharges, with the limited exceptions noted above (graywater and pool and spa water discharges from cruise ships, some oil discharges, including oily mixtures for vessels, and residual biocide limits). EPA is able to calculate numeric effluent limits for these group s because extensive research has been conducted and effective pollution c ontrol technologies are widely comm ercially available. For other nonnumeric effluent limits, such as standards for ballast water exchange, the variability of the effectiveness of the exchange, combined with the impossibility of being able to successfully predict invasions, have prevented EPA from establishing numeric limits expressed as the number of living organisms in the discharge. Instead, ve ssel owner/operators must exchange a specified
volume of water which should increase the effectiv eness of the exchange. In other cases, such as establishing ballast water living organism discharge limits where standards have been proposed by other entities, EPA could not identify technol ogies that are available as of December 19, 2008, using a BAT approach to meet those limits (see section 4.4.3.5 for more detailed discussion). Therefore, in light of these considerations, EPA has dete rmined that it is not feasible for the Agency to calculate numeric, technology-base d limits for most of the discharges covered under this permit, and, based on the authority of40 CFR 122.44(k)(3), has chosen to adopt nonnumeric effluent limits.

Rationale for finding that the limits in this pe rmit represent the BPT, BCT or BAT level of
control

The BAT/BCT/BPT non-numeric effluent lim its in this permit are expressed as:

• Specific pollution prevention practices for mi nimizing or eliminating the pollutants or constituent of concern in the discharge.

45Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

46 • Specific behavioral practices for minimizing or eliminating the pollutants or constituent of concern in the discharge.

• Narrative requirements to minimize pollutants or constituents of concern in discharges or the discharges themselves 6

• Limiting or eliminating discharges at certain times for discharge types that can be limited or eliminated for short periods due to tec hnology available on board the vessel and the vessel design (i.e. if the vessel can hold th e discharge type for limited periods or reduce production of the effluent).

In the context of this general permit, EP A has determined these non-numeric effluent limits represent the best practi cable technology (BPT) for all pollu tants, the best conventional pollutant control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT) and the best available technology economically achievable (BAT) for toxic and non- conventional pollutants. EPA has determined that the combination of pollution prevention appr oaches and structural management practices
described above are the most e nvironmentally sound way to contro l the discharge of pollutants
from vessels.

Requirements are technologically available

EPA has found that the requirements of this permit represent the appropriate level of control representing BPT, BCT, and BAT. For exam ple, many class societie s require that vessels have coamings or drip pans underneath machinery as a way to keep oil from entering the bilge, being discharged to surrounding waters, or crea ting hazardous conditions on the vessel deck. The majority of vessels already have these available measures in place to eliminate the discharge of oil from their vessels and many frequently clean o il from the drip pans if present. Hence, EPA believes this requirement represents BPT and this permit requires that all vessels follow this common sense approach if feasible . As an example of an efflue nt limit that meets BPT and BAT standards, EPA is requiring vessel operators to comply with additional ballast water management requirements such as mandatory saltwater flushing for vessels with empty ballast water tanks (see section 4.4.3.2 of this fact sheet for additional discussion). These requirements are available because of the U.S. Coast Guard’s voluntary pol icy for such vessels and the Saint Lawrence Seaway Corporation’s mandatory requirements fo r vessels entering through the Seaway (33 CFR Part 401.30), and many U.S.-bound vessels with empt y ballast tanks already perform saltwater flushing. Furthermore, because reliable treatment technology is not yet currently available for removing residual living organisms in empty ballast water tanks under the BAT standard, saltwater flushing represents BAT since it is th e best approach currently available for these
vessels under this standard.

EPA has found that it is technologically possibl e to prohibit discharges in certain waters, and therefore such a limit is technologically avai lable. However, it is not possible to prohibit these discharge categories under all circumstances. EPA decide d which discharge types to prohibit in certain waters based on the envir onmental impacts of discharges and technical information as to whether vessels had the capacity to hold certain discharge types. These sources
of information included technical experts and publicati ons cited in this fa ct sheet including US

6 These types of effluent limits allow owner/operators to us e control measures appropriat e for their vessels to meet
those limits.Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

EPA 1999, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ( ADEC) and Science Advisory Panel 2002, Lamb 2004, and US EPA 2007.

As an example, some vessels such as cruise ships have the ability to hold graywater for a time from hours to days. Likewise, large vessels can retain treated Bilg ewater on board in the bilge for prolonged periods; however, it must peri odically be discharged or emptied. Yet another example is the discharge of AFFF for mainte nance purposes. Vessel owner/operators may elect where they conduct the maintenance, thereby lim iting where they will discharge. Since vessels are mobile and can move from water to water, EPA has determined that vessels have the technology to limit their discharges in select wate rs. Therefore, under the authority to consider “other factors the Administrator deems appropriate ,” EPA has determined th at the requirement to limit discharges to specific wa ters is technologically availabl e. However, as mentioned, EPA finds that it is not technologically available to limit all discharge types in certain waters. For instance, in the case of deck runoff, vessel operato rs have little control as to when water may runoff from the deck into surrounding waters wit hout potentially creating major safety concerns. Hence, EPA is not prohibiting the discharge of ce rtain discharge types into waters of greater concern where methods to do so are not technologically available.

Requirements meet the BPT and BAT ec onomic tests set forth in the CWA

There are different economic considerations und er BPT, BCT and BAT. EPA finds that the limits in this permit meet the BPT and BAT economic tests. Because the types of controls under consideration minimize toxic, nonconventional, and conventi onal pollutants, conventional pollutants are controlled by the sa me practices that control toxi c and nonconventional pollutants. Hence, EPA is evaluating effluent limits using a BPT and a BAT standard, but since conventional pollutants will also be adequately controlled by these same effluent limits for which EPA applied the BPT and BAT tests, EPA has de termined that it is not necessary to conduct
BCT economic tests.

Under BPT, EPA has determined that the re quirements of this permit are economically practicable. To make this determination, EP A has considered the reasonableness of the relationship between the costs of application of technology in re lation to the effluent reduction benefit derived. CWA section 301(b)(1)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(d)(1). EPA has examined the cost of these requirements and found that the average an nual cost per domestic vessel ranged from an average of approximately $125 using low end assu mptions to $359 using high end assumptions. At the same time, EPA expects the permit require ments to reduce the risk of invasive species spread, to minimize production of effluent in hi gh quality waters, to re duce nutrient loading, and
to minimize the risk of other constitu ents entering vessel waste streams.

EPA has determined that the requirements of this permit are economically achievable. In determining “economic achievabili ty” under BAT, EPA has consider ed whether the costs of the controls can reasonably be borne by the industry. EPA typically evaluates “closures,” whereby the costs of requirements are evaluated to see whet her they would cause a facility to go out of business. EPA has assessed the costs of the require ments in this permit and finds that this permit
will result in no “closures” in that the costs of th e rule are small compared to all operating costs. EPA has assessed the costs of the requirements and finds that except in rare cases, the cost of implementing this permit is estimated to be below 1% of the total operating costs of almost all

47Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

entities for any given year. The total domestic fl agged vessel universe that would be affected by this permit includes approximately 61,000 vessels . Including the ballast water and other discharge requirements, the economic impact an alysis indicates that the best management practices in this permit would cost betw een $ 6.7 million and $16.7 million annually. Including paperwork requirements, the permit is estimat ed to cost between $7.7 and $21.9 million dollars annually for domestic vessels. Including estimates of ballast water costs for foreign vessels, the permit is expected to cost between $ 8.9 and $23.0 million dollars annually. Depending upon sector (vessel type), median costs per firm ra nge from $1 to $795 in the low end assumptions and from $5 to $1,967 in the high end assumptions (excluding median values from commercial fishing vessels which are expected to be $0). Costs for the 95 th percentile range from $7 for the Deep Sea Coastal and Great Lakes Passenger Vessels to $20,355 for marine cargo handling under low end cost estimates and from $88 to $35,190 for the same vessel classes for high end cost estimates (see table 7.1 of the economic asse ssment cost estimates across vessel classes). EPA applied a cost-to-revenue test which calcul ates annualized pre-tax compliance cost as a percentage of total revenues and used a threshol d of 1 and 3 % to identif y entities that would be significantly impacted as a result of this Permit. The total number of en tities expected to exceed a 1% cost ratio ranges from 213 under low cost assumptions to 308 under high cost assumptions. Of this universe, the total numbe r of entities expected to exceed a 3 % cost ratio ranges from 55 under low cost assumptions to 73 under high co st assumptions. Based on this analysis, EPA concludes that the BAT limits in this permit are unlikely to result in a substantial economic impact on all businesses, and, in particular, small businesses. Hence, EPA in terprets this analysis to indicate that the BAT limits are economically achievable. The economic analysis is available on EPA’s webpage at www.epa.gov/npdes/ vessels and in the docket for this permit.

Additionally, the discharge location limitation is economically practical and achievable, since discharging in one location versus anothe r will add no or little additional cost. The only potential costs are an increase in fuel consump tion from carrying additional volumes of effluent rather than discharging the effluent immediatel y when generated. EPA e xpects these incremental costs associated with this permit to be negligib le. EPA’s information in the record does indicate, however, that it is possible and economically pr acticable and achievable to minimize graywater and some additional discharges in waters federally protected wholly or in part for conservation purposes. Therefore, under EPA’s authority to c onsider “other factors the Administrator deems appropriate,” it is reasonable to focus the limita tions on certain discharge types that would have the most environmental significance. In addi tion, this restriction is alternatively and independently based on EPA’s aut hority under CWA section 403(c).

Requirements have acceptable non-w ater quality environmental impacts

In addition, EPA has considered the non-water quality environmental impacts, including energy impacts, of the controls required under this permit and finds that they are acceptable. EPA anticipates that the requirements of this perm it may result in marginal increase in fuel usage
for vessels that must conduct ballast water excha nge or saltwater flushing , must treat graywater to standards in Part 5 of the permit, or must limit the discharge location of certain waste streams and transport them into a different receivi ng water or hold them for discharge onshore. Additionally, owner/operators of ve ssels may generate more sludge or other waste that may need to be disposed of properly onshore. EPA expects that most permit requirements will result in few

48Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

non-water quality impacts because, in many cases, th e permit is reflective of practices currently being implemented by owner/operators.

Data sources and request for comment

EPA finds that establishing technology-based controls that can be required of all commercial vessels over a certain size, in ma ny different waters, under many different weather and operational situations, to be a very chal lenging task. EPA expressly solicited comment on whether the controls in this permit represent the BPT, BCT and BAT levels of control. Following
EPA’s consideration of comments received and information used in formulation of the proposed permit, EPA finds that today’s final permit contains technology-based controls that represent the BPT, BCT or BAT levels of control.

In developing these non-numeric effluent limits , EPA considered data from numerous peer reviewed publications, li terature produced by the federal gover nment, other technical reports and publications, public comments, and comments from experts working in the field (Dobroski et al., 2007; Endresen et al., 2004; Environmental Law In stitute, 2004; Gracki et al., 2002; Gray et al., 2007; Gregg & Hallegraeff, 2007; Lamb, 2004; Ll oyds Register, 2007; Locke et al., 1993; McCollin et al., 2007; Orange County Coastkeeper , 2007; Quilez-Badia et al., 2008; Raikow et al., 2007; Schiff et al., 2004; Tamburri et al., 2002; US EPA, 1999, 2001a, b, 2007). The data
sources from which EPA derived information fo r decision-making purposes are included in the docket for the final permit. These data sources discuss vessel discharge types, BMPs available for these discharge types, and the effectiven ess of given BMPs or behavioral practices.

EPA considered these data and how to design a permit that was environmentally protective and included the best practicable technology and best available technology economically achievable in formulating the permit.

4.3 T ECHNOLOGY -B ASED E FFLUENT L IMITS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS IN THE P ERMIT

4.3.1 General Effluent Limits (Part 2.1)

The general effluent limits are designed to apply to all covered vessels for all covered discharge types present on a particular vessel. These effluent limits are generally preventative in nature, and are designed to minimize the discharg e of pollutants from a vessel. Owner/operators are ultimately responsible for ensuring that all required effluent limits are implemented.

As discussed above, these technology-based effl uent limits apply to all covered vessels and were developed using BPJ. These general tec hnology-based effluent limits were established
based on available and relevant in formation, including available tec hnical data, existing statutes and regulations, statistical indus try information, and research studies cited in the references section of this permit.

4.3.1.1 Material Storage (Part 2.1.1)

Any materials, whether cargo or for use onboa rd the vessel, that may be exposed to precipitation, surface water spray, or wind can potenti ally be discharged on their own or become part of other waste streams. Materials that may not be considered toxic in small concentrations

49Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

could pose an environmental threat if significan t amounts are washed over board, particularly in shallow or impaired waters.

Therefore, the permit require s that all vessel operators practice good environmental stewardship by minimizing any e xposure of cargo or onboard materials that may result in
releases of contaminants to the environment. This can be accomplished by containerizing or tarping materials, and generally limiting any expo sure of these materials to wind, rain, or spray. In addition, if water draining from the storage area comes into c ontact with any oily materials, the permit requires measures to prevent the o il from being discharged in harmful quantities (pursuant to Part 2.3.1.1).

EPA believes that while specific numeric limita tions on toxic substances are not feasible for this potential source of pollutants, sound mari ne practices should be su fficient to reduce most accidental or incidental discharges of cargo or st ored materials. EPA also believes that emphasis on training and educating vessel crew on the use a nd environmental benefits of these practices should be standard practice.

4.3.1.2 Toxic and Hazardous Materials (Part 2.1.2)

The presence or use of toxic and hazardous materials may be necessary for the operation of vessels. As part of the permit’s requirements, thes e materials must be properly contained to avoid contamination of the discharges covered by th is permit. EPA has recommended human health and marine aquatic life criteria for a few toxi c pollutants, but requiring numeric effluent limitations and corresponding sampling and analysis of discharges for all potentially harmful contaminants is not a reasonable option for this permit since discharges w ould be accidental in nature and the preventive requireme nts are just as effective as num eric limits at controlling such discharges. These provisions should effectivel y prevent the discharge of these toxic and hazardous materials from storage, spills, and containment. EPA believes that preventing the
release of these substances to the environmen t is the appropriate environmental protection strategy. Vessel owner/operators ar e required to ensure that toxi c and hazardous substances are treated in a manner that prevents releases due to precipitation or surface water spray. Just as EPA requires of land-based industries, vessels must store, label, and secure toxic and hazardous materials in suitable, sealed containers.

4.3.1.3 Fuel Spills/Overflows (Part 2.1.3)

Even small amounts of spilled fuel can contaminate large areas of water, making it uninhabitable for plants and animals. Most sm all spills can be prevented by taking basic precautions when filling fuel tanks. The permit requires vessel operators to implement these precautions that will prevent or, in the case of a spill, contain any fuel that is released to surface waters (e.g. use of booms). The discharge of an y fuel spill or overflow may not result in a discharge that may be harmful as defined by 40 CFR Part 110, which includes those discharges that cause a visible sheen. In addition, any larger scale fuel spill or overflow is not incidental to the normal operation of a vessel and therefore, not authorized by this permit. Through proper fueling operations and training on spill treatment, vessel operators may reduce impacts caused by human error or improper equipment use. EPA recognizes that fueling operations for large vessels are very different from fueling operati ons on small boats, and often large vessels will

50Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

carry onboard several smalle r vessels used as lifeboats, tenders, or rescue boats. Therefore, there are additional requirements for fueling of auxiliary vessels such as lifeboats, tenders, or rescue boats that are deployed from “host” vessels s ubject to the permit. These requirements include examining the surrounding area for the presence of a visible sheen during fueling, if a sheen is observed as a result of the permittee’s fueling op erations it must be cleaned up immediately, and using an oil absorbent material or other appropri ate device while fueling to catch drips from vent overflow and fuel intake. These simple steps can prevent fuel spills a nd overflows that would lead to a discharge. These requirements have been adapted from EPA’s previously proposed
Recreational Vessel General Permit.

4.3.1.4 Discharges of Oil, Includi ng Oily Mixtures (Part 2.1.4)

Discharges of oil, including oily mixtures, can significantly impact aquatic and terrestrial organisms and their ecosystems. When oil, incl uding oily mixtures, is discharged in small quantities, aquatic ecosystems have limited abilit y to assimilate, oxidize, degrade, and destroy many of the hydrocarbons present in oil. However, when discharg ed in significant quantities from a single vessel, or in moderate quantities from numerous vessels, oil releases have been documented to create severe environmental impacts.

The permit requires that any oil, including oily mixtures, other than those exempted in 40 CFR 110.5, may not be discharged in quantities th at may be harmful. These requirements are
consistent with section 311 of the CWA and rein force the requirement that discharges from the internal portions of vessels may not result in discharges of oil in quantities likely to impact aquatic ecosystems. The visible sheen test, rath er than a discharge concentration standard requiring analytical monitoring, was chosen as an approach to determine whether oil is being discharged in quantities that may be harmful, becau se the visible sheet test is easy to use and is consistent with existing CWA requirements.

4.3.1.5 Compliance with Other Statutes and Regulatio ns Applicable to Vessel Discharges (Part 2.1.5)

These effluent limits contain the requirement to comply with other applicable statutes and regulations dealing with vessel di scharges. Reliance on other statut es and regulations to develop the permit requirements is a reasonable exercise of BPJ because these statutes and regulations have gone through an extensive process of eval uation and analysis by federal agencies and international organizations that have considerab le expertise in vessel management. Furthermore, many of the BMPs considered by EPA were cove red by these other author ities. These statutes and regulations are currently being impleme nted and therefore are technologically and economically practicable (BPT) and achievable (BAT ) in light of best marine practice. Rather than reiterate the provisions of these statutes and regulations in their entirety for the permit’s general effluent limits, EPA has determined, base d on BPJ, that incorporation of these statutes and regulations by reference is reasonable.

Some of the statutes and regul ations that were examined to inform the Agency’s BPJ decision and which are incorporated by reference into the provisions of the permit follow. These summaries are not meant to be legally compre hensive reiterations; rather, they are short summaries designed to inform owner/operators of the existence of these authorities. The actual

51Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

statutes and regulations implemen ting these authorities are the legally binding conditions for the permit.

MARPOL, APPS, and Implementing Regulations

The International Convention for the Preventi on of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) is an international treaty that regulates certain discharges from vessels. It is primarily implemented in the U.S. by the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS), 33 U.S.C.1901 et

seq . The U.S. Coast Guard is the lead agency for APPS implementation and has issued implementing regulations primarily found at 33 CF R Part 151. Those requirements already apply to many of the vessels covered by the permit.

APPS regulates the discharge of oil and oily mixtures, noxious liquid substances, and garbage, including food wastes and plastic.

With respect to oil and oily mixtures, Co ast Guard regulations at 33 CFR 151.10 prohibit “any discharge of oil or oily mixtures into th e sea from a ship” except when certain conditions are met, including a discharge oil content of less than 15 parts per million (ppm) and that the ship has in operation oily-water separating equipment, an oil content monitor, a bilge alarm, or a combination thereof. These requirements have b een in place for a signifi cant length of time, and the equipment necessary to meet these standards is widely available and already in use on ships subject to these regulations.

Substances regulated as “noxi ous liquid substances” (NLS) under APPS are divided into 4 categories based on their poten tial to harm marine res ources and human health. See 33 CFR 151.47 and 151.49; 46 CFR Part 153, Table 1. U nder 46 CFR 153.1128, discharges of NLS residues at sea may only take place at least 12 nau tical miles from the nearest land. In light of this, the permit does not authorize such discharges within waters subject to the permit (i.e. inland
waters and the waters of th e 3 mile territorial sea).

Another provision of MARPOL, Annex III, a ddresses harmful substances in packaged form and is implemented in the U.S. by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 1994, as amended ( 49 U.S.C. 5901 et seq. ) and regulations appearing at 46 CFR Part 148 and 49 CFR Part 176. That regula tory scheme establishes la beling, packaging, and stowage requirements for such materials so as to help avoid their accidental loss or spillage during transport. 40 CFR 122.44(p) provides that when an NPDES permit is issued to a vessel operating as a means of transportation, the perm it is to require compliance with any applicable Coast Guard regulations that es tablish specifications for safe transportation, handling, carriage, and storage of pollutants. The permit incorpor ates this requirement in Parts 1.13 and 2.1.5.

Oil Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.)

Additional requirements also a ffect vessel discharges, in particular, the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990 and the associated U.S. Coast Guard im plementing regulations at 33 CFR Parts 155 and 157. These regulations establish and reinforce th e APPS 15 ppm discharge standard for oil and oily mixtures for oceangoing ships and require most vessels to have an oily water separator. Oceangoing vessels less than 400 gross tons must eith er have an approved oily water separator or retain oily water mixtures on board for disposal to an approved reception facility onshore.

52Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

Oceangoing vessels more than 400 gross tons except ve ssels that carry ballast water in their fuel oil tanks, must be fitted with “approved 15 parts per million (ppm) oily-water separating equipment for the processing of oily mixtures fro m bilges or fuel oil tank ballast.” 33 CFR 155.360. The maximum oily discharge standard is included as a binding requirement in this permit because it is the most a ppropriate standard for oil and oily discharges and maintains
current national and international standards. 33 CFR Part 155 was also referenced for oil containment and cleanup equipment and procedur es. This section provides information on both equipment and procedures that are required fo r preventing and reacti ng to oil spills and discharges.

Clean Water Act Section 311 (33 U.S.C. 1321)

Clean Water Act Section 311, Oil and Hazardous Subs tances Liability Act, states that it is the United States’ policy that ther e should be no discharges of oil or hazardous substances into waters of the U.S., adjoining shorelines, and certain specified areas, except where permitted under Federal regulations (e.g., the NPDES program). As such, the Act prohibits the discharge of
oil or hazardous substances into these areas in such quantities as may be harmful. Further, the
Act states that the President shall, by regulation, determine th ose quantities of oil and any hazardous substances that may be harmful if discharged.

EPA has defined oil quantities that “may be harm ful” as those that violate applicable water quality standards or “cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the su rface of the water or adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge or emulsion to be depos ited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoin shorelines.” 40 CFR 110.3. Sh een is clarified to mean an iridescent appearance on the surface of the water.

In the permit, oil, including o ily mixtures, may not be discharged in quantities that may be harmful. This goal has proven to be achievable using available treatmen t technologies such as oil-water separators or oil absorbent materials. For other discharges that can potentially be contaminated by oils but may not easily be co llected and treated, the Agency requires the operator to observe the surface of the receiving wa ter to determine whether a sheen is visible.
This would indicate that oils ar e present at concentrations that may be harmful and discharge

must cease.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136 et

seq. ).

FIFRA regulates the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. One of the primary components of FIFRA requires the re gistration and labeling of all pest icides sold or distributed in the U.S. ensuring that if pesticides are used inaccordance with the specifications on the label, they will not cause adverse effects on humans or the environment. It is a requirement of the permit that any registered pesticide must be us ed in accordance with its FIFRA label. This is included as a binding permit requirement because FI FRA label requirements are established after research, approved by the EPA Office of Prev ention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, and ensure that the pesticide, when used according to the label, can be used so that it will not cause
unreasonable adverse effects on hum ans or the environment.

53Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

54 National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. section 1431 et seq. and implementing regulations found at 15 CFR Part 922 and 50 CFR Part 404 (NMSA))

NMSA authorizes the designation and manage ment of National Marine Sanctuaries to protect marine resources with conservation, education, historical, scient ific, and other special qualities. Additional restrictions and requireme nts may be imposed on vessel owner/operators
who boat in and around National Ma rine Sanctuaries. For more information, please see the
NOAA National Marine Sanctu aries Program website at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/welcome.html.

4.4 E FFLUENT L IMITS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS FOR S PECIFIC D ISCHARGE C ATEGORIES (P ART 2.2)

4.4.1 Deck Washdown and Runoff including Abov e Water Line Hull Cleaning (Part 2.2.1)

Constituents of deck runoff and above water line hull cleaning may include oil, grease, cleaner or detergent residue, paint chips, paint droplets, and general debris (e.g., paper, wire). Discharge rates for deck runoff vary from ve ssel to vessel and depend on weather, deck machinery, deck operations, and frequency of deck washdowns. It is infeas ible to set specific numeric effluent limits for discharges of d eck runoff due to varia tion in vessel size and associated deck surface area, types of equipm ent operated on the deck, and limitations on space for treatment equipment. Instead, the permit requi res that vessel operators minimize discharges from deck runoff and implement BMPs to reduce their potential impact.

BMPs for controlling deck runoff and above water line hull cleaning are associated with (a) containing potential contaminants to keep them from entering the waste stream, (b) properly maintaining the deck and bulkhead areas to prevent excess corrosi on, leaks, and metal discharges, and (c) using environmentally safe products for cleaning deck areas. Because it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to safely hold or tr eat all deck runoff for all vessel designs at all times, EPA is not requiring deck runo ff to be collected and treated before discharge from all vessels. Requiring vessel owner/operators to collect deck runoff could either require major vessel modification of the sh ip’s structure and machinery or could compromise the safety and stability of the vesse l. Many vessels are designed to qui ckly discharge deck runoff as an operational necessity.

EPA is requiring that deck runoff be collected during certain times such as during or after fueling operations, when spills occur, or when required by a vessel’s class society. 7 EPA is also requiring that vessel operators minimize contamin ation of deck runoff discharges by debris, garbage, and chemical spills (e.g., grease, fuel, hydr aulic fluid, caustics, detergents). EPA is also requiring that the vessel owner/operator maintain the topside surface of the deck in a manner consistent with good marine practice that preven ts excess discharge of metals and oils from eroding metals and deteriorating pipes, coami ngs, and other topside infrastructure. When machinery is located on deck, the use of drip pans when feasible will collect spilled oil and allow the vessel owner/operator to prevent its discharg e. When required by thei r class societies (e.g., tank barges), vessels must be fitted with and us e perimeter spill rails and scuppers to collect the

7 A vessel’s class society establishes technical standards related to the design, construction, and survey of a vessel.Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

runoff for treatment. In addition, if washing dow n the deck will result in a discharge, the
washdown must be conducted with non-toxic an d phosphate-free cleaners and detergents. The purpose of this requirement is to minimize th e discharge of caustic and potentially toxic detergents and solvents into wate rs subject to this permit. Phos phorus is one of the drivers of eutrophication or hypereutrophicatio n, which is one of the major causes of impairment to waters of the United States. Toxic materials interfere with aquatic organisms and can contribute to chronic or acute effects, including death. Addi tionally, EPA is requiring that permittees must minimize residual paint droplets from entering wate rs subject to this permit whenever they are conducting maintenance painting. EPA is also re quiring that discharges of deck runoff are
consistent with all other relevant laws. EPA believes that adhering to these requirements will reduce the discharge of these potentially environmentally harmful substances.

4.4.2 Bilgewater (Part 2.2.2)

Bilgewater is an accumulation of water from various sources across the entire vessel. Constituents include oil, grease, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, inorganic salts, and metals. Volumes vary with the size of the vessel, and discharges typically occur several times per week. Cruise ship volumes have been estimated at 25,000 gallons per week for a 3,000 passenger/crew vessel (US EPA, 2007).

Vessel operators are required to minimize bilgewater generation by practicing proper maintenance of vessels and equipment. Routine cleaning and maintenance activities associated with vessel equipment and structures are cons idered to be normal operation of a vessel. However, EPA notes that the addition of substa nces associated with the normal operation of a vessel to the bilgewater is not allowed.

EPA believes this reduction in the volume of waste will reduce the need for vessels to discharge treated bilgewater to waters of the U.S. EPA also re cognizes that onshore disposal is not always a feasible alternative for larger vessels . As part of the permit, bilgewater discharges must adhere to all requirements under 40 CFR Parts110, 113, 116, and 117 and 33 CFR Part
151.10. These limitations are achievable with use of oily-water separators or use of a segregated bilge system. EPA believes vessels large enough to require discharge of bilgewater should have onboard oily-water separation capabilities. Sma ller vessels must also demonstrate that the discharge of bilgewater is sufficiently clean by conducting a visual shee n observation prior to and at the time of discharge. EP A has utilized the visual sheen te st as a reliable indicator as to whether oil, including oily mixtur es, is not being discharged in quantities that may be harmful.

If the vessel operator doe s not treat bilgewater with an o ily-water separator or it cannot be assured that the bilgewater will not cause a sh een on the surface of the receiving water, the bilgewater must be held onboard for onshore dis posal. Vessel operators may not use dispersants, detergents, emulsifiers, chemicals, or any other substances to remove th e appearance of a visible
sheen.

The permit has additional BMPs for bilgewater that focus on where vessels may or may not discharge bilgewater. For instance, vessels th at regularly leave waters subject to the permit (at least once per month) and are more than 400 gr oss tons, may not discharge treated bilgewater within 1 nm of shore is technologi cally feasible. For instance, vesse ls that regularly leave waters

55Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

subject to the permit (at leas t once per month) and are more than 400 gross tons, may not discharge treated bilgewater within 1 nm of shore if technological ly feasible. In this context, technological feasibility includes considerati on of operational constraints. It is EPA's understanding that most large vessels do not gene rate significant quanti ties of bilgewater and should have sufficient holding capacity so that when they are within 1 nm of shore, they need not discharge, particularly in cases where vessels en ter and remain in waters subject to this permit for short periods. In those cases where a vessel does not have the capac ity to hold bilgewater generated in waters subject to this permit or where bilgewater is causing a general safety or stability concern or could enter a hold and c ontaminate cargo, or othe rwise interfere with essential operations of the vessel, EPA woul d not consider holding th e bilgewater to be technologically feasible . The cumulative impact of numerous vessels releasing bilgewater in nearshore, estuarine environments or in waters w ith limited circulation can be of concern. Hence, this provision is included to limit the discharge of pollutants in areas where vessels are more likely to be concentrated, where the cumulative impact of discharges is likely to be higher, and in ecosystems that are already stressed and unlik ely to have additional assimilative capacity. Vessels can then discharge the bilgewater, provided it meets all applicable laws, in waters that are likely to have greater assimilative capacity or where vessel traffic is not as concentrated, or the vessel can hold the bilgewater for proper ons hore disposal. Other provisions limiting the location or manner in which bilgewater is di scharged are based on a similar rationale.

4.4.3 Ballast Water (Part 2.2.3)

Ballast water is typically ambient water taken onboard to assist with vessel draft, buoyancy, and stability. Large commercial vessels (e.g., container ships, bulk carriers, other cargo vessels, tankers, and passenge r vessels) normally have balla st tanks dedicated to this purpose and some vessels may also ballast empty cargo holds. The discharge rate and constituent
concentrations of ballast water from vessels wi ll vary by vessel type, ballast tank capacity, and type of deballasting equipment. Volumes of ballast water discha rged are significant and can be
several hundred or thousand cubic meters of wate r. For instance, passenger vessels have an average ballast capacity of about 2,600 cubic me ters (about 686,850 gallons) while ultra large crude carriers (ULCCs) have an average ball ast capacity of about 93,000 cubic meters (about 24,568,000 gallons).

Ballast water discharge has been cited as one of the primary sources or vectors for the spread of invasive species, also known as aqua tic nuisance species (ANS These species may be discharged when the vessel opera tor discharges full ballast tanks . These organisms may also be released when vessel operators load ballast wa ter into ballast tanks with residual water or sediment, mixing the new ballast wa ter with these residuals, then later discharge this ballast. These residuals may contain viable living orga nisms and organisms in resting stages. When species in ballast tanks are tr ansported between waterbodies a nd discharged, they have the potential for establishing new populations in waterbodies to which they are not native. Potentially, this can cause severe economic and ecological dangers. The spread of ANS can be mitigated if either their introducti on to the receiving water is prev ented or they are not able to establish populations. The provisions in the pe rmit focus on reducing the number of organisms that are potentially viable from being released into potentially receptive aquatic habitats. For additional information, refer to some of the numerous studies and reports that have been completed on the impacts of ballast water discha rge (Bolch & Salas, 2007; Dobbs et al., 2006;

56Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

Doblin et al., 2007; Drake & Lodge, 2007; Drake et al., 2007; Endresen et al., 2004; Knight et al., 1999; M.G.G. et al., 2003; Reynol ds et al., 1999; Roman, 2006; Ruiz et al

. , 2000a; Ruiz et al., 2000b; Smayda, 2007; US EPA, 2001; Zo et al., 1999).

ANS cause substantial environmental and economic harm to the United States. Well known examples of ANS or pathogens that have b een introduced to U.S. waters include Hydrilla, European Loosestrife, Eurasian water milfoil, melaluca, salt cedar, Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS), and Zebra Mussels. For ad ditional information on the impact of aquatic nuisance species, refer to Part 3.4 of this fact sheet and the economic analysis available in the record for the permit, located in the water docket.

In the United States, the U.S. Coast Guard ha s requirements for the management of ballast water listed in 33 CFR Part 151, Subparts C and D. These regulations require vessels transiting
to U.S. waters with ballast water that was taken on within 200 nautical miles of any shore into waters of the United States after operating be yond the U.S. EEZ to conduct one of the following ballast water manage ment practices :

• Conduct mid-ocean ballast water exchange prior to entering U.S. waters;

• Retain the ballast water on board while in U.S. waters; or

• Use a Coast Guard approved alternative environmentally sound method to manage the ballast water. 33 CFR 151.1510(a) and 151.2035(b).

The regulations also contain a safety excepti on, providing that the master of a vessel will not be prohibited from discharging unmanaged balla st water, in areas other than the Great Lakes and the Hudson River, if the master decides the practices would be unsafe for the vessel. 33 CFR 151.2030(b). In addition, the Coast Guard regulations provide vessels will not be required to deviate from, or delay, their voyage in or der to conduct exchange. 33 CFR 151.2036. Vessels that operate solely within one CO TP zone are exempt from certainrequirements, as described in 33 CFR 151.2010(b). Because there ar e currently no Coast Guard-ap proved alternative methods,
the de facto management practice most often used today is ballast water exchange.

In addition, the regulations es tablish other ballast water management requirements for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks that en ter or operate within U.S. waters, such as avoiding or minimizing ballast wa ter uptake in areas with a high potential to contain harmful organisms, only discharging the minimal amounts of ballast water nece ssary in coastal and internal waters, and regularly cleaning balla st water tanks to re move sediment. 33 CFR 151.2035(a). ). Sediment removed from tanks by cleaning operations, including sediments suspended as a result of ballast tank cleaning, are not eligible fo r coverage under this permit and must be disposed of in accordance with applicab le local, State, and Federal regulations. . The regulations also establish mandato ry ballast water repor ting and record keepi ng requirements (33 CFR 151.2041 and 151.2043), and also requ ire vessels to have a ballast water management plan that is specific for that vessel and assigns responsibility to the ma ster or appropriate official to
understand and execute the ballast water mana gement strategy for that vessel (33 CFR 151.2035(a)(7)). In addition to these regulatory requirements, the Coast Guard has also developed a policy with respect to saltwater fl ushing for vessels entering the Great Lakes after

57Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

operating beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Z one (US EEZ) which declare “No Ballast on Board” (NOBOB). 70 FR 51831 (August 31, 2005).

EPA is including most of these Coast Guar d requirements in this permit as technologybased effluent limits. For example, the requirement to avoid or minimize ballast water uptake in areas with a high potential to contain harmfu l aquatic organisms is a common sense Best Management Practice to mitigate the spread of organisms harmful to humans, animals, and ecosystems. EPA recognizes that some waters, including significant areas of the Great Lakes (except Lake Superior) could be considered to ha ve low level infestations of a disease such as viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS). When achie vable, vessel operators should not take up any ballast water in any of these waters and instead use internal ballasting. When the uptake of ballast water is required in these waters, the ve ssel owner/operator should take on ballast in those
waters that have the lowest known risk factor s for these harmful organisms. EPA is most
concerned with waters where there are known areas of localized outbreaks of harmful organisms such as Pfiesteria blooms. In these areas, it may be achievable for vessel owner/operators to minimize or avoid the uptake of water and use other ballasting op tions temporarily.

In addition to the Coast Guard management practices, the permit contains several requirements that will reduce discharges of pollutants and constituents of concern, are widely available, and are currently practicable and economically achievable for vessel owner/operators to implement. Hence, these practices represent the BPT, BCT and BAT levels of control. These
include:

• Mandatory exchange for vessels engaged in Pacific nearshore voyages that will discharge ballast water into waters subject to this permit, if they travel more than 50
miles from shore.

• Mandatory saltwater flushing for all vesse ls with unpumpable ballast water and residual sediment that leave the US EEZ, tr avel more than 200 nm from any shore, and that will discharge ballast water to waters subject to this permit.

• Mandatory saltwater flushing for all vesse ls engaged in Pacific nearshore voyages that travel through more than one COTP zone and travel at least 50 miles from shore.

• A requirement that all vessels that leave th e US EEZ, travel more than 200 nm from any shore, and will discharge to waters subject to this permit must complete a ballast water exchange as early as practicable to increase mortal ity of living organisms in ballast water tanks. This requirement also applies to vessels engaged in Pacific nearshore voyages.

• Requirements for tankers engage d in the coastwise trade.

• Requirement to use onshore treatment fo r vessels whose design and construction safely allows for the transfer of ballast water to shore, if compatible onshore
treatment for ballast water is available a nd economically practicable and achievable, (unless they use an onboard ballast wa ter treatment system approved by the Commandant of the Coast Guard).

The rationale for each of these additional requirements is described below.

58Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

4.4.3.1 Mandatory Exchange for Vessels Engaged in Pacific Nearshore Voyages

Vessels engaged in Pacific nearshore voyages include:

• Vessels engaged in the Pacific Coastwise tr ade that cross more than one Captain of the Port Zone that will discharge ballast wa ter into waters subject to this permit.

• All other vessels that sail from foreign, Atlantic, or Gulf of Mexico ports, which do not sail further than 200 nm from any shor e, and that discharge or will discharge
ballast water into the territorial sea or inland waters of Alaska or of the west coast of
the continental United States.

Numerous studies and reports by NOAA and othe rs have shown that mid-ocean ballast water exchange significantly reduces the presen ce of living organisms ad apted to surviving in coastal, estuarine, and freshwater environmen ts (Gray et al., 2007; Locke et al., 1993; McCollin et al., 2007; Ruiz & Reid, 2007). In a NOAA tec hnical memorandum authored by Ruiz and Reid (2007), the authors made seven recommendations, one of which is that “B[allast] W[ater] E[xchange] should be considered a useful and beneficial ballast management practice to reduce species transfers and invasion risk. It is a valuab le measure, especially because it is available now for immediate use on many vessels and shipping routes, in the absence of proven alternative treatment methods.” Hence, ballast water exch ange is an appropriate interim step toward mitigating the risk from the spread of ANS un til effective treatment technology is available. There has also been considerable discussion about establishing alternate ballast water exchange areas (ABWEA) within areas clos er to the coast. Participants in a 2006 workshop (Phillips, 2006) on establishing alternate exchange zones on the Pacific coast made three recommendations, two of which are applicable for the permit:

• In general, ABWEA’s should be established no closer than 50 nm from shore and in waters at least 1000 m in depth.

• Establishment of ABWEA’s should avoid ma jor estuary and oceanic river plumes, subsurface physical features (e.g. se amounts), and known fishery habitats.

For the most part, the contin ental shelf along the Pacific co ast is narrow along both North and South America. Deep water environments beyond the continental shelf typically support ecosystems that are quite different than those which ex ist closer to shore. Due in part to this short width of the continental shelf, hi gh relative depth of waters greater than 50 nm from the Pacific shore, and existing and pending regulation and statutes in Ca lifornia, Oregon, and Washington that require ballast water excha nge for vessels engaged in the coastwise trade, EPA is requiring ballast water exchange under the proposed pe rmit for vessels engaged in Pacific nearshore voyages that will discharge ballast water into waters subject to this permit. If these vessels travel more than 50 miles from shore, they must conduct ballast water exchange while:

• In the Pacific Ocean,

• As early as practicable in the voyage,

• More than 50 nm from shore, and

• Preferably where the vessel is not near major estuary and oceanic river plumes, subsurface physical features (e.g. se amounts), and known fishery habitats.

59Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

These requirements are technologically prac ticable and achievable, can be widely implemented, and will reduce the discharge of constitu ents in ballast water streams. Furthermore, with implementation of existing and pending st ate regulation requiring similar practices, the incremental economic costs are relatively low (s ee the economic analysis prepared for this permit). However, EPA does not believe that vess els engaged in voyages that take them further than 200 nm from any shore should be allowed to exchange ballast water between 50 and 200 nm from the Pacific shore for the following reasons:

• This provision would not be consistent w ith existing U.S. Coast Guard regulations.

• Ballast water exchange 200 nm or more from shore generally is more likely to mitigate the risk for the spread of ANS than ballast water exchange closer to shore.

In the proposed VGP “EPA [wa]s specifically seeking comment on whether similar requirements should be imposed on vessels engaged in the coastw ise trade on the Atlantic or
Gulf Coasts.” After consideri ng the range of public comment on the issue, which both supported and opposed inclusion of Atlant ic and Gulf ballast water ex change, EPA has not included
Atlantic and Gulf nearshore ballast water exchan ge and saltwater flushing requirements. None of the commenters provided directly applicable da ta to support their view s and EPA will continue to investigate whether Atlantic and Gulf coast ballast water exchange is an appropriate best management practice for vessel owner/operators e ngaged in nearshore voyages. This exploration may include several elements including examini ng vessel traffic and opera tion patterns along the Eastern and Gulf seaboards, th e volume of ballast water tran sported and released, and the number of miles traveled by the average Atla ntic and Gulf nearshore voyage. The Agency
believes that additional information needs to be gathered before making this regulatory decision. EPA may exercise its authority under Part 1.9 of the VGP to reopen the permit to include these requirements as appropriate.

4.4.3.2 Mandatory Saltwater Flushing

Mandatory saltwater flushing is required by this permit for all vessels carrying unpumpable ballast water and residual sediment th at leave the US EEZ, travel more than 200 nm from shore, and will subsequently discharge ballas t water to waters subject to this permit and for vessels that engage in Pacifi c nearshore voyages that will disc harge ballast water in waters subject to this permit. The permit states that “s altwater flushing means the addition of mid-ocean water to empty ballast water tanks; the mixing of the added water with re sidual ballast water and sediment through the motion of the vessel; and the discharge of the mi xed water until loss of suction, such that the resulting residual water re maining in the tank has e ither a salinity greater than or equal to 30 parts per thousand (ppt) or a salinity concentrati on equal to the ambient salinity of the location where the upt ake of the added water took place” (see Parts 2.2.3.7 and Part 7 of the permit). This process of rinsi ng out empty ballast water tanks with mid-ocean saltwater is commonly referred to as “swish and spit”. The vessels subject to this requirement are either those which have any ba llast water tank that is empty or contains unpumpable residual water or those that certify, consistent with the Coast Guard’s regulations , that they have “No Ballast on Board” (“NOBOB” vessels). As previ ously noted, the Coast Guard currently has a voluntary saltwater flushing policy in place for all vessels entering the Great Lakes, and defines
NOBOB vessels as “those vessels th at have discharged ballast wate r in order to carry cargo, and

60Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

as a result, have only unpumpable residual wate r and sediment remaining in tanks.” 70 FR 51832 (August 31, 2005). The purpose of mandatory saltwater flushing is to preven t the spread of ANS in ballast water tanks that appear empty, but of ten have unpumpable ballas t water and/or residual
sediment at the bottom of the tanks that ma y contain organisms which can become ANS.

Saltwater flushing has been shown to be eff ective in preventing th e introduction of ANS
from vessels with residual ballast water and se diment in their ballast water tanks. In a NOAA technical memorandum, another of Ruiz and Ried ’s (2007) concluding reco mmendations is that “[t]he use of high-salinity water to flush NOBOB ballast tanks should be considered a useful and beneficial management practice to reduce specie s transfers and invasion risks associated with NOBOB ships entering the Great Lakes. In the ab sence of proven alterna tives, this practice provides some level of protection against some adult and larval life stages.” Additionally, saltwater flushing reduces the concentrations of sediment, a conventional pollutant, in ballast water discharge and, therefore, generally improve s the quality of the ballast water discharge.

Environment Canada has mandato ry saltwater flushing requirem ents in its regulations for all vessels that discharge ballast water in Canadian Great Lakes Ports. Furthermore, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLS DC) recently published a final rule amending joint regulations at 33 CFR Part 401.30. The amendm ent is an effort to harmonize the ballast water requirements for vessels transiting the U.S. waters of the Saint Lawrence Seaway System with the saltwater flushing requirements alrea dy in place for vessels entering the Canadian waters of the Seaway System. The amendmen t, which went into effect on March 26, 2008, requires vessels that operate outs ide the EEZ to conduct saltwater fl ushing of ballast water tanks containing residual amounts of ba llast water and sediment at l east 200 nautical miles from any shore. The saltwater flushing must occur prior to entering either th e U.S. or Canadian waters of the Seaway System. See 73 FR 9950 (February 2 5, 2008). Hence, all vess els entering the Great Lakes must already use saltwater flushing for their tanks with unpumpable ballast water and residual sediment, and this permit reinforces these requirements.

The permit extends saltwater flushing requirement s to all waters subject to this permit (for
vessels that travel more than 200 nm from s hore and vessels engaged in Pacific nearshore voyages) because EPA believes saltwater flushing is a low-cost approach that minimizes the risk that ANS will be successfully introduced from un pumpable ballast water and residual sediment. Saltwater flushing is most effective at elimin ating organisms adapted to freshwater and low salinity environments due to the impacts of sa ltwater shock. However, saltwater flushing should also reduce viable living organism s adapted to estuarine, coastal and marine environments. First, saltwater flushing may reduce viable living organisms in residual ballast water. Secondly, saltwater flushing reduces the number of viable li ving organisms and organisms in resting stages in the residual sediment. Resting stages of ANS often inhabit the sediment in ballast water tanks: reducing the numbers of these organisms with both physical flushing and saltwater shock when applicable will likely reduce the propagule pressure of these potential invaders. Hence, the requirements for mandatory saltwater flushing are available, practi cable and achievable. Additionally, the permit applies saltwater flushing on a tank-by- tank basis, and does not just limit this practice to vessels that declare they carry only unpumpable residual ballast water. This is because the empty ballast water tanks in vessels that have a mixture of empty tanks and tanks containing pumpable ballast water still pose a ri sk of introducing ANS when the empty tanks are subsequently filled and discharged, and saltwate r flushing of those tanks will help reduce this

61Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

62 potential. However, vessels that seal empty tanks and will not use them to discharge ballast water in waters subject to this permit do not need to conduct saltwater flushing.

4.4.3.3 Vessels that Complete Ballast Water Exc hange Must Do So as Early as Practicable

For those vessels that carry ba llast water that was taken on in areas less than 200 nautical miles from any shore and will discharge into th e waters subject to this permit after operating beyond the EEZ, EPA has included a requirement th at all vessels that conduct ballast water exchange must do so as early as practicable, so long as the exchange o ccurs more than 200 nm from shore. This requirement will directly cont ribute to increased mortality of remaining living organisms in ballast water tanks. Increased mortal ity will result in the discharge of fewer viable living organisms, which will consequently reduce the likelihood of the risk of the establishment
of ANS.

4.4.3.4 Requirements for Tankers Engaged in the Coastwise Trade

Section 1101(c)(2)(L) of the National Inva sive Species Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 4711) generally exempts crude oil tankers engaged in the coastwise trade from ballast water management requirements. There is no counterpart exemption for such vessels in the CWA, nor does it appear that such vessels are inherently unable to perform the ballast water exchange and other ANS management practices that their non-e xempt vessel counterparts can and do routinely carry out. Hence, the NPDES permit would not ex empt crude oil tankers in the Coastwise trade from its ballast water management requirements, and such tankers must either seek coverage under the permit and comply with its applicab le terms or seek alternative NPDES permit coverage as discussed under the alternative permits section in Part 1.8 of the permit.

4.4.3.5 Development of a Living Organism Discharge Standard

EPA is not requiring any numeric treatment stan dards for the discharge of living organisms as part of this permit issuance and is instead requiring management practices (e.g. ballast water exchange) that decrease the risk of ANS introduction 8 . EPA is proposing this approach because treatment technologies that effectively reduce viab le living organisms in a manner that is safe, reliable, and demonstrated to work onboard vess els are not yet commercially available. Several studies and publications are available that disc uss current treatment technologies, their efficacy and performance, and whether they are commerci ally available for shipboard installation (see e.g., Dobroski et al., 2007; Gr acki et al., 2002; Gregg & Halleg raeff, 2007; Lloyds Register, 2007; McCollin et al., 2007; Perrins et al., 2006; Quilez-Badia et al., 2008; Raikow et al., 2007; Tamburri et al., 2002). Based on an evaluation of such studies, requiring a numeric effluent limit for the discharge of living organisms is not prac ticable, achievable, or available at this time. Because such technology is rapidly being develope d, we fully intend to take these developments into account when developing future permits or reopening this permit consistent with Part 1.9 of the VGP. Ruiz and Reid (2007) recommend that “research and development to produce
alternative ballast treatment methods and technology based ba llast treatment systems should continue as a high priority, in order to improve the efficacy of treatment and expand application

8 EPA notes, however, that some vessel owner/operators may have to meet ballast water treatment standards if required by State 401 certification requir ements if discharging in some state wa ters, as listed in Part 6 of the VGP.Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

of treatment to most vessels and routes.” EPA agrees with this recommendation and will continue working with the United States Coas t Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Naval Research Laboratories, and others to promote development and testing of technologies that are capabl e of reaching treatment standard s to neutralize the continued spread of invasive species via ballast water sources.

While ballast water exchange helps reduce the risk of introducing ANS, we also recognize that exchange has variable effectiveness. Thus, EPA will consider establishing treatment requirements in the next generation of permits that will provide for compliance with treatment standards that will be expressed as units of living or viable organisms per unit of volume in ballast water discharge. In setting such standa rds, we would take into account progress in technology development, the outcome of the US Coast Guard rulemaking on ballast water treatment standards, and activity within the IMO to determine what is best available technology at the time of the next permit issuance.

Hence, for either the next required permit (2013), the subsequent required permit (2018), and appropriate other CWA regulation as applic able, EPA will evaluate the availability of technologies that are able to meet appropriate living organism limitatio ns. Once technologies are commercially available and economically achievable, EPA would require that these standards be
met as a BAT effluent limit for ballast water discharges under subsequent iterations of this permit or for reopening this permit consistent with Part 1.9 of the VGP.

4.4.3.6 Onshore Treatment

For those vessels whose design and construction safely allows for the transfer of ballast water to shore, if compatible onshore treatment for ballast water is available and economically practicable and achievable, the vessel owner/operator must use this treatment for any ballast water discharges, unless they use an onboard ba llast water treatment system approved by the Commandant of the Coast Guard. Though EPA belie ves that ship-based treatment of ballast water will be an essential part of the soluti on to ballast water management, use of land-based treatment systems, if available and compatible with the vessel, could be a valid and effective
form of ballast water treatment for the removal of living organisms for vessels while in port.
EPA is also aware of at least one land based tr eatment facility (the Valdez Marine Terminal) for
ballast water which is in commercial use a nd for which treatment may be available and economically practicable and achievable, although th e Agency notes that facility is designed for hydrocarbon removal and not for the removal of livi ng organisms. The facility is designed for oil recovery and wastewater treatment and utili zes gravity separation, dissolved air flotation, biological treatment and an/off air strippers. These sorts of treatment have been shown to reduce the viability of living organisms in traditional wast ewater contexts. EPA is also aware that some existing ports are actively consider ing building these facilities a nd included the permit provisions
on use of such facilities both to better protect receiving waters and to provide an incentive for use of these facilities once they are built.

However, EPA also notes that land-based treat ment alone cannot be the only answer, as
there are several instances wher e vessels must discharge ballast water while underway, such as discharging ballast water taken up while underway to clear low br idges or discharging ballast water to clear sand bars or while operating in shallow draft channels. Additionally, there are

63Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

limitations on space at many ports for the construction and operation of effective ballast water treatment facilities. Finally, vari ous vessels do not have standard sized fittings or otherwise may not be capable of delivering ballast water to land-based facilities due to ship configuration and design. Installing such capabilities may not be economically or technologically achievable, and EPA has written this provision to take that in to account. EPA believes that the VGP provisions regarding shore-based treatment could help de crease the risk for intr oducing aquatic nuisance species from ballast water to receiving waters fo r vessels in port until su ch time that all vessels have effective ballast water treatment systems.

4.4.4 Antifouling Hull Coating Leachate (Part 2.2.4)

The primary constituent of concern in most antifouling coatings is copper, although zinc may also be used as an ingredient. While the ra te at which the metals leach from coatings is relatively slow (4 – 17 μg/cm2/day), these coa tings can account for significant accumulations of metals in receiving waters of ports where numerous vessels are present. Tributyltin (TBT), a metal based biocide, was historically applied to vessel hulls as an anti fouling hull coating. TBT causes deformities in aquatic life, including defo rmities that disrupt or prevent reproduction.
Numerous studies and several peer reviewed publications (( Bentivegna & Piatkowski, 1998; Haynes & Loong, 2002; Negri et al ., 2004; Negri & Heyward, 2001; Ru iz et al., 1995; V. Axiak et al., 1995) examine the environmental impacts of anti-foulant paint leachate containing TBT. TBT is also stable and persistent , resisting natural degradation in water bodies. Thus, due to its acute toxicity, TBT is a pollutant of concern to be addressed in this permit. There is a zero discharge standard for TBT and all other organotin compounds under this permit. Furthermore, if there are any vessels with existing exposed TB T coatings, those vessels must either seek individual NPDES permit coverage consistent wi th Part 1.8 of the permit or overcoat the existing TBT coating. EPA expects that few, if any, ve ssels have exposed TBT coatings on their hulls.
EPA believes that a zero discha rge standard for all organotin compounds, including TBT is technologically available based on the availability of other an ti-foulant coating options (e.g. copper and silicon) and feasible and economically achievable because few, if any, vessels still
utilize TBT as an anti-foulant.

The zero discharge standard for TBT is cons istent with the requirements of the 1988 Organotin Anti-Foulant Paint Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 2403(a), which generally prohibits application of anti-fouling coa ting containing TBT on vessels less than 25 meters in length. Azero discharge standard is also consistent with the Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling Systems on Ships. The treaty, adopted at the International Mari time Organization (IMO) in October 2001, prohibits the use of organotins, like TBT, in anti-fouling paints. The treaty entered into force on September 17, 2008. The treaty has been forwarded to the United States
Senate for ratification. In additi on, the last TBT antifouling paint re gistration in the United States was voluntarily cancelled in 2005. Furthermore, the use of TBT antifouling paints or entry to port of vessels with TBT coatings is already prohibited by a large number of other countries, including many countries in Europe (see Re gulation (EC) No 782/2003 of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 April 2003 on the prohibition of organotin compounds on ships).

EPA has identified three types of BMPs fo r control of other antifouling hull coating leachate. The first type of BMP addresses the contents and application of the coating. EPA

64Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

recognizes that different coatings options are avai lable and believes that the types of and active agents in hull coatings should be selected to minimize potential effects. The practice of applying coatings according to the instru ctions on the coating’s FIFRA la bel should currently be a BMP for all vessels. This assures that excess amounts of toxins are not appl ied, that they are not applied too frequently, and that ships are not reintroduced to the aquatic environment before the manufacturer has recommended, ensuri ng adequate environmental protection.

In addition, should a vessel operator choose to use a hull coating that does not have a FIFRA label, they must ensure that the coating that does not contain bioc ides or toxic materials that are banned in the U.S. Vessel operators are always encouraged to select the least environmentally harmful coating possible (e.g., use of lower biocide content coatings, lower biocide release rate, non-per sistent biocides, or non-bi ocidal alternatives).

The second type of BMP addresses the need fo r particular coatings and selection of the type of coating to apply. The permit requires th at vessel operators minimize the use of more toxic coatings than may be needed on some vessels. The selection of an antifouling system for a particular vessel must be made in considera tion of the vessel’s opera tional profile, including operating speed, drydocking requirements, and the wa ters in which the vesse l will be traveling, because such factors affect the fouling rate of the hull and other underwater areas of the vessel. Fouling on vessels that typically operate at high speeds may be effectively managed with nonstick, low surface energy, antifouling coatings. Vesse ls traveling in waters with lower fouling pressure (i.e., reproduction and growth of hard- a nd soft-fouling organisms) and those that spend less time at dock are expected to have a lower fo uling rate; consequently, such vessels should be able to use either non-biocidal coating or antif ouling coatings with lowe r biocide release rates. EPA believes these options should be used wh ere feasible rather than opting for more environmentally damaging coatings.

The third type of BMP is accomplished by matc hing the coating’s abilities or strength to drydock cycles. Larger vessels, particularly those used in trade and cargo transport, must adhere to requirements for safety inspections and mainte nance activities that dictate how frequently they must be drydocked. The major manufacturers of hull coatings for this industry will guarantee the effectiveness of their products for a certain period of tim e based on ship and operational characteristics, so the owner/operator should ma tch the hull coating choi ce to the appropriate drydocking interval. By factoring this schedule into th e hull coating selection, EPA believes that vessel operators will make better decisions regarding the use of coatings that will sufficiently protect the vessel for the period of time needed without creating additional leachate or wastes.

4.4.5 Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) (Part 2.2.5)

The constituents of AFFF can vary by manuf acturer, but can include ingredients that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and nonbiodegradable. However, EPA recognizes the desirability of using this type of fire fighting agent for cer tain classes of fires. Therefore, the permit requirements for AFFF do not apply when the discha rge occurs during a fire emergency. If such an emergency discharge occurs, an explanation of the emergency and the need to discharge AFFF must be written in the ship ’s log or other reco rdkeeping documentation, as long as it is consistent with Part 4.2 of this permit.

65Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

While EPA recognizes that the ability to properly maintain and train personnel on firefighting equipment is an important safety re quirement for vessels, EPA believes that there are available practices for maintenance and training which can be conducted in a fashion that is not
deleterious to the environment. In addition, vessel owner/opera tors may decide where they conduct the maintenance, and thus, have the ability to limit where they will discharge. Therefore, BMPs for reducing AFFF discharges focus on main tenance- and training-re lated discharges of
AFFF. EPA believes BMPs that result in a ny reduction in discha rges of AFFF have
environmental benefits. For vessels that do not regularly leave wate rs subject to the permit, EPA
has determined that due to the potential environmental e ffects caused by certain AFFF constituents, maintenance and training discharg es must be minimized and should be collected and disposed of onshore. Furthermore, EPA also has found that a less toxic (non-fluorinated),
substitute foam is available for use for trai ning purposes. Owner/operators must use these nonfluorinated substitutes for training when practicab le and achievable. Because these activities are planned and occur on an infre quent basis (annually or semi-a nnually), vessel operators can arrange to conduct the ac tivities according to the BMPs requi red in the permit and in a location that poses the least environmental threat. Hence, if these vessel owner/ operators will be using these substances in waters subj ect to this permit, AFFF must be collected and stored for onshore disposal if technologically feasib le unless the vessel us es non-fluorinated or alternative foaming agent. For those vessels for which it is not te chnologically feasible to collect and store the fluorinated AFFF foam, vessel owner/operators must limit th e discharge to that amount necessary to conduct legally required tests. Lastly, if a vessel will discharge, they should do so as far from shore as practicable.

For vessels that regularly leave the territori al sea, discharge of fluorinated AFFF for maintenance and training purposes into waters subject to this permit is prohibited. EPA has determined that the most effective BMP is to conduct maintenance and training activities as far from shore as possible. Discharge amounts for re gulatory certification a nd inspection should still be minimized; and within waters subject to this permit, a non-fluorinated foaming agent must be substituted, if possible, for the regular foami ng agent found in the AFFF. To meet this goal, permittees should use an alternat ive AFFF formulation that does not contain perfluorinated
surfactants.

For all vessels, discharges of AFFF may not occu r in or within 1 nm of waters subject to this permit referenced in Part 12.1 of the perm it, unless they are discharged for emergency purposes, by rescue vessels for firefighting purposes, or by vessels owned or under contract to do business exclusively in or within 1 nm of these wa ters. If an emergency di scharge occurs in these waters, an explanation of the emergency and the need to discharge AFFF must be written in the ship’s log or other recordkeepi ng documentation, consistent with Part 4.2 of this permit. Those
vessels owned or under contract to do business excl usively in or within 1 nm of areas protected either federally, or by a state, must use non-fluorinated AFFF or collect it and dispose of it
onshore to the extent feasible.

EPA provided these exceptions to discharges of AFFF to waters listed in 12.1 so that this permit would not interfere with essential emergency management operations. The provision for
vessels that are owned or under co ntract to do business exclusively in or within 1 nm of these waters was provided so that vessels will not have to divert in order to conduct necessary training and maintenance, which would result in additi onal cost for these ve ssels and cause other

66Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

environmental impacts (increased fuel usage and air emissions). However, in order to protect these higher quality waters, these vessel ow ner/operators must use less environmentally damaging non-fluorinated AFFF.

4.4.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown (Part 2.2.6)

The constituents of boiler blowdown discharg e vary according to th e types of feedwater treatment used, but may include priority pollutants such as an timony, arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, nickel, selenium, thallium, zinc , and bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthlate. Discharge volumes are typically less than 300 gallons but the discharge, which consists of steam, water, and sludge, occurs under high pressure ( ≤ 1200 psi) and at a high temper ature (>325o F) below the
water line.

BMPs to reduce impacts from boiler/ec onomizer blowdown additives are based on minimization of their discharge to nearshore or port receiving waters, thus allowing for more mixing. To further mitigate potential impacts, EP A has specified that vessels greater than 400 gross tons that leave the territori al seas at least once per week cannot discharge within 3 nm of shore, except when the vessel remains in wate rs subject to this permit for longer than the necessary duration between blowdowns, the ve ssel needs to conduct blowdown immediately before entering drydock, or for safety purposes. EPA selected once per week as the threshold because the necessary frequency of boiler blowdown can vary from approximately once in two weeks to once in a couple of months for many vessels. For thes e vessels, it is therefore practical and achievable for these vessels to only disc harge boiler blowdown further than 3 nm from
shore. EPA included the caveat that vessels which remain in waters subject to this permit for more than a week can discharg e if a week is longer than the necessary dur ation between blowdown cycles because the Agency became aware that some vessels need to discharge boiler
blowdown more often than once a week. In al l cases, boiler/economizer blowdown should be discharged as far from shore as practical. No vessel may discharge boiler/economizer blowdown
in waters listed in Part 12.1 of th e permit, except for safety purposes.

4.4.7 Cathodic Protection (Part 2.2.7)

The constituents of cathodic protection discharges include ionized zinc, magnesium, or aluminum. As an alternative method, Impressed Current Cathodic Protection (ICCP) systems use direct current from a ship-based source in lieu of current supplied from an oxidizing anode (i.e., sacrificial anode). The discharge from either method of cathodic protection is continuous
whenever the vessel is waterborne.

EPA believes that ICCP systems are the envi ronmentally preferable method because these systems eliminate or reduce the need for sacr ificial anodes. EPA r ecommends 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 s ources, appropriate for vessel hull size and design), safe, and adequate to pr otect against corrosion, particularly for new vessels. Cathodic protection may be considered tec hnologically feasible if there is an adequate onboard power supply and the vesse l hull size and design can be ad equately protected by ICCP.

67Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

For sacrificial anode systems, EPA believes th at requiring vessel opera tors to ut ilize the BMP of selecting the least toxic anode material th at is practicable, in th e order of preference of magnesium, aluminum, then zinc, represents a practicable and achievabl e approach to reducing impacts from this necessary hull protection opera tion. Additionally, sacrific ial anodes should be used in conjunction with corrosion control coatings to minimize th e release of dissolved metals. Furthermore, sacrificial anodes must not be used more than is necessary to adequately prevent corrosion of the vessel’s hull, sea chest, rudder, and other exposed vessel areas.

In addition, EPA is specifying that vessel operators utilize proper BMPs for cleaning and replacing anodes during drydock to reduce excess ive flaking or releases from the oxidizing anodes or the dialectic coating from ICCP systems.

4.4.8 Chain Locker Effluent (Part 2.2.8)

When an anchor is onboard and not in use, the anchor chain is stored in the chain locker, which is often equipped with a sump that can accumulate marine organisms as well as residue from the inside of the locker itself, such as ru st, paint chips, grease, and zinc. The chain locker sump is emptied either directly overboard or is drained into the bilge tank for later disposal.

BMPs to reduce or eliminate chain locker effl uent discharge require the vessel operator to ensure the chain itself is properly cleaned when brought out of the water to reduce the likelihood of transporting marine organisms and sediment. Th is practice is currently performed by vessels, using their firemain system, to remove sedime nts and other material. However, EPA believes vessel operators should use this practice routinely and be ad vised to perform more thorough wash downs to effectively prevent the transpor t of marine organisms between water bodies.

Additionally, EPA is requiring ocean-going vessels to clean out, rinse, or pump out chain lockers in open waters (greater than 50 nm from shore), if technically feasible, to reduce the chances of transporting organisms to other wate r bodies where they may cause potential harm. Vessels that leave waters subject to this permit at least once per month are not allowed to rinse or pump chain lockers in waters subject to this permit, unless not doing so would compromise safety. Because these practices are or can be implemented easily by these vessels, EPA believes this BMP is reasonable for this general permit. Th e requirement to clean chain lockers as part of scheduled drydock maintenance provides additional protection from discharges resulting from chipped paint or oily leaks from machinery.

4.4.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller (CPP) and Th ruster Hydraulic Fluid and other Oil to Sea Interfaces including Lubrication Di scharges 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 (Part 2.2.9).

Vessel owner/operators often use lubricants to maintain the functionality and structure of equipment such as wire rope and other mechanical equipment. As a requirement of this permit, vessel owner/operators must apply lubricants and maintain all se als so that discharges do not
result in a visible sheen or are otherwise harmful. Furthermore, before being placed in service,

68Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

and after periodic lubrication, wi re ropes or cables and other equipment must be thoroughly wiped down to remove excess lubricant.

Constituents of the hydraulic oil will vary by manufacturer but may include copper, tin, aluminum, nickel, and lead. Up to 20 ounces of o il may be released for every CPP blade that is replaced, with blade replacement occurring severa l times per month on average. When the blade replacement includes removal of the blade port cove r (generally occurring infrequently, less than once per month), it is possible that, in a worst case scenario, five ga llons of oil might be discharged into surrounding waters. Normal blade replacement is typically done in drydock unless the blade has been damaged.

BMPs to reduce or eliminate CPP hydraulic fl uid discharge require that the seals be maintained in good working order to reduce l eakage and maintenance activities should be conducted while the vessel is in drydock to prevent accidental spillage of oil.

BMPs to reduce or eliminate stern tube oily di scharge require that the seals or fittings be maintained in good working order to prevent leakage. Furthermore, except in emergency situations, major maintenance should occur in dr y dock where oils cannot be released to the environment. If emergency maintenance must occu r in the water, the permittee must use an oil boom, or other appropriate spill response resour ce, to contain any potential oil discharge and must have appropriate spill cleanup materials on hand.

Depending on the type of rudder be arings in use, this discharg e can cause oil or grease to
be released into the water column. Oil-lubricated bearings are kept at a sl ightly positive pressure in relation to the outside ambient water pressure and will only discharge into the surrounding
water if a leak occurs around the rudder mechan ism. Vessels can instal l hull seals where the rudder penetrates the hull to prev ent the type of leaks that coul d lead to oil discharges. Greaselubricated rudder bearings on Arme d Forces vessels discharge greas e directly to the bilge tank.

EPA has determined that discharges of lubri cants should not occur if vessels are properly maintained. Vessel operators should employ all necessary control measures such as regular maintenance and inspections to ensure that leaks do not occur.

Though all oils have the potential to resu lt in significant e nvironmental impact, owner/operators should use an environmentally preferable lubricant, including vegetable oil, synthetic ester, or polyalkylene gl ycol as a base for these applications when feasible. Use of an environmentally preferable lubricant does not authorize the discharge of any lubricant in a quantity that may be harmful as defined in 40 CFR Part 110 or cause a visible sheen as these oils still cause many undesirable environmental impa cts, though these impacts are potentially less
severe than those caused fr om petroleum based oils.

Lastly, any discharge of oil, including oily ma terials, from any of these oil sea interfaces may not result in a discharge that may be harmfu l as defined by 40 CFR Part 110 or result in the production of a visible sheen.

69Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

4.4.10 Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine (Part 2.2.10)

Onboard distillation and RO syst ems discharge brine is essent ially concentrated seawater with the same constituents of seawater, incl uding dissolved and suspended solids and metals. Anti-scaling treatments and anti-foaming and aci dic cleaning compounds may be injected into the distillation system. The effluent constituents from distillation and RO discharge were found to exceed water quality criteria for several me tals, nitrogen, and phosphorus but did not exceed thermal mixing zone standards. These constituents are generally present in the receiving water
used in the distillation or revers e osmosis process and are merely concentrated in the distillation or osmosis process.

The BMPs EPA has included in the permit require vessel operators to keep the reject water from coming into contact with materials, products, or wastes which may contaminate the discharge with potentially envi ronmentally harmful substances. The Agency believes that returning the concentrated s eawater back to the marine environment should not cause
environmental harm if done in areas where th e brine can be appropr iately diluted by the receiving water.

4.4.11 Elevator Pit Effluent (Part 2.2.11)

Elevator pit discharge will ha ve constituents similar to those found in deck runoff and firemain water, which may include lubricants, cleaning solvents, soot, and paint chips. Tests conducted by EPA and DOD (EPA, 1999) on Armed Forces vessels discovered that some detected constituents from elevator pit effluent exceeded the most stringent state water quality standards, including total nitrog en, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate , copper, iron, and nickel.

The permit does not authorize th e discharge of untreated elev ator pit effluent except in emergency situations. The emergency situation mu st be documented in the ship’s log or other recordkeeping documentation consistent with Part 4.2. The information in today’s permit demonstrates that the discharge of untreated elevator pit effluent is not essential to the safe operation of a vessel and that it can easily be held for proper dispos al or treated with the vessel’s bilgewater. Further, the Agency feels that the limited amount of effluent generated and the high
likelihood of its contamination at harmful levels can best be addressed by storage of the effluent for treatment and disposal onshore. However, if elevator pit effluent must be managed with the ship’s bilgewater, it may be discharged provide d the bilgewater/elevator pit effluent meets the requirements of Part 2.2.2.

4.4.12 Firemain Systems (Part 2.2.12)

Firemain water can contain a variety of c onstituents, including copper, zinc, nickel, aluminum, tin, silver, iron, titanium, and chromium . Many of these constituen ts can be traced to the corrosion and erosion of the firemain piping system, valves, or pumps. Discharges from the firemain system are allowed under the permit in case of emergency, when necessary to ensure the safety of the vessel and crew, as well as for testing purposes to ensure the system will be operational in an emergency. However, when feas ible, the maintenance an d training discharges
of the firemain should occur outsi de ports or other shallow waters and outside wate rs subject to this permit. In addition, EPA be lieves that the use of firema in systems for anchor chain

70Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

washdowns is likely to result in benefits by reducing the potential transport of invasive species. Therefore, the discharge of firemain system s is allowed under the permit when pulling the anchor and anchor chain from protected wa ters in accordance with the anchor washdown requirements of the permit.

4.4.13 Freshwater Layup (Part 2.2.13)

Discharges of freshwater layup effluent include the constituents of the potable water along with residual seawater, any residue that may leach from the conde nser while the water is being held, and disinfectants like chlori ne or chloramine. The Agency r ecognizes that disinfectants are necessary to reduce aquatic growth within the condenser system. Therefore, the permit requires that vessel operators reduce the potential for harmful impacts by minimizing the use of these
treatment chemicals to the lowest effective leve l that will meet the needs of the system. EPA believes that this can be accomplished by following the application rate suggestions provided by the treatment manufacturers to keep the discharg e of the disinfectants as low as possible.

4.4.14 Gas Turbine Wash Water (Part 2.2.14)

Rates and concentrations of gas turbine wa sh water discharge vary according to the frequency of washdown with some Navy vessels conducting washdowns as frequently as every 48 hours with over 100 gallons of washwater being generated. Discharges resulting from gas turbine washdown may include clea ning solvents and substances such as naphthalene and other hydrocarbons. Furthermore, due to the nature of the materials being cl eaned, there is a higher probability of heavy metal concentrations. Wa shdown water from gas turbines may not be discharged into waters subject to this permit unless it is infeasible to separately collect this washwater or only conduct washes outside 3 nm. If it is infeasible to separa tely collect the water, the washwater must be treated by an oily wa ter separator before discharge. Under most circumstances, EPA believes the water generated is of small enough volume that either 1) it can
be collected and held for onshore disposal or disposal in wate rs not subject to this permit provided the discharge meets all ot her applicable law or 2) vess el operators can wash down gas turbines when they are not in waters subject to this permit.

4.4.15 Graywater (Part 2.2.15)

The volume of graywater generated by a vesse l is dependent on the number of passengers and crew. It is estimated that, in general, 30 – 85 gallons of graywater is generated per person per day (Copeland, 2007). Cruise ship estimates for approximately 3,000 passengers and crew range in volume from 96,000 to 272,000 gallons of gray water per day or 1,000,000 gallons per week. Navy designers use a generation standard of 50 gallons per person per day when constructing graywater collection systems.

Graywater discharges can contain bacteria, pa thogens, oil and grease, detergent and soap residue, metals (e.g., cadmium, chromium, lead, c opper, zinc, silver, nickel, mercury), solids,
and nutrients. Of these constituents EPA has fo und ammonia, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc concentrations that exceed water quality criteri a in the discharge.

Several BMPs are practicable and available for control of graywater impacts. First, vessel operators are required to minimize the production and discha rge of graywater while in port.

71Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

Producing less graywater while in port will result in less volume of graywater discharge in those areas. Secondly, for large vessels that regularly leave waters subject to the permit with the capacity to store graywater for a sufficient period, graywater must be disc harged greater than 1 nm from shore while the vessel is underway unles s the vessel 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 along with any vessel specific requirements. Releas ing large volumes of untreated graywater in nearshore environments, estuarine environments, or in waters with limited circulation is more likely to cause negative environmental impacts. Th is is because these environments are likely to have higher vessel traffic and, th erefore, greater graywater gene ration and discharge, are more likely to be stressed by other an thropogenic forces, and are likely to have less ability for dilution and assimilative capacity. The provision limiting th e discharge of untreated graywater within 1 nm of shore when the vessel has holding capacity is a limit that will help protect these ecosystems. Additional conditions apply to vessels which do not travel more than 1 nm from shore in order to help reduce the discharge of untreated graywater to th ese environments. EPA does not expect existing vessel ow ner/operators to install graywater treatment storage capacity. Vessels which have sufficient graywater stor age capacity but do not currently treat their graywater to the standards listed in the permit, must utilize onshore treatment when available and economically practicable and achievable. These requirements will reduce their discharges of untreated graywater.

Additionally, soaps and detergents used in any capacity that will be discharged as graywater must be non-toxic and phosphate-free, and should be biodegradable where possible unless there is evidence that they would be harmful to the aquatic environment. Not all biodegradable soaps are appropriate for all a quatic environments, but EPA believes that nonharmful varieties will be available in most situations and should be used when they are available. Non-toxic soaps are those that do not exhibit pot entially harmful characteristics as defined by the Consumer Product Safety Commission regulations found at 16 CFR Chapter II, Subchapter C, Part 1500 and are not required to be labeled Toxic or Highly Toxic. Phosphate free soap is considered to contain 0.5% by weight or le ss of phosphates or derivatives of phosphates. Reducing use of these products will reduce acute and chronic impacts of vessels that generate graywater on aquatic waterbodies and will limit eutrophication in all waters that are phosphorus limited ecosystems. Products meeting these stan dards are currently co mmercially available. Changes in cost associated with using these products are esti mated in the economic analysis.

Vessels that do not travel more than 1 nm from shore shall minimize the discharge of graywater and, provided the vessel has available graywater storage capacity, must dispose of graywater on shore if appropria te facilities are ava ilable and such disposal is economically practicable and achievable unless the vessel 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 this permit. Minimize the discharge of graywater when the vessel is not underway.

4.4.16 Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge (Part 2.2.16)

Ambient water is added to fuel tanks as the fu el is used. When gasolin e is reloaded to the tanks while in port, the water is discharged. The discharged ambient water may contain traces of gasoline constituents, which generally will contai n alkanes, alkenes, aromatics (e.g., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, phenol, and naphthale ne), metals, and additives. Analyses of

72Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

compensating discharge have shown that be nzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, phenol, and naphthalene may exceed water qualit y criteria in the discharge.

EPA has included BMP limitations in the perm it based on a vessel’s ability to treat the compensating discharge using an oi l water separator to meet oil limitations of less than 15 ppm. The permit also requires that this discharge be minimized while the vessel is in port, which can be accomplished by disposing of the wastewater onshore.

4.4.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater (Part 2.2.17)

Non-oily machinery wastewater discharge ra tes vary by vessel size and operation type, ranging from less than 100 gallons per hour (gph) to over 4,000 gph. Constituents of non-oily machinery wastewater discharge in clude a suite of conventional pol lutants, metals, and organics. Many of the specific constituents in the discha rge can exceed water quality criteria, including copper, nickel, silver, zinc a nd a collection of nutrients. Merc ury also may be present, but reported concentrations did not exceed the standards.

EPA has determined that non-oily machinery wastewater can be discharged if control measures are instituted to keep the waste stream free of oils and additi ves that are toxic and bioaccumulative. Alternatively, non-oily machin ery wastewater can drain to the bilge.

4.4.18 Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge (Part 2.2.18)

This discharge may contain metals from th e refrigeration/air c onditioning coils and drainage systems, including aluminum, copper, ir on, lead, nickel, silver, tin, and zinc. Traces of detergent also may be found in this discharge fr om the cleaning of refrigerated spaces, as can
seawater and freshwater. This waste stream can ea sily be kept segregated from oily wastes and safely discharged, channeled and collected for temporary holding until disposed of onshore, or drained to the bilge. The permit prohibits refr igeration and air condensate from coming into contact with oily or toxic materials if it is discharged directly over board. However, if the condensate is collected for internal recycling, it may be subsequently commingled with other oily discharges provided that the combined discha rge meets the requirement s of Part 2.1.4 and, if applicable, Part 2.2.2.

4.4.19 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (I ncluding Non-Contact Engine Cooling Water; Hydraulic System Cooling Water, Refrigeration Cooling Water) (Part 2.2.19)

The potential constituents of seawater cool ing overboard discharge include entrained or dissolved materials from the system itself, in cluding copper, iron, aluminum, zinc, nickel, tin, titanium, arsenic, manganese, chromium, lead, and oil and grease. Based on existing research conducted for the UNDS program, seawater cooli ng discharge rates can reach as much as 170,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for an in-transit airc raft carrier with copper, nickel, and silver concentrations in the discharge th at exceed water quality criteria.

Cooling water also can reach high temperat ures with the therma l difference between seawater intake and discharge typically ranging from 5°C to 25°C, with maximum temperatures reaching 140°C. EPA has not prohibited the disc harge of the heated seawater because it is

73Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

infeasible with existing vessel design to prohibi t their discharge. However, the Agency believes if vessel operators institute the BMP of reducing discharges to ports or enclosed water bodies, impacts from the heated waters will be reduced. Discharges of seawater can be reduced by using shore based power when electri cal systems on board vessels are compatible with the available shore power.

In addition, mud, biota, and other debris can stick to the strain er plates and require periodic clearing. The permit requires that vessel operators incorporate th e regular removal of fouling organisms from seawater piping and cooling systems to prevent possible transport of species to
other water bodies. The risk of in troducing invasive species is re duced considerably when vessel owner/operators remove fouling organisms while at sea (greater than 50 nm from any shore). Hence, vessel owner/operators should clean piping while at sea in lieu of cleaning these systems in waters subject to this permit if th ey frequently sail far from the coast.

4.4.20 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention (Part 2.2.20)

To prevent biofouling of seawater cooling syst ems, small amounts of biocidal substances are sometimes injected near the seawater inta kes to prevent biofouling by any organisms that may have been drawn in along with the cooling wa ter. Seawater that has been discharged after being treated with chlorinating substances will contain free chlorine and reaction products (halamines, free bromine, and halogenated organics).

The requirements of the permit reinforce curre nt environmental regulations established under FIFRA. Under the permit, biofouling chem icals for seawater piping must be used according to their FIFRA label and are prohibited from discharge if they are banned for use in
the U.S.

Vessel owner/operators must us e the minimum amount of biocide needed to keep fouling under control. Using visual observations, vessel op erators can determine if they are achieving the desired level of biofouling preventi on with lower concentr ations of biocide. If an organic biocide is used, it should have a short ha lf-life. If an oxidizing biocide is being used, th e total residual
oxidant concentration of the effl uent should be monitored periodica lly to ensure that excessive amounts of biocide are not being re leased into the environment.

4.4.21 Boat Wet Engine Exhaust (Part 2.2.21)

Large vessels may have one or many smaller vessels onboard that serve purposes ranging from lifeboats to landing craft. These auxili ary vessels may have engines which produce wet exhaust. Wet exhaust can contain nitrogen oxi des, sulfur dioxide, hydrocarbons and other organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and particulates. For naval ve ssels, EPA estimates that outboard engines discharge wet exha ust at a rate of 20 gpm while i nboard diesel engines have an estimated discharge rate of 150 gpm. The cons tituents discharged by outboard engines differ from those discharged by inboard engines, due to the different fuel and engine types. For these outboard engines, a handful of organic constituents are estimated to exceed water quality criteria in the discharge. Inboard engines may produce disc harges that exceed water quality criteria for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). EPA be lieves that well maintained engines are less likely to cause these exceedances, and is theref ore, requiring operators to implement control

74Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

measures to ensure their engines are maintained in proper working order. Furthermore, vessel owner/operators should use low sulfur or alternative fuels fo r their vessels to reduce the concentration of pollutant s in their discharge.

Vessels that generate wet exhaust must be maintained in good operating condition and functioning according to manufactur er specifications. Vessel ope rators are encouraged to consider four-stroke engines in lieu of two-str oke engines to minimize th e discharge of pollutants to waters subject to this permit.

4.4.22 Sonar Dome Discharge (Part 2.2.22)

Sonar domes are typically found on research vessels and may sporadically be found on other vessels covered by this permit. Maintena nce on the sonar dome, wh ile typically (but not always) done while a vessel is in dry dock, can invol ve the release of the inner sonar dome water. In addition, the components of the outside of the sonar dome can leach into the surrounding waters, including antifouling agen ts, plastic, iron, and rubber. Along with these materials, tin, zinc, copper, nickel, and epoxy paints may be fo und on the inside of sonar domes. Some of the discharge concentrations of these components can exceed water quality cr iteria. Discharge rates are estimated at as little as 300 gallons and as much as 74,000 gallons from inside the sonar dome with every repair event.

Because EPA has not identified any available BM P or feasible treatment technology other than zero discharge, this permit requires that water from inside the sonar dome may not be discharged. In addition, vessel ope rators should not use bioaccumu lative biocides on the exterior
of sonar domes when other viable alternatives are available.

4.4.23 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges (Part 2.2.23)

Extensive hull repair that requires the use of significant raw materials or other potentially
toxic chemicals should be conducted while the vessel is in drydock when feasible. Owner/operators must take all precautions to mi nimize the discharge of raw, toxic, or oily materials while doing any underwater vessel repairs, and these discharges must comply with all applicable federal laws.

EPA recommends that extensive hull cleaning be conducted when the vessel is in drydock or when the byproducts of the cl eaning can be contained and dis posed of properly, especially when cleaning hulls using water pr essure based systems. This BMP encourages all waste to be collected and disposed of properl y to ensure that they are not washed into nearby waters. While these practices do not specifically address the release of antifouling materials from hulls during vessel operations (i.e., hull coati ng leachate), they are critical to controlling levels of contaminants that result in the same type of environmental degradation. In addition, these same practices will reduce the potential for release of introduced species during hull cleaning and paint preparation activities.

Many vessels are too large to be regularly removed from the water and any repair or maintenance required on the hull or hull appendag es must occur while the vessel is pier-side between drydockings. Hull cleaning a nd repair activities can cause th e release of a wide range of constituents, including elements of the vessel hull; hull coatings; clean ing agents; and species

75Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

that are attached to and are associated with th e hull and other submerged areas of the vessel and were transported to non-native wa ters. Use of non-toxic anti-foulant paints such as silicon based paints will reduce the discharge of toxic materi als into the water column during any cleaning.

EPA has not identified an alternative to underwater ship husbandry, a viable treatment technology, or specific practices th at will eliminate all releases of contamination. However, the Agency is requiring that vessel operators employ removal and cl eaning methods that reduce the environmental impacts due to releases of biocides , hull coating materials, and invasive species.
EPA has determined that use of soft brushes wh en cleaning hulls helps eliminate the release of paints and hull materials; hence, you must use the softest brush pr acticable to effectively remove living organisms from the vessel hull. Secondl y, when available, EPA recommends vacuum cleaning technologies be employed in conjunction with mechanic al scrubbing. Vacuum cleaning
allows the materials scrubbed from the vessel hu lls to be collected and disposed of onshore. Though promising, these approaches are not widely commercially available; hence, EPA has not required that they must be used in this permit. Dry dock cleaning is the preferred alternative to underwater ship husbandry whenever possible.

In addition, vessel hulls and hull appendages are a potential source for the spread of aquatic nuisance species. Vessel owner/operators mu st minimize the transport of attached living organisms when they travel into waters subjectto this permit from outside the U.S. economic zone or when traveling between COTP zones. Minimization techniques include preventing the hull from fouling using appropriate anti-foulant paint (see 4.4.4 of this fact sheet) and frequently removing fouling organisms from the hull.

4.4.24 Welldeck Discharges (Part 2.2.24)

Potential constituents of welldeck discharges include fresh water, distilled water, firemain water, graywater, air-conditioning condensate, sea- salt residues, paint chips, wood splinters, dirt, sand, organic debris and marine organisms, oil, grease, fuel, detergents, combustion by-products,
and lumber treatment chemicals. EPA has determin ed that control measures can reduce some of the potential impacts from welldeck discharges. The permit, theref ore, distinguishes what types of waste may be discharged as welldeck discharges.

Further, EPA is requiring that vessel opera tors practice good housekeep ing to ensure that no garbage or wastes that can cause a visible sheen are discha rged. Should these wastes be present, the vessel operator must retainthe discharge for onshore disposal.

4.4.25 Discharges of Graywater Containing Sewage (Part 2.2.25)

Some vessel operators mix graywater with se wage discharges. Once these two discharge types are commingled, it is impossible to separate out which constituents within the effluent are from which discharge type. Ther efore, although discharges of se wage from vessels are exempt from permitting under CWA Section 502(6), all gr aywater discharges containing sewage are required to meet the relevant standards contained within this permit for graywater including discharge minimization requirement s, prohibitions, standards, and other requirements applicable to graywater in Part 2 and Part 5 as appropria te are also required for graywater containing sewage. While not a requirement of this permit, vessel operators should be aware that CWA

76Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

Section 312 and its implementing regulations cont ain requirements for discharges of sewage from vessels which also apply to sewage mixed with graywater.

4.4.26 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge (Part 2.2.26)

On October 9 th , 2008, the 168 member States of the In ternational Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted stringent new sta ndards to control harmful exhaust emissions from the engines that power ocean going vessels. These engine and fuel standards are included in amendments to Annex VI of MARPOL. As a component of thei r analyses, the IMO also set out scrubber washwater criteria in section 10 of the guideli nes for Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (Resolution MEPC.170(57)). Those washwater criteria incl ude recommended limits for pH, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), turbidity, nitrates and washwater additives.

A byproduct of some exhaust gas cleaning technology is that the water used to scrub the exhaust gases may be discharged overboard. Th is washwater may include suspended solids, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons. Before the washwa ter is discharged, it may be processed to remove solid particles. Vessel owner/operators must follow all existing regulations, including the prohibition against the discharge of oil, including oily mixtures, in quantities that may be
harmful as defined in 40 CFR Part 110. In addi tion, sludge generated from exhaust gas scrubber washwater may not be discharged in waters subj ect to this permit. EPA believes that these requirements are reasonable for this genera l permit because the current volume of EGS washwater discharge is low due to the limited number of vessels utiliz ing exhaust gas cleaning systems. At this time, EPA is aware of one ve ssel which sails in U.S. waters and uses this technology. EPA also notes that the Agency will be in a better pos ition to estab lish appropriate
standards and BMPs for this waste stream afte r promulgation of its rule establishing tier 2 standards for Category 3 diesel marine engines, or when use of the exhaust gas cleaning systems becomes more commonplace. In the interim, EPA recommends that owner/operators of vessels with exhaust gas cleaning systems that resu lt in washwater discharges should follow the guidelines set out in section 10 for Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (resolution MEPC.170(57)).

On February 28, 2003, EPA promulgated a final rule regulating NOx emissions from new Category 3 diesel marine engines using a two-tier approach. See 68 FR 9746. Under this approach, EPA first adopted a near-term standar d, effective in 2004, that was equivalent to the MARPOL Annex VI NOx limits, and could be achieved through existing engine-based emissions-control technology. EPA also adopted a regulation that set a schedule for future rulemaking to assess and adopt an appr opriate second tier of NOx standards.

In December 2007, EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) inviting comment on a plan to propose additiona l emission standards for Category 3 marine engines. See 72 FR 69522 (December 7, 2007). The program being considered by EPA in the ANPRM is similar to the program finalized by th e International Maritime Organization. . The EPA ANPRM describes in greater detail the prog ram contained in the United States Government
Submittal.

The NOx limits for new engines described in th e ANPRM consist of Ti er 2 standards that
would reduce NOx 15 to 25 % below the current Tier 1 emission levels, which could be effective as early as 2011. The Tier 3 NOx standards would reduce NOx by up to 80 % below the Tier 2

77Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

78 level, which could be effective as early as 2016. The Tier 3 standards would be geographically based, meaning they would apply only while sh ips are operating in specially designated areas.
Reductions in SOx and PM emissions would be achieved through perfor mance standards that could begin as early as 2011. These limits are ex pected to be achievable through the use of lowsulfur distillate fuels, exhaust gas cleaning technology, or a combination of both. These limits could potentially achieve SOx reductions as high as 95 %, as well as substantial PM reductions.
Also under consideration are controls for certain existing engines that could begin as early as 2012. The standards proposed in that ANPRM are similar to those finalized by the IMO
discussed at the start of this section.

4.5 W ATER Q UALITY -B ASED E FFLUENT L IMITS (P ART 2.3)

This permit includes water quality-based effl uent limits (WQBELs) to control discharges as stringently as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. The provisions of Part 2.3 of the permit constitute the WQBELs for this permit, and supplement the permit’s technologybased effluent limits in Parts 2.1, 2.2, and 5 (where applicable). Where the implementation of the technology-based requirements in this permit are not sufficient to meet the applicable receiving water’s water quality standards, the permittee ma y be subject to furthe r WQBELs. Prior to or after permit issuance and authorization to disc harge, EPA may require additional WQBELs on a site-specific basis, or require the permittee to obtain coverage under an individual permit, if information in the NOI, required reports, or from other sources indicates that, after meeting the technology-based limits in Parts 2.1, 2.2, and 5 (whe re applicable) and the WQBELs in Part 2.3, the facility is causing or c ontributing to an excursion a bove water quality standards 9

.

Part 2.3 includes the permit limits that are as stringent as necessary to achieve water quality standards, consistent with CWA sec tion 301(b)(1)(C) and 122.44(d)(1). ). EPA generally expects that vessels that achieve the perm it’s technology-based limits through the careful implementation of effective pollution control me asures and BMPs are likely to already be controlling their vessel discharg es to a degree that would make additional water quality-based controls unnecessary. However, to ensure that this is the case, the permit contains additional conditions, which, in combination with the BAT/BP T/BCT limits in this permit, EPA expects to be as stringent as necessary to achieve water quality standards. EPA notes that the WQBELs included in this permit are non-numeric. EPA reli es on a narrative expression of the need to control discharges as necessary to meet app licable water quality st andards, 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 fo r vessels at this time. EPA reached this determination primarily based on the mobile nature of vessels used in a capacity of transportation. With thousands of water bodies across the coun try, and the potential for any vessel to discharge into almost a ny water, it is infeasible for EPA to calculate numeric limits for each vessel for each water body at this time. Furthe rmore, as explained in Part 4.1.4 of this fact

9 In using the phrase “excursion abov e,” the permit tracks the language in 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1). There are some instances, however, where pollutants woul d cause nonattainment of the applicab le criterion by lowering the water quality below the criterion, as with dissolved oxygen. In such situations, such lowering would be considered an “excursion above” within the meaning of the proposed permit condition.Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

sheet, establishing numeric water quality based li mits poses many of the same challenges that EPA faced in setting technology-based discharge limits.

As mentioned, this permit requires that eachpermittee must control its discharge as necessary to meet applicable water quality st andards. EPA generally expects that compliance with the other conditions in this permit (e.g., the technology-based limits, corrective actions, etc.) will result in discharges that are controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. If the permittee becomes aware, or EPA determines, that the discharge causes or contributes to a standards exceedance, corrective actions and EPA notification are required. In addition, at any time EPA may im pose additional, more string ent WQBELs on a site-specific basis, or require an individual permit, if inform ation suggests that the di scharge 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 reserv es the authority to require more stringent requirements where necessary to meet applicable sta ndards, or, alternatively, to requi re the permittee to apply for an individual permit.

The purpose of Part 2.3.2 is to include a defini tion for “impaired waters” so that the scope of the requirements in 2.3.2 can be more readily understood by permittees. Part 2.3.2 defines “impaired waters” as those which have been id entified by a State or EPA pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as not meeting applicable State water quality standards. This may include both waters with appr oved or established TMDLs, and those for which a TMDL has not yet been approved or established. The permit c ontains additional pr ovisions for vessels discharging pollutants that have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an impairment of those specified waters.

Part 2.3.2.1 reiterates that if a vessel discharges to an impaired water without an EPAapproved or established TMDL, EPA can provide the permittee with additional requirements with which to comply. EPA can also impose add itional requirements on di scharges that are not directly to an impaired water if they cause or contribute to an exceedance in another water body affected by the discharge.

Part 2.3.2.2 outlines the process for imposing a dditional requirements on permittees when they discharge into waters that have a waste load allocation (WLA) a ssigned to vessels. During the term of the permit, EPA may inform the owne r/operator if such a WLA has been established that applies to their vessel discharges. In addi tion to requiring permittees to comply with the conditions of the WLA, EPA will also assess whether any more stringent requirements are necessary to comply with the WLA, whether co mpliance with the permit’s existing requirements is sufficient to comply with the WLA, or whet her the owner/operator mu st apply for individual permit coverage (see part 1.8.1).

EPA believes that the permit’s provisions ar e consistent with EPA’s antidegradation policy. EPA does not believe that a vessel covere d under this permit should be considered a new or increased point source discharge that w ould forseeably lower water quality under EPA's antidegradation regulation, locat ed at 40 CFR 131.12, the typical trigger for antidegradation review (See EPA Water Quality Standards Handbook, p. 4-10, available at: http://www.epa.gov/watersci ence/standards/handbook/);

79Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/handbook/ see also EPA’s Response to Comments for Oregon Water Quality Standards 2004 approval, page 31). Generally speaking, the vessels covered under this permit and their discharges existed before EPA’s issuance of the VGP and
submission of those vessels’ notices of intent to be covered under the VGP. Such existing discharges do not constitute “new or increase d point source discharges” that would forseeably lower water quality within the meaning of 40 CFR § 131.12, and thus do not trigger antidegradation review. As st ated in EPA’s Water Quality Standards Handbook, antidegradation review requirements “are triggered by any acti on that would result in the lowering of water quality in a high-quality water. Such activities as new discharges or expansion of existing facilities would presumably lower water quality and would not be permissible unless the State
conducts a review consistent with” the State’s an tidegradation requirements. EPA Water Quality Standards Handbook, p. 4-7, available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/handbook/

. EPA’s issuance of the VGP and vessels’ appli cations for coverage under the VGP will not forseeably result in the lowering of water qualit y because those vessels and their discharges existed before the permit was issued and coverage was granted. If anything, EPA’s issuance of the VGP will improve water quality as vesse ls carry out the permit’s technology-based requirements. Further, as stated by EPA in its July 7, 1998 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, antidegradation “specifies the framew ork to be used in making decisions regarding changes in water quality.” 63 Fed. Reg. 36779-80. Again, in the context of the VGP there are no expected “changes in water qualit y”, at least no negative changes. Finally, as stated in EPA’s Response to Comments for Oregon Water Qual ity Standards 2004 approval, antidegradation “would require the permit authorityand applicant to undergo an antidegradation review if the discharge would lower water qua lity as compared to the prior discharge.” Again, vessels covered under the VGP will not typically “low er water quality as compared to the prior discharge” since the very same vessels that are being permitted under the VGP constituted the prior unregulated discharges that existed befo re issuance of the permit. The VGP merely authorizes point source discharges that prev iously existed but were unregulated by EPA’s NPDES regulations. Such existing discharges are not what EPA’s antidegradation regulation intends to cover, as evidenced by the statements cited above. As a resu lt, EPA does not consider vessels covered by this permit to be new or increased point source discharges that would forseeably lower water quality for antidegradation purposes, and thus antidegradation review is not triggered.

80Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

5. 

### CORRECTIVE ACTIONS (PART 3)

5.1 P URPOSE OF C ORRECTIVE A CTION S CHEDULES

The purpose of including a corrective action sec tion in this permit is to assist this new universe of NPDES permittees with effectively meeting effluent limits and implementing the best management practices in this permit. Corrective actions in this permit are follow-up actions a permittee must take to correct problems identifie d in an inspection; they are a requirement to
review and revise control measures and vessel operations to ensure that any problems are eliminated and will not be repeated in the futu re. The permit makes clear that the permittee is expected to assess why a specific problem has o ccurred, and document what steps were taken to eliminate the problem. EPA believes this approach will aid vessel owner/operators in reaching compliance with the requirements of the perm it quickly. Compliance with many of the permit’s requirements, for instance, those related to good housekeeping, reporting, recordkeeping, and some of those related to operation and ma intenance requirements can be accomplished immediately, and therefore, are not considered problems that trigger corrective actions.

The permit requires that a corrective action asse ssment be completed as soon as any of the listed problems are identified. Pursuant to provisions of the permit found in Part 4.2, any problems that constitute violations of permit requirements (instances of noncompliance) must be either noted as part of the vesse l’s records or reported to EPA. As part of the corrective action assessment found in Part 3.2 of the permit, the owner/operator must give a detailed account of the problem(s) identified, take steps to discover the causes of the problem(s), and outline a schedule for addressing the problem(s). The specif ic contents of the corrective action assessment are detailed in the permit. This corrective ac tion assessment must be kept with the other recordkeeping documentation re quired by this permit.

Part 3.3 of the permit outlines types of problem s that trigger the need for corrective action, and stipulates time periods for implementing acti ons to remedy deficiencies and violations. EPA emphasizes that these time frames are not grace periods within wh ich an operator is relieved of any liability for a permit violation. 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. If the original inadequacy constitutes a permit violation, then that violation is not excused by the time frame EPA has allotted for corrective action. EPA assumes that vessel owner/operators w ill need less time to make minor repairs or change shipboard practices than to make subs tantial renovation or repair. Time limits are included specifically so that prob lems are not allowed to persist in definitely. Failure to take the necessary corrective action within the stipulat ed time limit constitutes an additional and independent permit violation. The three deadli nes for corrective actions are based on how extensive the corrections are. For example:

• A minor adjustment may include altering practices for mate rial or equipment storage that cause contamination during a precipitati on or high wave event. Corrective actions to prevent these effluent vi olations in the future must be implemented as soon as possible but no more than 2 w eeks after the discovery of the problem. For example, if
materials caused contamination of the deck washdown water, or bilgewater containing emulsifiers, deterg ents, or other additives was discharged, then violations

81Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

have occurred. For a vessel that will leav e waters subject to this permit within 2 weeks of discovering the problem, corrective actions must be taken either within 2 weeks after the discovery of th e problem, or prior to re-enter ing waters subject to this permit, whichever is later.

• A major adjustment may include drips or spills from leaky infrastructure, or operations that cause violations, but can be repaired or corrected without the vessel being put into dry dock. These adjustments or repairs could include fixing leaking pipe connections or seals that allow oil or other contaminants to reach discharges; installation of drip pans to prevent equipment spills or machinery area runoff from reaching deck washdown effluent; or requiri ng additional training of crew on correct compliance procedures if vessel activities are not in compliance with the permit.

Major adjustments must be made within 3 months. EPA believes that this allows sufficient time to locate the parts or personne l to make the repair or complete the correction. During the period immediately fo llowing the initial vi olation and before the corrective action has been completed, the vessel operator must make every effort to reduce potential environmental harm. If longer than 3 months is required, the appropriate EPA regional office must be notified of why the additional time is needed and a date when the correction is anticipate d to be completed. This information must be recorded in the vessel’s recordkeepi ng documentation. For a vessel that will leave waters subject to this permit within 3 m onths of discovering the problem, corrective
actions must be taken either within 3 mont hs after the discovery of the problem, or prior to re-entering wate rs subject to this permit, whichever is later.

• A major renovation is one that can only be performed in dry dock. This may include such modifications as replumbing waste lin es, rerouting drains, or installation of additional holding capacity for select discha rge types; or overcoa ting or removal of TBT on vessels previously coated w ith this anti-fouling hull coating.

Major renovations must be accomplished dur ing the next available or scheduled opportunity for dry dock renovations. An owner/ operator that has a vessel that is in dry dock after incurring a viol ation that does not take corrective action to alleviate the identified problem will be in violation of the corrective actions section of the permit for every occurrence or discharge after re -launching the vessel (in addition to any original violations prior to going into drydock). All vessels will need to begin complying with its terms on December 19, 2009; hence vessel operators should consider implementing plans as soon as po ssible to make necessary renovations or repairs part of their cu rrent dry dock scheduling.

EPA will consider the appropriateness and promptness of corrective action in determining enforcement responses to permit violations.

82Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

6. 

### INSPECTIONS, MONITORING, REPORTING, RECORDKEEPING (PART 4)

Pursuant to CWA section 308 and 402(a)(2), 40 CFR 122.43(a), and other applicable implementing regulations, the following requiremen ts have been included in the permit, as
discussed below.

6.1 S ELF -I NSPECTIONS AND MONITORING (P ART 4.1)

Vessel self-inspections are requ ired as a means of identifying, for example, sources of spills, broken pollution prevention equipment, or othe r situations that are or might lead to permit violations and allow the owner/ope rator 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. These self-inspections can and must be conducted while the vessel is underway as well as while in port, and are designed to fit easily into other, already established vessel routines. For instance, the permit allows th e routine visual inspecti ons 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.

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. Inspections must be conducted at least once per week or once per voyage, whichever is more frequent, except that vessels that engage in multiple voyages per day are required to inspect dail y, rather than on every voyage. If the vessel hull is not readily visible, it should be inspected wh en feasible, particularly the portions of the hull above the water line at any given time. Effluent streams that are not readily visi ble, such as those discharged below the waterline, require, at a minimum, qua rterly visual sampling or viewing, and visual inspection of the sample. Examination of these di scharges ensures that all effluent streams are examined on a regular basis for indicator substan ces prohibited from enteri ng any effluent stream without imposing complicated sampling and testi ng requirements on vessel owner/operators. For sample streams that can be easily collected, the owner/operator should use a clear bottle or other appropriate device to remove a por tion of the discharge. Samples can be collected from sampling ports or the inspector can also remove sample streams from small draincocks. This sample should be visually examined. The examiner must look for signs of any obvious constituents of concern such as sheens or unexpected discoloration. If these visual indicators of constituents of concern are noted, the owner/operator must initiat e the corrective action process. If the sample stream is not easily obtainable, then the inspecto r must examine the discharge at the last point before the effluent stream is discharged overboard if feasible. If this is not feasible, the owner/operator must document in their recordk eeping documentation that such visual sampling
is not feasible.

Vessels with an oily water separator are not exempt from visual inspection of the bilgewater because visual inspection is a simple , quick, and easy inspection to make which also indicates the effectiveness and ope rational status of the oily wate r separator. The appearance of oil in the bilgewater discharge signals to the ow ner or operator that oilywater separator repairs or maintenance may be necessary. Each routine vi sual inspection must be noted in the official

83Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

logbook or other recordkeeping documentation, si gned by the person conducting the inspection,
and include basic information rela ting to the inspection. This establishes a r ecord of inspections conducted for both the owner/operator and EPA to track compliance with th e 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 aw are of and focusing on these areas, the owner or operator can change or establish onboard pr ocedures to make permit compliance easier.

The comprehensive annual inspection requi rements include a more detailed, thorough inspection of areas of the vessel that are difficult to inspect on a more regular basis, such as the vessel hull. However, the annual inspection does not require the vessel be placed into drydock.
Areas of the vessel that can not be inspected without placing the vessel in drydock should be inspected and documented during the next sc heduled drydocking period. The owner/operator should note in the annual inspec tion report which areas are able to be inspected during drydock only. Annual inspection of these areas ensures they are inspected frequently enough to identify and correct problems. In addition, the annual re view of all inspection and monitoring data highlights problem areas of the vessel that may n eed additional attention. This allows the Master, owner, or operator to establish and implement a dditional procedures applicable to problem areas to reduce future problems. Add itionally, the annual inspection requires that all pollution control equipment be inspected to ensure it is f unctioning properly. This requirement provides a reminder and opportunity to complete main tenance activities on onboard equipment.

Owner/operators may use applicable portions of the results from the annual inspections conducted by the Coast Guard or the classification society to meet some requirements of the annual inspection. For example, if the Coast Guard examines the oily water separator, then the owner may note in their inspection report that the Coast Guard had completed the inspection and they would not be required to inspect it again. However, for porti ons of the vessel that are not inspected by the Coast Guard or classificati on society for environmental performance, the owner/operator must conduct an insp ection to be sure that the ve ssel is meeting requirements of this permit. Regardless of who c onducts the inspections, the owner/operator is responsible for a thorough inspection being conducted and taking corrective actions ba sed on that inspection. If the owner/operator is unsure of the quality of inspec tions that they will use as part of their annual inspection, EPA strongly recommends they us e their own personnel to conduct the full inspection. The owner/operator is ultimately resp onsible for completion of this requirement.

Each annual inspection must be recorded in the official logbook or other recordkeeping documentation, signed by the person conducti ng the inspection, and must include basic information relating to the inspection and any corr ective actions taken as a result of inspection findings.

6.2 D RYDOCKING I NSPECTION R EPORTS (P ART 4.1.4)

Many class societies and the United States Co ast Guard require that the vessel operator conduct drydock inspections before relaunching th e vessel. Based on discussion with technical experts, EPA assumes most, if not all vessels currently must undergo drydock inspections. 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. Th e thorough examination of the vessel that occurs while it is in drydock provides owner/operators with an additional opportunity to implement the

84Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

permit's requirements. For example, cleaning th e vessel hull of attached organisms is much easier in drydock, and is safer for the envir onment because any attached organisms can be properly disposed of away from water, minimi zing the risk of an introduction of ANS. For any drydock report, the permit requires that it include confirmation thatthe chain locker, hull, and cathodic protection have been inspected and cl eaned, that anti-fouling hull coatings are maintained and applied in accordance with the permit's requirements, and that all pollution control equipment is maintained and prope rly functioning. In instances where vessel owner/operators have drydock reports conducted by the applicable class society or the Coast Guard, or where the vessel operators prepare another drydock inspec tion report, the permit requires the owner/operator to make such re ports available to EPA or an authorized representative of EPA upon request.

6.3 R ECORDKEEPING R EQUIREMENTS (P ARTS 4.2 AND 4.3)

Written records are useful tools for both the vessel owner or operator and EPA. They allow
an owner or operator to asse ss 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. They also allow EPA to assess permit compliance. By identifying which areas consisten tly require more cleani ng 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.

Much of the information that must be recorded under the permit is the same as the information that is required of vessels equippe d with ballast tanks bound fo r a port or place in the United States by the Coast Guard Regulations at 33 CFR §151.2045. This basic information
allows the identification of the ve ssel, the vessel’s travels and itiner aries, and responsible parties. While the Coast Guard regulation ap plies only to vessels with balla st tanks, the requirements of the permit apply to all vessels covered by the perm it, whether they have ballast water tanks or not. By using the existing vessel recordkeeping requirements as a framework into which the recordkeeping requirements of the permit fit, EP A has attempted to streamline the requirements, make compliance with the permit simple, and do so without imposing significant additional paperwork on vessel owners and operators. St reamlining the paperwork and recordkeeping requirements (for vessels also covered under Co ast Guard regulations) in creases compliance and allows EPA to achieve both permit enforcement and environmental protection goals.

The information to be recorded is intended to be simple, basic, and straightforward. There are no specific forms to fill out or file; a permittee need only keep one brief record of each inspection, noting when and how it was complete d and any relevant information discovered during the inspection. Inspection records must be kept on the vessel or accompanying tug and may be kept in any form provided they can be ma de available to the EPA. Examples include the ship’s official logbook or other official vessel recordkeeping documentation. There do not need to be multiple copies of the records. Additional requirements include a record of maintenance of specific pieces of equipment that cause discharg es covered under the permit and a record of each incidence where a discharge occurs pursuant to a safety or emergency exception (e.g., bilge water 2.2.2, ballast water exemptions 2.2.3.10, AF FF 2.2.5, boiler blowdown 2.2.6, elevator pit 2.2.11, firemain 2.2.12). This can assist in tro ubleshooting any future pollution problems by

85Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

showing how often maintenance wa s performed, what maintenan ce or repairs were completed, and how often and under what circumstances emergency exceptions were invoked.

This permit contains provisions reinforci ng reportable release requirements. The permit specifically does not allow the di scharge of hazardous substances or oil in excess of reportable quantities, even if they are associated with th e normal operation of a vessel. This provision has been included to clarify that the permit is not au thorizing any reportable qu antity releases of any material that were not authorized before issuance of this permit. These spills must be reported as required under 40 CFR Part 110 and 40 CFR Part 117.

Vessels equipped with ballast water tanks are required by the permit to meet the requirements of 33 CFR 151.2045. This requirement a pplies both to vessels that are already subject to these Coast Guard regulations and to vessels that are not. The USCG regulations establish a recordkeeping system to collect info rmation related to ballast water capacity, uptakes, exchanges, and discharges. In addition, the pe rmit expands the ballast water exchange and saltwater flushing requirements for vessels withballast water tanks. Th ese vessels that conduct saltwater flushing must note thatfact on the Ballast Water Reporting Form, which is found in the Appendix to 33 CFR Part 151, Subpart D.

6.4 R EPORTING (P ART 4.4)

EPA emphasizes that failure to meet any requi rement of the permit would constitute an enforceable permit violation. EPA has added empha sis and explanation a bout what constitutes a permit violation in several places in the perm it in order to avoid any ambiguity. However, provisions where this emphasis has not been included are also enforceable requirements.

EPA has included reporting requirements in the VGP that ensure that EPA, and other parties as necessary, are made aw are of potential permit violations . For all vessels equipped with ballast tanks that operate in waters of the Unite d States and are bound for por ts or places in the United States, you must meet the reporting re quirements of 33 CFR 151.2041 and recordkeeping requirements of 33 CFR 151.2045.

All NOBOB vessels that conduct saltwater flushing should indicat e that they have done so in the Ballast Water Reporting Form in Secti on 4, Ballast Water Management, by checking off the “Underwent Alternative Management” box and indicating that the vessel underwent saltwater flushing in the “specify alternative method” line. NOBOB vessels that conducted saltwater flushing should also fill out S ection 5, Ballast Water History.

EPA also requires reports of spills and othe r unauthorized discharges. In addition, VGP 2008 clarifies that spil ls and other unauthorized discharges mu st be reported to EPA. In the case where discharges may affect drinking water supplie s, recreational waters, e licit fish kills, or may otherwise endanger human health or the environment, the discharge must be reported orally to the appropriate EPA regional office within 24 ho urs from the time or discovery, followed by an electronic or written report (per the requirements of Appendix B, section 12(F)) within 5 days. The release of a reportable quantity of any hazard ous substance or oil must be reported to the National Response Center dial 800-424-8802 or 202-426-2675 in the Washington, DC area. The NRC is staffed 24 hours a day by U.S. Coast Gu ard personnel, who will ask you to provide as

86Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

much information about the incident as possibl e, including: your name , location, organization, and telephone number; name and address of the pa rty responsible for the incident; date and time of the incident; locati on of the incident; sour ce and cause of the release or spill; types of material(s) released or spilled; medium (e.g. lan d, water) affected by rele ase or spill; danger or threat posed by the release or spill; number and types of injuries or fa talities (if any); weather conditions at the incident location; name of the carrier vessel, or other identifying information;
whether an evacuation has occurred ; other agencies notified or a bout to be notified; any other information that may help emergency personnel respond to the incident. EPA also encourages operators to report the releases th at may have human health ramifi cations to the appropriate local authorities, e.g., public water s upply operator, health departme nt. Follow-up monitoring results should be reported via the electron ic system (when available) or in writing to the appropriate EPA Regional Office (Part 3.7) within 30 days of receiving the results. The report should include the permit identification number; vessel name, a ddress and location; recei ving water; monitoring data from this and the preceding monitoring event(s); an explanation of the situation; what has been done and shall be done to further reduce pol lutants in the discharge; and an appropriate contact name and phone number.

Vessel owner/operators must report any instances of noncom pliance with the permit at least once per year to the regional offices list ed in Part 13. This is a requirement under the standard permit conditions at 40 CFR 122.41. Vessel operators must report the noncompliance to the regional office responsible for the waters in which the noncompliance occurred. If vessels have multiple occurrences of noncompliance, they must report the noncompliance to the regional office where either 1) the greatest number of non compliance events occurred, or 2) if the same number of noncompliance events occurred, to th e regional office responsible for waters where the vessel spent the most time.

Vessel owner/operators under Parts 5.1, 5.2, and 5.8 of this permit have additional reporting requirements. They must report their monitoring data for their graywater treatment systems (5.1 and 5.2) or monitoring data on biocides or derivates of those biocides from ballast water treatment systems (5.8).

The permit requires owner/operators to subm it a one-time report that contains basic
information about the vessel after the 30 th month of permit coverage. EP A is requiring this report in lieu of an annual report. Specifically, the re port must include the ow ner and operator name(s) and addresses, the name of the vessel, the flag of the vessel, the size of the vessel, whether or not the monitoring conditions of the permit have been met, and the date of submission of the report. It is estimated that this report will take no mo re than 30 minutes to generate. EPA is requiring this information to assure that permittees are co mplying with the provisions of this permit, to learn how vessels are implementing the permit, and to gain a better understanding about the universe of permittees covered by th is general permit. In addition to studying the effects of this permit issuance, EPA may also use this information to assist in developing the next iteration of this general permit. Owner/operators are requi red to submit this one-time report between 30 months and 36 months after obtaining permit c overage (i.e., between 2 1⁄2 and 3 years after receiving authorization to discha rge under this general permit).

87Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

7. 

### ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGY BA SED AND RELATED PERMIT REQUIREMENTS BASED ON CLA SS OF VESSEL (VESSEL CLASSSPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS) (PART 5)

7.1 L ARGE C RUISE S HIPS (P ART 5.1)

Large cruise ships are those ships that provi de overnight accommoda tions and are licensed to carry 500 or more passengers for hire. Require ments for cruise ships authorized to carry 500 or more passengers apply regardless of the actua l number of passengers onboard. EPA selected this threshold defining large cruise ships to be consistent with the requi rements of “Title XIV— Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations” of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5666) in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554) (commonly referred to as Title XIV) passed on December 12, 2000. Title XIV set disc harge standards for sewage and graywater from certain cruise ships (thos e authorized to carry 500 or mo re passengers for hire) while operating in the Alexander Archipelago and the navi gable waters of the United States in the State
of Alaska and within the Kachem ak Bay National Estuarine Resear ch Reserve (referred to here as “Alaskan waters”).While most cruise ship vessel discharges are sim ilar to those of other similarly sized vessels, cruise ships have severa l unique characteristics a nd discharges for which they require additional permit requirements. Cr uise ships provide accommodations and extensive amenities to a large number of passengers. These extensive onboard services provided for guests
contribute to the increase in the volume of crui se ship discharges. For example, because these vessels carry a large number of people onboard, they generate considerably more graywater discharges than a container or cargo ship. Other amenities provided, such as photo developing, dry cleaning, and day spas, use and produce chemical s that are toxic to the aquatic environment. Discharges of these substances are not authorized by the permit.

7.1.1 Graywater Management

As previously mentioned, the amount of gray water produced by large cruise ships is many times greater than what is produced by a cargo ve ssel of similar size. Graywater, especially in such large quantities, can cause environmental harm. The graywater produced by cruise ships may contain high levels of nutrien ts, pathogens, residual levels of organic material, and cleaning
chemicals.

EPA established the numeric effluent limits for graywater found in Part 5.2.1.1.2 (discussed below) because data gathered by EPA de monstrate that technologies are available, as well as economically practicable and achievable, and therefore, would represent BPT and BAT. The treatment technologies that remove non-co nventional pollutants al so treat conventional pollutants; hence, EPA applied the BAT standard to all pollutants for which the permit proposes standards for graywater. For addi tional discussion of BAT, BC T, and the requirements of each, please see Part 4.2.3 of the Fact Sheet.

The technology to meet the effluent limits found in Part 5.2.1.1.2 of the permit is currently in use and already required for many large crui se ships operating in Alaskan waters which discharge within the terri torial seas. EPA anticipates no majo r physical impediments to installing such technology on large cruise ships, and in fact, many cruise ships are already capable of meeting these standards. There are two systems available that cruise ships can use to treat

88Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

graywater: marine sanitation devices (MSDs) and advanced wastewater treatment systems (AWTs). An in depth discussion of how each system works can be found in the EPA Draft Cruise Ship Assessment Report, Part 2.3, which is available in the docket for this permit. In general, AWTs are capable of treating graywater to more stringent standards than traditional MSDs, and EPA has therefore based the effluent limits in this permit on the AWTs technology. AWTs on board cruise ships have been shown to reduce ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and total phosphorus by moderate amounts and conve ntional pollutants such as TSS and fecal coliform substantially. In monitoring conducted by EPA in 2004 and 2005, nitrate/nitrite levels were low and remained relatively unchanged by treatment. Nitrogen and phosphorus are likely taken up by microorganisms in the bioreactor and re moved from the system in the waste sludge.
Table 2 shows the influent and effluent concentr ations for these systems for Cruise Ships in Alaska (adapted from EPA, 2007).

Table 2: AWT Effluent Concentrations and Removals for Nutrients

Analyte Unit Average
Concentration in Cruise Ship AWT
Influent1 Average Conc. (± SE) in Cruise Ship
AWT Effluent2 Percent Removal Ranges1

Ammonia As Nitrogen mg/L 78.6 (35 detects out of 35 samples) 36.6* (±5.50) (136
detects out of 138 samples) 58 to 74

Nitrate/Nitrite as Nitrogen mg/L 0.325* (26 detects out of 50 samples) 3.32* (±0.653) (66
detects out of 152 samples) NC

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 111 (50 detects out of 50 samples) 32.5* (±3.27) (169
detects out of 170 samples) 70 to 76

Total Phosphorus mg/L 18.1 (25 detects out of 25 samples) 5.05* (±0.460) (146 detects out of 154 samples) 41 to 98

1 Based on data collected by EPA in 2004 and 2005.

2 Based on data collected by ADEC/Coast Guard from 2003 to 2005; data collected by EPA in 2004 and 2005; and data collected through EPA’s 2004 cruise ship survey. “NC” indicates that percent removal no t calculated because the effl uent concentration was greater than the influent concentration or the analyte was not detected in the influent samples from one or more sampled ships. * Average includes at least one nondete ct value; this calculation uses detection limits for nondetected results.

One recent estimate by the cruise industry is that roughly 40% of the International Council of Cruise Lines members’ 130 ships (which make up two-thirds of the world fleet) have installed AWTs, with 10 to 15 more systems added each year (Choi, 2007). In 2006, 23 of 28 large cruise ships that operated in Alaskan waters had AWTs in order to meet the mo re stringent discharge requirements required under Title XIV (see subsection 2.2.3 of EPA Draf t Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report for additional information). The remainder operated traditional Type II MSDs and held the treated sewage and untreated graywater in double-bottom ballast tanks for discharge outside Alaskan waters. For additional information on Title XIV and cruise ship discharges, please see Part 2 of the EPA Draft Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report.

89Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

The standards that EPA has included are also economically practicable and achievable. EPA estimates that the cost of maintaining a graywater treatment system is $7.09 per passenger (including crew) berth per season. For more in formation, please see the Economic Analysis accompanying this permit. In addition, EPA consid ered other impacts that would be caused by the imposition of these standards, such as incr eased energy use onboard th e cruise ships, and found those impacts to be negligible. Cruise ships can expect to expend additional fuel when operating the AWTs, to generate solid sludge or ot her waste from these systems, and/or to have additional cost in transporting tr eated or untreated Graywater out of specific waters; however all of these effects are relatively small.

7.1.1.1 Pierside Limits

While pierside, cruise ship operators are re quired to use graywater reception facilities if they are reasonably available unless the vessel treats graywater with a device to meet the standards found in Part 5.1.1.1.2 of the permit. If not available, graywater must be held for later discharge beyond 1 nm. These requirements will minimize the volume of pollutants discharged while the cruise ship is pierside. These restrict ions will also reduce the discharge of chemicals, nutrients, and pathogens into marinas and ports, which can be located in ecologically sensitive estuaries, and where there are la rge numbers of vessels discharg ing in close proximity. Hence, the cumulative impact of numerous untreated gray water discharges in port may be significant. Furthermore, based on responses to surveys with vessel operators and industry representatives conducted as part of the economic analysis, most cruise ship operators have voluntarily agreed not to discharge graywater within 4 nautical miles of shore (CLIA Voluntary Guidelines). Though the standards specified in the permit do not include nume ric limits for nutrients, the systems capable of meeting the other standards in this permit (listed in Part 5.1.1.1.2) have been
shown to remove considerable amounts of nutrien ts and successfully ach ieve pathogen standards as shown above in Table 2 (EPA 2007). For the reasons discussed above, approaches to meet these requirements are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable.

7.1.1.2 Operational Limits

Operational limits in the permit prohibit the disc harge of graywater within 1 nautical mile of shore unless the graywater has been treate d to treatment standard s in Part 5.2.1.1.2 of the permit. Discharges between 1 nm and 3 nm of sh ore have to either meet the effluent limits outlined in this permit under Part 5.1.1.1.2 or be discharged while the vessel is moving at a speed of at least 6 knots, and can not be discharged to a waterbody listed in Part 12.1 of the permit. EPA included the six knot requirement for untreat ed graywater discharges between 1 and 3 nm from shore because an independent Science Advisory Panel for the Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative has found that significant dilution occurs when cruise ships discharge while moving over six
knots. Based on measured values and calculate d values from EPA dye studies, the Panel recommends the following formula to calculate the dilution factor of large cruise ship effluent:

Dilution Factor=4(Ship length*Ship Dra ft*Ship Speed)/Volume Discharge rate)

Using this formula, a cruise ship moving at six knots will achieve a dilution factor of over 1:50,000. Conservative estimates of further mixing be fore the effluent travels one nautical mile
to shore are a dilution factor of 100 to 1000.

90Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

Additionally, the graywater discharge standards in this permit ar e consistent with those for large cruise ships underway in Alaskan waters required under Title XIV. As mentioned, industry information shows that many cruise ships are al ready meeting the operational standards required by the permit. Furthermore, these permit requirement s are generally consistent with Cruise Line International Association (CLIA) Waste Manage ment Practices and Procedures for member lines. Hence, the technologies to meet these st andards are currently available, as well as economically practicable and achievable.

7.1.1.3 Limits Applicable to Operation in Nutrient Impaired Waters

Nutrients are a pollutant of concern addressed by this pe rmit. EPA found it not to be economically practicable and achieva ble to require discharges of gr aywater to be prohibited in all cases, however, a partial restriction on such discharges would represent the BPT and BAT levels of control. Because discharges of graywate r are of particular con cern in nutrient impaired waters; the permit contains limits designed to minimize the discharge of graywater in those waters. Under this permit, graywater discharges ar e not authorized in nutrient impaired waters, unless the length of the voyage through those waters exceeds the ship’s holding capacity. If the voyage length does exceed the holding capacity, the cruise ship operator has two options: treat the excess graywater (above the holding capacity) to meet the standards of 5.1.1.1.2 prior to discharging it or dispose of gr aywater properly onshore (before exceeding capacity). These measures will limit the amount of graywater and the amount of chemicals, nutrients, and pathogens discharged into nutrient impaired wate rs. The average holding capacity for graywater, based on EPA’s 2004 cruise ship study, is 56 hours. Hence, most cruise ship owner/operators would be able to meet the requirements to hol d their graywater as required in the permit.

7.1.1.4 Graywater Treatment Standards

The permit requires the discharge of treated gr aywater to meet the following requirements: the minimum level of effluent quality specified in 40 CFR 133.102; the ge ometric mean of the samples during any 30-day period may not exceed 20 fecal coliform/100ml and not more than 10 % of the samples could exceed 40 fecal coliform/ 100 ml; and concentrations of total residual chlorine may not exceed 10.0 micrograms per liter (μg/l). These graywater treatment standards
are based on the Title XIV standards that are published in Coast Guard regulations at 33 CFR 159.309. EPA expects owners of large cruise ship s to incur some cost, although these costs are considered affordable, would cause no clos ures, and should not cause any cruise ship owner/operators to exceed a 1% revenue threshold.

7.1.1.5 Sculleries and Galleys

The permit requires cruise ship operators to us e phosphate free detergen ts in the scullery and galley. Additionally, it require s any degreaser used to be non- toxic if the degreaser or its residue otherwise would be discharged as part of any waste stream. The use of phosphate free soaps and cleaners is a simple step toward re ducing the amount of nutrients, namely phosphorus, present in graywater discharge. Phosphate free detergents and non-toxic detergents are readily available for purchase, are comparably priced, and are an affordable management measure for reducing phosphates and toxic compounds in waste streams. Based on the economic analysis prepared for this permit, the purchase of phos phorus free soaps will result in negligible

91Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

additional costs for any owner or operator. Hence, use of thes e more environmentally friendly products is technologically available and economically pr acticable and achievable.

7.1.1.6 Other Materials

Many of the services provided to cruise ship passengers use toxic chemicals that can end up in the graywater discharge (EPA, 2007). Th ese include dry cleaning operations, photo developing, medical services, and spa and sal on services. The permit requires that other materials, including waste from mercury cont aining products, dry cleaners or dry cleaner condensate, photo processing labs, medical sinks or floor drains, salon floor drains, chemical storage areas, and print shops usi ng traditional or non-soy based inks and chlorinated solvents be prevented from entering the ship’s graywater, blac kwater, or bilge systems. Discharges of these materials are not eligible for coverage under th is permit. There are several ways that ship owner/operators can prevent these materials from entering the graywater, blackwater, or bilge systems, including plugging any drains that lead to the graywater, blackwater, or bilge systems in areas where these wastes are produced, creating alternative waste recep tacle, or replumbing drains to appropriate holding tanks. Drain plugging, alternative waste receptacles, and/or replumbing would allow the chemicals to be stored and properly treated. . Also, in order to prevent
the addition of known toxic materials to waters subject to this permit, the permit prohibits addition of toxic or hazardous materials, including products c ontaining acetone, benzene, or formaldehyde, into spa or salon sinks or floor drains if those sinks or drains lead to any system which will ever discharge into waters subject to this permit. Due to the highly toxic nature of these materials, they must be sent to an alte rnative waste receptacle or holding tank and can not be discharged into waters subject to this perm it or allowed to enter any discharge stream which later discharges into waters subject to this permit.

Based on information collected as part of the economic analysis, all cr uise ship owners and operators are already taking these measures. Fo r any vessels that have not yet taken these measures, EPA expects these preventive measures to be technologically available and economically practicable and achievable.

7.1.1.7 Pool and Spa Discharges

Pool and spa water may also be added to the graywater treatment syst ems, however it must still be de-chlorinated and/or debrominated prior to discharge subject to this permit. In addition, the effluent discharged from the graywater trea tment system must meet all treatment standards
found in Part 5.1.1.1.

Discharges from pools and spas are authorized under this permit, provi ded that if they use chlorination or debromination, they are dechlori nated and/or debrominated. To be considered dechlorinated, the total residual chlo rine in the pool or spa efflue nt must be less than 100μg/l if the pool or spa water is discharged without going through an advanced wastewater treatment system . To be considered debrominated, the tota l residual oxidant in the pool or spa effluent must be below 25μg/l if the pool or spa water is discharged without going through an advanced wastewater treatment system. EPA determin ed the dechlorination limits by using those established for ballast water treatment systems and evaluating comments submitted by public commenters which indicated such limits are achievable. Furthermore, this limit is consistent with

92Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

common dechlorination limits from shore based sewage treatment facilities. In addition, the permit provides that vessel owner/operators ma y only discharge pool or spa water while the vessel is underway; hence, EPA anticipates that this discharge will be significantly diluted.

7.1.2 Monitoring Requirements (Part 5.1.2)

Cruise ship operators must complete speci fic monitoring steps to document compliance with graywater treatment a nd discharge requirements under the permit. The monitoring requirements for large cruise ships are similar to those required by the Coast Guard regulations implementing Title XIV published at 33 CF R 159.309. These monitoring requirements are required by the US Coast Guard for Alaskan cruise ship operators that discharge graywater and sewage within nearshore Alaskan waters. EP A evaluated these monitoring requirements and
elected to use the same standards to remain consistent with the Coast Guard. The monitoring regime selected is sufficient to show that the systems are properly functi oning before large cruise ships enter domestic territorial seas and that the systems are properly maintained.

The monitoring requirements in this perm it delineate a specific schedule for sampling, testing, and reporting, in compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 122.44 and 122.48.
Permittees need to use test methods that are listed in 40 CFR Part 136 for all constituents sampled. The monitoring requirements will yield data representative of the discharge being monitored, allowing both EPA and permittees to accurately evaluate both compliance and the effectiveness of the permit requirements. Th e requirements include monitoring, sampling, and testing for specific parameters likely to be present in the effluent. These measurements characterize treatment efficacy and enable doc umentation of permit compliance. Monitoring results need to be reported annually, following re porting of initial monitoring to establish the efficacy of the treatment system (see below).

7.1.2.1 Untreated Graywater

Along with other recordkeeping requirements established by this permit, the vessel owner/operator must keep records estimating all di scharges of untreated graywater into waters subject to the permit, including date, location, and volume discha rged. In order to streamline recordkeeping and reporting requirements, this information may be kept in the sewage and graywater discharge record book otherwise required by 33 CF R §159.315 for those vessels that keep these records. Alternatively, cruise ship oper ators could record these data in the ship’s log or other recordkeeping documentation, as long as the location of the information is clearly
known and can be made available to EPA or a ny EPA representative immediately on request. EPA may use this information, in part, to mon itor compliance with and effectiveness of the permit requirements.

7.1.2.2 Treated Graywater

Prior to entering domestic territorial seas, or within 90 days of obtaining permit coverage, cruise ship operators are required to demonstrate that the vessel has the ability to treat graywater to the applicable standards found in Part 5.1.1.2 if the vessel will be discharging graywater within 1 nm of shore, within 3 nm of shore while traveling at le ss than 6 knots, or into nutrient

93Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

impaired waters subject to this permit. These datamust be reported to EPA consistent with the requirements discussed below.

Furthermore, as with untreated graywater, the permit requires the owner/operator to maintain records estimating the volume of all disc harges of treated graywater into waters subject to the permit. These records would consist of the date, location, and volume discharged and could be maintained as part of the sewage and graywater discharge record book required under 33 CFR §159.315.

7.1.2.3 Initial Monitoring

Within 90 days of obtaining permit coverage, large cruise ship operators are required to demonstrate that the vessel has the ability to tr eat graywater to the applicable standards if the ship will be discharging graywater within 1 nm of shore, within 3 nm of shore while traveling at less than 6 knots, or into nutrient-impaired waters subject to this permit. Cruise ship operators are required to initially demonstrate the effectiveness of the graywater treatment system by taking at least five (5) sample s over 30 days. Samples are require d to meet standards for BOD5, fecal coliform, suspended solids, pH, and total re sidual chlorine. The requirement for five initial samples is consistent with the Title XIV require ments for large cruise ships operating in Alaska. The permit requires records of monitoring inform ation be kept, including the date, exact place noted in latitude and longitude , and time of sampling or meas urements; the individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements; the date(s ) analyses were performed; the individual(s) who performed the analyses; the analytical techni ques or methods used; and the results of such analyses. The permit requires r ecords be kept for 3 years.

For chlorine monitoring, analytical results that are below the method detection limit are considered in compliance with the permit effluent limits, as long as the testing method used had a detection limit no higher than 10 μg/l under ideal conditions. EPA has found that method SM4500-CL G (DPD Colorimetric Method) is able to reach 10 μg/l under ideal conditions. SM4500-Cl G is typically the method that ADEC/USCG uses for compliance monitoring.

In addition, testing and reporting for total residual chlorine is not required if chlorine is not
used as the disinfectant in the wastewater trea tment process and no water to which chlorine has been added (swimming pools, spas, etc.) is drained to the graywater system.

7.1.2.4 Maintenance Monitoring

After initially demonstrating the effectivene ss of the treatment system, operators must conduct the same sampling and tes ting at least once per quarter to show con tinued effectiveness of the system and compliance with the permit. This requirement includes keeping all required records of the sampling and testing results for at least 3 years.

7.1.2.5 Treated Pool and Spa Discharges (5.1.2.3)

Vessel owner/operators must monitor chlorine or bromine (as total residual oxidant) concentrations (as applic able) in pool and spa water before di scharging such water into waters subject to this permit. Such monitoring for chlori ne must use Part 136 methods in order to ensure the dechlorination process is complete. Such mo nitoring for bromine must use Part 136 methods

94Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

or may also use colorimetric methods, including with test kits, (for pool and spa discharges only), provided that test kit has method dete ction limit no higher than 50 μg/L. In addition,
vessel records must include the location, estimated volume, and c oncentration of chlorine or bromine in the discharge.

As with monitoring for chlorine in graywater, analytical results th at are below the method
detection limit are considered in compliance with the permit effluent limits, as long as the testing method used had a detection limit no higher th an 10 μg/l under ideal conditions. EPA has found that method SM4500-CL G (DPD Co lorimetric Method) is able to reach 10 μg/l under ideal conditions and so meets these requirements .. SM4500-Cl G is typically the method that ADEC/USCG uses for compliance monitoring. For br omine, analytical results below the method detection limit shall be deemed compliant with th e effluent limits, provided the permittee uses a testing method with a detecti on limit no higher than 50.0 μg/L.

7.1.2.6 Monitoring Reporting

In addition to the other reporting requirements established by this pe rmit, vessel operators must submit the initial sampling and testing information to EPA Headquarter s at least seven days before entering waters subject to this permit or within 90 days of obtaining permit coverage,
whichever is later. Alternativel y, owner/operators could submit m onitoring data to EPA via the e-reporting system. Once the e-reporting system is established, it will be available at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/enoi . EPA anticipates the e-reporting system will be available within 2 years after permit finalization. Maintenance sampling and testing information must be submitted at least once a year, and no more than 30 days after the fourth testing period. Vessels that operate in Alaskan waters and already submit sampling a nd testing information to the Captain of the Port (COTP) to meet the requir ements of Title XIV do not need to submit the information to EPA. EPA will request these data from the Alaskan COTP on a regular basis, not to be less than once per year. EPA has chosen to request the information from the COTP to reduce the reporting burden on cruise ships by minimizing duplicate reporting requirements.

The appropriate EPA HQ address for submitting these reports is:

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code 4203M ATTN: VGP - Cruise Ship Graywater Monitoring Data 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20460

7.1.2.7 Reserved Authority

Meeting the monitoring requirement s would not shield the vessel operator from liability if EPA or Coast Guard tests the graywater discharg e and finds it is not in compliance with the treatment standards. Non-compliance with any effluent limit would be a violation of the permit.

7.1.3 Education and Training Requirements [Part 5.1.3]

Pursuant to CWA section 402(a)(2), a nd 40 CFR 122.43(a), and other implementing regulations, EPA is imposing the following education and training requirements.

95Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

Crew training is extremely important because the vessel’s crew plays a significant role in increasing or decreasing the volume and quality of vessel discharges. The permit requires the cruise ship owner/operator to tr ain the crew members who actively take part in the management of a discharge, or who may affect a discharge, in environmental procedures sufficiently so that the crew could demonstrate proficiency in im plementing the procedures; provide advanced training in environmental manageme nt procedures to any crew memb ers directly involved in the management of a specific discharge, such that the crew could demons trate proficiency in implementing the procedures; and establish and en force sufficient reprimand procedures for any
crew member whose actions lead to a violation of any of the efflue nt limits in this permit, or a violation of other proced ures established by the cruise ship op erator to minimize the discharge of pollutants.

In addition, the permit requires the cruise ship operator to educate passengers about potential environmental impacts and steps the pa ssengers can take to minimize those impacts. Proper education of crew and passengers plays an important role in meeting environmental protection goals because they are often in th e best position to minimize vessel discharges. Graywater is one example. Passengers can mi nimize the amount of graywater produced onboard if they are made aware of water conservation practices such as reus ing sheets and towels. Passengers can control the const ituents added to graywater disc harge, such as through proper disposal of unused pharmaceuticals which woul d prevent their ultimate introduction into the aquatic environment. The permit allows flexib ility in how these goals are accomplished, and allows the passenger education to take place via posting or distribution of signage, flyers, or other handouts, incorporati ng environmental information into passenger orientation presentations, holding lectures or seminars, or making announ cements over the ship’s public address system.

Most cruise ship operators have already incorporated environmental training into established training and educati on requirements. Some of these education requirements included in the permit are based in part on industry literature created by the industry trade group Cruise
Lines International Associati on (CLIA). The steps required by the permit are already being employed by many cruise ship operators in the industry and thus are available as well as economically practicable and achievable. Inclusi on of education requirements in the permit is designed to elevate the standard of conduct to the level of the most responsible operators. Most cruise ship operators are already meeting th e permit requirements. For more information on cruise ship operators voluntary actions, please see the CLIA Voluntary Guidelines, available in the docket associated with this permit.

7.2 M EDIUM C RUISE S HIPS [P ART 5.2]

Medium cruise ships are those ships authori zed to carry 100 to 499 passengers for hire and provide overnight accommodation to those passengers. EPA sele cted a threshold of 100 people as the lower end of the range to capture vessels where the volume of graywater generated gradually increases. The discharges of untreated graywater from cruise ships in this size range has been shown to contain similar pollutants to those in untreated graywater discharges from large cruise ships (ADEC, 2002). Th erefore, these discha rges also have a similar negative impact on water quality. As discussed above, cruise ships have unique characteristics that require additional discharge management requirements. While medium cruise ships carry a smaller

96Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

number of passengers than large cruise ships, the volume of graywate r generated is still significantly higher than what is generated by a cargo ship carryi ng crew only. See Part 7.1 for a
discussion on the nature of crui se ship discharges, the reason e ffluent limits were established, and how these limits represent BPT/BAT.

7.2.1 Differences between the Requirements for Large Cruise Ships and Medium Cruise Ships

The permit requirements for medium cruise ship s are identical to t hose for large cruise ships, with three exceptions. These are:

• An additional option for discharging while operating in Nutrient Impaired Estuaries

• Differences in annual reporti ng requirements to EPA.

• Differences for existing medium cruise ships unable to voyage more than 1 nm from shore and any new medium cruise ship.

7.2.1.1 Different Requirements in Nutrient Impaired Estuaries

In nutrient impaired estuaries, this permit allo ws for medium sized cruise ships unable to retain graywater on board to disc harge untreated graywater while m oving at a speed of at least 6 knots. This difference was included because, at this time, EPA expects fewer of these size vessels to have treatment capacity to meet the more stringent standard s in Part 5.2.1.1.2. Hence, owner/operators may not be able to adjust their fl eet positions to assure that vessels are available
that have either sufficient holdi ng capacity or the ability to tr eat to the standards in Part 5.2.1.1.2 of the permit to meet the nutrient impaired estu ary requirements. Though EPA fully expects most medium cruise ships to have the ability to hol d the graywater until they get further than 1 nm offshore, it may be difficult to hold the graywa ter for prolonged periods in large nutrient impaired estuaries (in which the channel can be more than 1 nm from any shore). Though treatment technologies to meet the standard s in part 5.2.1.1.2 are available, EPA has not concluded that requiring all medium cruise ship owner/operators to install these systems prior to coverage under this permit is economically achievable. This extra flexibility for medium cruise ships allows owner/operators to comply with the requirements of the permit, while offering a more environmentally protective approach than allowing the discharg e of graywater into nutrient-impaired estuaries while stationary. Hen ce, these requirements, taken as a whole, are technologically available and economi cally practicable and achievable.

7.2.1.2 Differences in Annual Reporting Requirements to EPA.

In Alaskan waters covered by Section 1411( b) of Title XIV, Pub. L. 106-554 (Dec. 31, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763) [Certain Alaska Cruise Ship Operations] (codified at 33 U.S.C. 1901 note), referred to as Title XIV, large cr uise ships must submit sampling da ta to the Captain of the Port Zone (COTP) if they will discharge graywater w ithin 1 nm. Title XIV applies only to cruise ships authorized to carry 500 or more passengers, which are cons idered large cruise ships for purposes of this permit. Under this permit, these cruise ships are not required to also submit this information to EPA if they have already submitted the data to the COTP. Instead, EPA will request the required information annually from the Alaskan COTP. This will cut down on the

97Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

paperwork burden imposed on large cruise ship operators and streamline permit compliance for those vessels. All medium cruise ship owner/ope rators who will discharge graywater within 1 nm
must submit the information to EPA because it w ould otherwise not be available via the COTP.

7.2.1.3 Differences for Existing Medium Cruise Ships Unable to Voyage more than 1 nm from Shore and Any New Medium Cruise Ship

Some medium cruise ships that operate on rivers or lakes, are not authorized to go beyond 1 nm (e.g., are restricted by their operational certificate to operating only within 1nm of shore), or otherwise never go beyond 1nm from shore. A Medium Cruise Ship in operation as of the effective date of this permit is not required to meet the graywater requirements found in Part 5.2.1.1.1 if the ship is unable to voyage 1 nm fr om shore, unless the ship undergoes a major conversion subsequent to the VGP effective date. Vessels constr ucted on or after the effective date of this permit are required to meet the graywater standards found in Part 5.2.1.1.1. If, during the permit term, a vessel that is in operation on the effective date of this permit undergoes a major conversion as defined in Part 7 of the pe rmit, the discharge from such a ship must meet the treatment standards found in Part 5.2.1.1.1 of the permit.

Unlike large cruise ships, which by their ope rational necessities are ocean going, some medium cruise ships are unable to regularly voyage 1 nm from s hore. For instance, river boats such as the Delta Queen or Mississippi Queen are confined to inland waters for the entire
duration of its cruise. If onshore treatment is not readily available in river port towns for treatment of graywater, then the ship would be unable to meet these graywater treatment standards immediately. Furthermore, vessels such as the Delta Queen were originally built in the 1920’s, and installation of advan ced graywater treatment systems may be more complicated than on newer vessels. Hence, based on the comments submitted and further economic analysis (included in the economic analysis for this perm it) and unlike with larg er cruise ships, many medium cruise ships may not be able to immedi ately achieve these treatment standards without installation of equipment that c ould require a major overhaul of th e vessel. This type of vessel repair or conversion could be extensive, requi re dry-docking, and in some cases, re-design of major structural components of the vessel. For these reasons, EPA determ ines that it is not economically practicable or achie vable to require all existing me dium cruise ships which are
unable to travel outside 1nm to meet the requirements of Part 5.2.1.1.1 at this time. However, EPA notes that it may yet become economically achievable to include this requirement for all medium cruise ships in future iterations of this permit and owne r/operators are so advised should they upgrade existing graywater vessel trea tment capacity. For additional information on economic achievability and BAT, please see the economic analysis for this permit.

7.3 L ARGE F ERRIES [P ART 5.3]

Ferries are vessels for hire that are designed to carry passengers and/ or vehicles between two ports, usually in inland, coastal, or nearshor e waters. They usually travel the same route several times a day and do not provide overnight accommodations to their passengers. They have discharges unique to their industry because of the potentially high volume of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic that they carry, usually on inland or coastal waters. These waters usually carry a relatively high volume of vessel traffic and also can contain highly valu able and ecologically sensitive mating and nesting grounds for birds, fish, and mammals. The permit provisions apply

98Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

to large ferries. For purposes of the permit, large ferries are those ferries authorized to carry a) more than 100 tons of cars, trucks, trains, or other land-based transportation or b) 250 or more people.

EPA could not find a preexisting definition of large ferry. Hence, the Agency reviewed the number of ferries captured at di fferent weight thres holds using data including all steel hulled, self-propelled vessels classifi ed by the WTLUS/VESDOC as Passenger Vessels, Combination Passenger/Cargo ships, and by Ferries Data DOC as Passenger Vessels, Combination Passenger/Cargo ships, and Ferries . EPA considered the relative increase in the discharge of pollutants, particularly those pollutants gene rated from land-based transportation on board vessels, as ferry size increased when establishing this threshold. For this permit, EPA has stated that a “Large Ferry” means a “ferry” that: a) has a capacity greater than or equal to 100 tons of cargo, e.g., for cars, trucks, trains, or other land-based transportati on or b) is authorized by the Coast Guard to carry 250 or more people.

In order to minimize the harmful effects of discharges from large ferries, this permit imposes specific requirements with respect to the potential spills, drips, and leaks associated with carrying of vehicles. Thes e requirements include treatment of runoff from below deck (e.g. areas not exposed to the elements) parking and storage areas with an oily water separator or other similar device, and require that th is discharge not be re leased into waters listed in Part 12.1. In addition, pursuant to CWA sections 402(a)(2), and 40 CFR 122.43(a), and other implementing regulations, the permit sets out requirements for a ll large ferries with respect to educating the crew and passengers about environmental procedur es. It is the crew th at will implement the environmental requirements found in the permit, and because of that, they must be taught what to do, how to do it, and why they are doing it. Larg e ferry owner/operators also are required to educate passengers on their potential environmental impacts and how those can be mitigated. This education must address eliminating the discharge of trash into any waste stream, minimizing the production of trash from parking ar eas and storage areas, eliminating the addition of unused soaps, detergents and pharmaceuticals to the graywater or blackwater systems, and minimizing the production of graywater. Ther e are many ways that a ferry operator can accomplish passenger education, including posted signage, distribution of informational materials, incorporating environmental material in orientation presenta tions, and broadcasting environmental information over loudspeak ers or the public address system.

Some of these education requirements included in the permit are based in part on industry literature created by the industry trade group Cruise Lines Internationa l Association (CLIA). EPA anticipates that educating crew and passenger s on cruise ships is similar to educating the crew and passengers of large ferries. The edu cational requirements in the permit are already being employed by many cruise ship owner/operators in the industry.

For those large ferries which are authorized by the Coast Guard to carry 250 or more people, the permit also requires use of shoresid e graywater reception facilities if they are reasonably available. If not available, such la rge ferries are required to hold their graywater while in port if the vessel has the holding capacity and to discharge the e ffluent while the vessel is underway under the operational conditions set out in section 5.3.1.2 of the permit.

99Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

The technologies upon which the permit’s graywater requirements are based are technologically available and economically practi cable and achievable. These requirements are
intended to reduce the volume of graywater discharged while large ferries are pierside so as to reduce the discharge of chemicals, nutrients, and pathogens into marinas and ports, which can be located in ecologically sensitive estuaries, and where large numbers of vessels may be discharging in close proximity. The cumulative imp act of numerous graywater discharges in port may be significant. In addition, these require ments will help reduce potential impacts if graywater needs to be discha rged while underway by setting out operational limits on such discharges, as further explained in the Fact Sheet discussions for graywater from cruise ships.

EPA has also included requirements for large ferries which discharge coal ash slurry as a result of their propulsion systems. EPA has speci fically limited this discharge and applicable effluent limits to ferries because, to the best of the Agency’s understand ing, this discharge is only applicable to ferries run by coal fired propulsion system. The permit contains numerous
effluent limits intended to minimize the volume a nd potential impacts of this ash. In addition, permit coverage for this discharge terminates on December 19, 2012, as available information indicates it no longer needs to be authorized after this date. Plea se see responses to comments in the Proposed VGP: Response to Comments Docume nt for further discussion regarding these requirements.

7.4 B ARGES ( INCLUDING HOPPER BARGES , CHEMICAL BARGES , FUEL BARGES , CRANE

BARGES , DRY BULK CARGO BARGES ) [P ART 5.4]

Barges are large flat-bottomed boats typically used to move cargo in inland waterways. Barges are usually not powered vessels, but ar e instead pushed or pulled by tugboats. Due to the way they carry cargo, the permit imposes additiona l measures in order to prevent and minimize the discharge of pollutants from barges. Specifically, the permit requires additional measures to prevent the contamination of c ondensation with oily or toxic materials. Based on information provided in comments received in response to the June 21, 2007 Federal Register notice, it is a technologically available and economically achievable and practicable practice for barge owner/operators to prevent the contamination of condensation. This permit also prohibits any discharge that has or causes a visi ble sheen or is otherwise discha rged in a quantity that may be
harmful.

The permit also requires barges to conduct an additional inspection. Every time water is pumped from any area below deck, the vessel op erator must conduct a visual sheen test by conducting a visual inspection of the discharge a nd the water around the barge to check the water for a visual sheen. EPA is imposing this requireme nt due to our understanding that this is current good marine practice and that pumping water from below deck (where water may have come into contact with cargoes) is more likely to resu lt in a discharge that may be harmful. Under 40 CFR 110 or 40 CFR 302, if a visible sheen is detected, you must re port the discharge immediately to the National Response Center at 1-800-424-8802 or on the Center’s website at www.nrc.uscg.mil . Furthermore, appropriate corrective ac tions must be take n according to the corrective actions section in Part 3 of the permit and the event must be recorded according to Part 4.2 of the permit.

100Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

7.5 O IL AND P ETROLEUM T ANKERS [P ART 5.5]

Oil tankers are designed to ca rry oil and other petroleum produc ts in bulk tanks. Due to the cargo they carry and how they carry their cargo, they are pron e to environmentally harmful discharges of oil, particular ly during cargo loading and unloadi ng operations. To mitigate these risks, the permit requires that scuppers be bloc ked during cargo operations to prevent oil from contaminating discharges authori zed by this permit. Any oil that is spilled must be cleaned up
with oil absorbent cloths or other device to mini mize contamination of any authorized discharge. The discharges of water from deck seals are author ized when such deck seals are installed as an integral part of an inert gas scrubber system. These requirement s represent existing good marine practice for these vessels.

A visual sheen test must be conducted af ter cargo loading operations, cargo unloading operations, and deck washing. The visual sheen te st detects the presence of free oil on the surface of the water surrounding the vessel. That free oil is visible on the water’s surface as an oily sheen. Under 40 CFR 110 or 40 CFR 302, if a visi ble sheen is detecte d, you must report the discharge immediately to the Na tional Response Center at 1- 800-424-8802 or on the Center’s
website at www.nrc.uscg.mil . Furthermore, appropriate corr ective actions must be taken according to the corrective actions section in Part 3 of the permit and the event must be recorded according to Part 4.2 of the permit.

Oil spill management measures are carried out by the tank er’s crew. Pursuant to CWA sections 402(a)(2), and 40 CF R 122.43(a), and implementing regul ations, EPA is requiring that all crew members who actively take part in ma nagement of a discharg e or who may affect a discharge receive training so they are aware of what they must do, when to do it, and why to do it
in order to minimize the discha rge of oil and other toxic pollu tants. In addition, reprimand procedures must in place to hold crew accountable for any failure to follow established pollution prevention procedures.

7.6 R ESEARCH V ESSELS [P ART 5.6]

Research vessels are those that are engaged in investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted scientific theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical ap plication of such new or revised theories or laws. They typically include State, Federal, non-profit, educationa l, and occasionally corporate vessels conducting scientific research and experiments. They are no t engaged in commercial activity that results in the direct production of or harv esting for sale of mineral or living resources collected during their voyages. This permit lists the following mate rials that research vess els are authorized to discharge: tracers (dyes, fluorescent beads, SF6), drifters, tracking devi ces and the like, and expendable bathythermograph (XBT) probes. The permit’s provisions limit these discharges to the minimal amount that is necessary to conduct the research. In addition, these discharges are only authorized for the sole purpose of conducting research on the aquatic environment or its
natural resources in acc ordance with generally recognized sc ientific methods, principles, or techniques. EPA expects research vessels to employ responsible re search practices at all times. EPA believes that these practices allow for productive research while minimizing the discharge of materials, and that they are technologically available a nd economically practicable and
achievable.

101Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

7.7 E MERGENCY V ESSELS [P ART 5.7]

Emergency vessels include firefighting boats, po lice boats, and other boats with a public safety mission. These vessels have supplemental pe rmit provisions in Part 5.7 of this permit that specifically allow discharges incide ntal to their public safety re sponsibilities. The permit allows the discharge of substances necessary for securing and saving lives at se a. In addition, it allows discharges for training, testing and maintenance purposes, as long as those discharges comply with any additional requirements of the CWA, including Section 311, which imposes conditions on the discharge of oil. Furthermore, when thes e discharges include the use of foaming agents for oil or chemical fire response, they must be in accordance with the National Contingency Plan, pursuant to 40 CFR 300. The National Continge ncy Plan contains procedures for preparing for and responding to discharges of oil and hazardous substances.

EPA notes that the most commonly used aqua tic firefighting substance, AFFF, has the potential for significant environmental impact. In addition to requirements of Part 2.2.5 of this permit, EPA encourages operators of emergency a nd fire boats to use AFFF formulations that contain low concentrations of perfluorinated su rfactants or contain non-f luorinated surfactants that maintain emergency operations effectiveness. Use of alternative formulations of AFFF is strongly recommended for those vessels that operate in areas near active co mmercial or recreational fisheries, near swimmable waters, or in high traffic areas. EPA encourages emergency vessel owner/operators to use common sense to minimize unnecessary discharges of these toxic firefighting substances. Furthe rmore, EPA encourages emergency vessel owner/operators to use less pers istent (non-fluorinated ) substitute foam for training purposes.

7.8 V ESSELS EMPLOYING EXPERIMENTAL B ALLAST W ATER T REATMENT S YSTEMS [P ART 5.8]

For the purposes of this first-iteratio n permit only, any vessel employing a ballast treatment system which uses biocides to treat organisms in the ballast water is considered experimental.

The requirements in Part 5.8 of the permit apply to ballast water discharges from vessels employing ballast water treatment systems that ma ke use of biocides. These systems produce or use biocides as an agent to kill organisms pr esent in ballast water discharges. The definition section of the permit contains a de finition of biocides subject to these provisions. EPA notes that this permit does not author ize the use of dispersants in the ve ssel owner/operator s’ ballast tanks which may remove the appearance of a visible sheen from the discharge.

As explained in section 4.4.3.5 of this fact sh eet, treatment technologies that effectively reduce viable living organisms in a manner that is safe, reliab le, and demonstrated to work onboard vessels are not yet commercially availabl e. Such systems are actively being developed, however, and have been or are be ing installed, on an experimental basis, onboard vessels in order
to evaluate their effectiveness in a shipboard environment. For example, ballast water treatment systems making use of biocides are being eval uated under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and have included a variety of biocid es as part of the treatment process. Such evaluation involves both land-based and shipboard testing of the systems. More specific information on systems using biocides th at are being reviewed by IMO can be found in

102Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

the applicants’ non-confidential submissions to the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee, which are included in the docket for the permit. Additional experimental treatment systems are also being evaluated in the United States.

The concern with respect to the aquatic envir onment is that if the treated ballast water
contains biocides or thei r derivatives at levels that are still toxic at the time of discharge, then organisms in the receiving water may be harme d. Section 5.8.1 of the permit thus contains specific limitations with respect to discharges of biocides or their derivatives. The permit contains a requirement that any ballast water t echnology must not discharge (and therefore, must not use) use any “pesticide” within the mean ing of FIFRA unless th e pesticide has been registered for use in ballast water treatment under such Act, or unless the pesticide is generated solely by the use of a “device,” within the mean ing of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C.136 et seq. (“FIFRA”), on board the same vessel as the ballast water to be treated. In addition, because chlorination is a commonly used disinf ection technology and is known to be proposed for use in ballast water treatment systems, the permit provides that Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) may not exceed 100 microgr ams per liter (μg/l) 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 of NPDES permits for publicly owned treatment works, with the TRC limit for this permit reflecting the median limit for the permits reviewed.

The permit further provides that in order to be eligible for coverage under the general permit, any other discharged biocides or de rivatives may not exceed any recommended acute water quality criteria listed in EPA’s 1986 Qua lity Criteria for Water [the Gold Book] and subsequent revisions published pr ior to issuance of today’s permit. The Gold Book and updates
can be found at www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/library/goldbook.pdf . Those numeric criteria were developed by EPA under authority of sect ion 304(a) of the CWA based on the latest scientific information on the relationship that the effect of a constituent concentration has on particular aquatic species and/ or human health. Normally, the section CWA 304(a) criteria are not regulations and do not impose binding requirem ents, but rather are information that EPA provides periodically to the st ates as guidance for use in developing numeric criteria for inclusion in State water quali ty standards under section 303 of the CWA. See 40 CFR 131.3(c). In this permit, however, EPA is using the CW A section 304(a) criteria as an end of pipe limitation because a variety of bi ocides might be proposed for use in ballast wa ter treatments systems, and the section 304(a) criteria address a wide variety of chemicals, identifying numeric criteria intended to safeguard aquatic life and human health. Because the ballast water treatment systems subject to such limits are using biocides , which by definition are intended to be applied at levels that are toxic to organisms (in ballastwater), EPA believes that such compliance is appropriate for use as permit condition for coverage under this general permit. In the proposal for this general permit, EPA specifically requested comment on whether whole effluent toxicity (“WET”) tests should be used in addition to, or in lieu of, analytical monitoring of residual
biocides and derivatives and if so, what appropriate toxicity-based endpoints might be used for this purpose. Based on public comment, the final VGP establishes WET testing, as a requirement for VGP coverage for ballast water treatment syst ems using biocides, or which have derivatives from such biocides, for which there are not acute water quality criteria. This approach is based on existing EPA WET methods and WET testing for ballast wate r discharges adopted by the State of Washington, and relies primarily on th e methods specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 136. The

103Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

principal public comment on WET referenced the Washington State WET testing provisions for ballast water, which can be found at http ://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/9580.pdf, appendix H. EPA
used this manual as a reference in addition to WET tests consistent with past Agency practice (including Denton et al. 2007).

The WET testing provisions in the fina l VGP are used to assess the potential environmental effects of the resulting ballast water discharges. The WET testing end-points adopted in the final VGP are de liberately conservative in natu re (e.g., applied as end-of-pipe limits without allowance for mixing) because the W ET test results are to be used as a screening mechanism to determine initial and continuing eligibility for VGP coverage. Discharges of ballast water that are subject to WET testing unde r this VGP and that do not meet the end-points specified in the VGP would still re main eligible to secure covera ge for that discharge through an individual NPDES permit from EPA. EPA cautio ns that WET testing should be conducted by laboratories familiar with such testing procedures.

EPA has established chronic toxicity effluent limits for this discharge. The chronic WET permit limits are any one test re sult greater than 1.6 TU c (during the monthly reporting period), or any one or more test results with a calcula ted median value greater than 1.0 TUc (during the monthly reporting period). Resu lts shall be reported in TUc, where TUc = 100/EC25. EC25 is a point estimate of the toxicant concentration that would cause an observable adverse effect in the 25% of the test organisms. .

WET testing under the VGP is not applicable to systems for which EPA acute water quality criteria exist with respect to the biocid es used and also for all derivatives of such biocides. In addition, ballast water treatment systems using solely physical ballast water
treatment methods such as filtration, centrifugation, ultraviolet irradiation, or inert gas oxygen stripping methods are not subject to WET testin g or the other requirements of Part 5.8 of the

VGP.

Detailed specifications on how to conduct th e WET testing and use the WET test results are included in Part 15 (Appendix J) of the pe rmit. EPA expects that only limited numbers of vessels will be subject WET tes ting under this provision, and in a ddition, vessels with ballast water treatment systems subject to the VGP WET testing provisions may opt not to conduct such testing and evaluation under the VGP WET test end-points but instead apply for an individual NPDES permit for such ballast water treatment system discharges.

As noted in the permit, if a system cannot meet the limitations discussed above, coverage under an individual permit can still be sought, which would allow for a more case-by-case
evaluation.

Sections 5.8.2 and 5.8.3 of the permit address residual biocide monitoring and recordkeeping and reporting. Thes e provisions were included so to ensure that the vessel owner/operator complies with th e limits previously discussed for section 5.8.1. Under these provisions, standard test methods as specified in 40 CFR Part 136 must be used. In addition, the permit would require at least five (5) samples taken from the vessel ballast water discharge on different days over a 90-day period that are repres entative of the treated ballast water at the point of discharge, with each sample to be tested i ndependently, and the individual results must be

104Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

reported and not averaged. EPA is also requiring maintenance sampling quarterly to ensure that ballast water treatment systems continue to func tion correctly and ensure they do not discharge excess biocides or derivatives for prolonged periods . EPA has included a requirement that if any of the initial or maintenance samples exceed the standards specified in Part 5.8.1.1, then the owner/operator must immediately undertake steps necessary to achieve compliance and take and submit samples demonstrating such complia nce. Furthermore, EPA may require the owner/operator to cease discharging from the tr eatment system and seek coverage under an individual permit under Part 1.8 of this permit.

Because an exceedance of the effluent lim its in Part 5.8.1.1 of the permit is a permit violation, if vessel owner/operato rs are concerned that that th eir discharges from vessel discharges might exceed these limits, they are en couraged to first conduct land-based testing
before installation on a vessel.

105Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

8. 

### STATE OR TRIBAL REQUIREMENTS [PART 6]

Part 6 of the final VGP identifies provisions pr ovided to EPA by States and Tribes in their CWA § 401 certifications that the States and Tribes deemed necessary to assure compliance with applicable provisions of the CWA and any other appropriate requirements of State and Tribal
law. See 33 U.S.C. 1341(d); 40 C.F.R. § 124.53(e)(1 ). Pursuant to CWA § 401(d), EPA has attached those State and Tribal provisions to the final VGP; those that constitute effluent or other limitations or monitoring requirements are en forceable conditions of the federal permit. American Rivers, Inc. v. FERC , 129 F.3d 99, 107 (2 ndCir. 1997). These cond itions are subject to review in State and Tribal administrative and ju dicial tribunals with ap propriate jurisdiction. 40 C.F.R. § 124.55(e); American Rivers, Inc. v. FERC , 129 F.3d 99, 102 (2 ndCir. 1997); Roosevelt Campobello Int’l Park Comm’n v. EPA , 684 F.2d 1041, 1056 (1 st Cir. 1982). Part 6 of the permit also includes conditions provided by states as part of their co ncurrence with this permit for CZMA purposes if applicable (see Part 12.1 of this fact sheet).

106Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

9. 

### DEFINITIONS [PART 7]

Part 7 (Appendix A) of the Permit provides permit-specific definitions of statutory, regulatory, and other terms important for unders tanding this permit and its requirements. Any
terms that are not listed in this definitions section have the meaning given to the terms by 40 CFR Part 122.2 (the definitions section of the NP DES regulations). To develop these definitions, EPA has, where possible, relied on existing defin itions in other laws and regulations applicable to this universe of permittees in order to pr ovide consistency with those laws and provide permittees with a familiar framework. For thos e definitions that were developed based on another source, the citation to that law or regulation is included in brackets after the definition.

107Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

10. 

### NOTICE OF INTENT AND NOTICE OF TERMINATION [PARTS 10 AND 11]

Part 10/Appendix E of the permit gives those ow ners and operators who will be required to submit an NOI form an explanation of the proce ss and requirements. This Part reiterates who must file an NOI, pursuant to 1.5.1 of this permit (“How to Obtain Authorization”), and includes
a table that outlines the deadlines for subm ission of an NOI, and corresponding discharge authorization dates. This table provides the same information as Table 1 of this permit. In addition, Part 10.2 provides the actual NOI form, and gives section-by-section instructions on how to fill out the form. The website address for submitting the NOI form is www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels eNOI. Th e NOI form for vessel discharg es will be available on the website approximately 6 months after permit issuance.

Part 11/Appendix F of the permit discusses how and when to terminate permit coverage using a Notice of Termination (NOT) form, pursu ant to the permit’s requirements in 1.6. Like the NOI form in Part 10, Part 11 provides th e web address for submission of the NOT form, a section-by-section explanation about each sectio n of the NOT form, and the actual NOT form.

108Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

11. 

### WATERS FEDERALLY PROTECTED WHOLLY OR IN PART FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES [PART 12]

Part 12 of this permit lists “wat ers federally protected in whol e or in part for conservation purposes,” and several of the perm it’s technology-based effluent li mits prohibit or limit various discharges in these waters to the extent they are within waters subject to this permit. As
discussed in section 4.2.3 of th is fact sheet, EPA has found that the prescribed limits are technologically available and economically practi cable and achievable for certain discharges. Because it possible to limit discharges to cert ain times, but not to limit those discharges indefinitely, EPA focused on imposing these limitati ons for waters federally protected in whole or in part for conservation purposes . To develop this list of wate rs, EPA reviewed several federal authorities that protect waters that are known to be of particul ar high value or sensitive to environmental impacts. These waters are compri sed of areas that are important to EPA, our federal partners, and the public at large, as evid enced by the waters’ specia l status or designation by the Federal government as National Marine Sanctuaries, Marine National Monuments, National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Wilderness Areas, or parts of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. As mentioned, thes e waters are likely to be of high quality and consist of unique ecosystems which may include distinctive species of aquatic animals and plants. Furthermore, as protected areas, these wa ters are more likely to have a greater abundance of sensitive species of plants and animals that ma y have trouble surviving in areas with greater anthropogenic impact.

109Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

12. 

### OTHER LEGAL RE QUIREMENTS

12.1 C OASTAL Z ONE M ANAGEMENT A CT (CZMA)

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and its implementing regulations (15 CFR Part 930) require that any Federal agency activ ity or Federally licensed or permitted activity occurring within (or outside but affecting) the coastal zone) of a state with an approved coastal zone management program (CZMP) be consistent with the enforceable policies of that approved program to the maximum extent practicable. Agen cy general permits that do not involve case-bycase or individualized determinations by the Agen cy are federal activities for the purposes of CZMA section 307(c)(1). Following proposal of th e draft VGP, EPA provided the relevant state coastal zone management agencies with its na tional consistency determination regarding the enforceable policies in approved state CZM programs for the coastal zones including state waters where the VGP would authorize discharges. 15 CFR 930.31(d). Consistent with the maximum extent practicable standard in 15 CFR 930.32, the fi nal VGP either incorpor ates state conditions (see VGP Part 6), or if not incor porated or if a state coastal zone management agency objected to the VGP, Part 6 of the VGP notifies potential us ers of the permit that the VGP is not available
for use in that State unless vesse l owner/operators wanting to use the VGP in that State provide the State agency with an individual consiste ncy certification under 15 CFR Part 930 subpart D and the State agency concurs.

12.2 E SSENTIAL F ISH H ABITAT C ONSULTATION

Pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustaina ble Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), Federal agencies must consult with Nationa l Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
National Marine Fisherie s Service (NMFS) regarding any of their actions authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funde d, or undertaken that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). Upon review, EPA has determined that i ssuance of this final permit will have no adverse effect on EFH because the VGP will impose, for the first time, CWA effluent limitations on discharges incidental to the normal operati on of vessels. These discharges have occurred prior to enactment of either the CWA or the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and have
continued to occur thereafter , without such controls.

12.3 M ARINE P ROTECTION , R ESEARCH AND S ANCTUARIES A CT

Title I of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) (also known as the Ocean Dumping Act) generally prohibits, unless authorized by a permit issued under the Act, (1) transportation of material from the US fo r the purpose of ocean dumping; (2) transportation of material from anywhere for the purpose of ocean dumping by US agencies or US-flagged vessels; and (3) dumping of material transported from outside the US into the US territorial sea.
MPRSA section 101.

Most permits are issued for the purpose of disposing dredged materials (issued by the Corps of Engineers with EPA concurrence). Dumping under the MPRSA means “a disposition of material: Provided, that it does not mean a dis position of ... a routine discharge of effluent incidental to the propulsion of, or operation of motor-drive n equipment on, vessels,” nor “a

110Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

disposition of any effluent from any outfall structure to the exte nt that such disposition is regulated under the [CWA].” MPRSA 3(f), 33 U.S.C. 1402(f). The VGP addresses discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels that, in the absence of an NPDES permit, would be subject to the prohibition against discharge in CWA section 301(a). The VGP does not authorize dumping activities regul ated by the MPRSA.

12.4 O IL S PILL R EQUIREMENTS

Section 311 of the CWA prohibits the discha rge of hazardous substances in harmful quantities. Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a ve ssel specifically controlled by the permit are excluded from the provisions of Sect ion 311. However, this permit does not preclude the institution of legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties for other unauthorized discharges of hazardous substances which are covered by
Section 311 of the CWA.

12.5 P APERWORK R EDUCTION A CT

The information collection requirements in this permit have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. as part of the NPDES Consolidat ed ICR. On September 28, 2008 EPA published the first public notice of this ICR under the OMB number 2040-0004 and on December 17, 2008, EPA published the final public notice for a 30 da y comment period. The information collection requirements for this permit are not enforceable until OMB approves the ICR.

This information must be collected in orde r to appropriately admi nister and enforce the
terms and conditions of the Vessel General Permit. This information collection is mandatory as authorized by Clean Water Act Section 308 and all information collected will be treated as Confidential Business Information (CBI).

The information collection burden for the pape rwork collection requirements of this permit is estimated to be 135,693 hours per year, whic h represents a burden of 0.64 hours per response per year, multiplied by a total of 210,759 responses per year from 65,625 respondents (note: to ensure that an adequate number of burden hours are requested, the number of respondents is slightly higher than the estimated 61,000 domes tically flagged vessels identified in the economic analysis that would be affected by this permit) . The frequency of responses varies, but includes every five years, annual, quarterly, and occasionally/as needed, depending on the specific reporting requirements. No reporting and record keeping costs beyond labor costs are estimated for this permit.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, a nd a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR ar e listed in 40 CFR Part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a te chnical amendment to 40 CFR Part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection requirements contained in this final permit.

111Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

13. 

### REFERENCES

Abbaspour, M., Javid, A.H., Moghimi, P., & Kayha n, K. (2005) Modeling of thermal pollution
in coastal areas and its economical and envi ronmental assessment. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2, 13-26.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conserva tion (ADEC) & Science Advisory Panel (2002) The impact of cruise ship wastew ater discharge on Alaska waters.

Alaska Department of Environmental Cons ervation (ADEC). (2007) Large Commercial Passenger Vessel Wastewater Discharge: General Permit Information Sheet. Available at: http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/cruise _ships/pdfs/GP%20Information%20Sheet.pdf.

Australian Maritime Safety Authority (A MSA) (2003) Effects of Oil on Wildlife. http://www.amsa.gov.au/Marine_Environment_Pr otection/Educational_resources_and_in formation/Teachers/The_Effects_of_Oil _on_Wildlife.asp. Accessed on October 27,

2007.

Barnes, D.K.A. (2002) Invasions by marine life on plastic debris. Nature, 416, 808-809.

Battelle (2007) Technical support for EPA development of a permitting framework to address
the vacatur of the NPDE S vessel exclusion. Revised Draft, September 2007.

Bentivegna, C.S. & Piatkowski, T. (1998) Effect s of tributyltin on meda ka (Oryzias latipes) embryos at different stages of development. Aquatic Toxicology, 44, 117-128.

Bolch, C.J.S. & Salas, M.F.d. (2007) A review of the molecular evidence for ballast water introduction of the toxic dinoflagellates Gymnodinium catenatum and the Alexandrium "tamarensis complex" to Austra lasia. Ballast Water, 6, 465-485.

Brickman, David & Smith, Peter (2007) Variability in invasion risk for ba llast water exchange
on the Scotian Shelf of eastern Cana da. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54, 168-174.

Brickman, David (2006) Risk asse ssment model for dispersion of ballast water organisms in shelf seas. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63, 2748-2759.

Cairns, John Jr. (1972) Environmental Quality and the Thermal Pollution Problem. In Farvar, M.G. and J.P. Milton. (eds.) The Carele ss Technology: Ecology and International Development. The World Conservation Union. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press. Available at: http://www.iucn.org/themes /ceesp/Publications/SL/CT.htm. Accessed February 14, 2008.

Carlton, J.T. (1985) Transoceanic and Interoceanic Dispersal of Coastal Marine Organisms: The Biology of Ballast Water. Oceanography a nd Marine Biology Annual Review, 23, 313–

371.

Carlton, J.T. (1996) Pattern, process, and pr ediction in marine invasion ecology. Invasion Biology, 78, 97-106.

112Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

Carlton, J.T. and Geller, J. B. (1993) Ecological Roulette : The Global Transport of Nonindigenous Marine Organism s. Science, 261(5117): 78-82.

Choi, Charles. 2007 (March 25). Cruise Ship s Face Tough New Waste Disposal Limits - Industry Says Its Self-Policing Negates Need for Crackdown. New York Times

. (http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/travel/25heads.html?pagewanted=print

Cohen, A.N. & Carlton, J.T. (1995) Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in a United States Estuary: A Case Study of the Biological Invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta, University of California at Berkeley, Williams Colle ge-Mystic Seaport. NOAA Grant Number

NA36RG0467.

Copeland, C. (2008) Cruise Ship Polluti on: Background, Laws and Regulations, and KeyIssues. Congressional Research Service. Available at: http://www.earthnews.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Dec/RL32450.pdf.

Correll, D.L. (1987). Nutrients in the Ch esapeake Bay. In Contaminant Problems and Management of Living Chesapeake Bay Resour ces. (eds. S.K. Majumdar, W. Hall Jr. & H.M. Austin), pp. 298-320. The Penns ylvania Academy of Science.

Cruise Line International Associ ation (CLIA) (2006). Cruise I ndustry Standard: Cruise Industry Waste Management Practices and Procedures.

DeCola, E. (2000). International Oil Spill St atistics: 2000. Cutter Information Corporation., Arlington, MA.

Denton DL, Miller JM, Stuber RA. (2007) EP A Regions 9 and 10 toxicity training tool. November 2007. San Francisco, CA.

DiGangi, J., Schettler, T., Cobbing, M., & Rossi, M. (2002). Aggregate exposures to phthalate in
humans. Health care without harm.

Dobbs, F., Doblin, M., & Drake, L. (2006) Pathogens in ships' ballast tanks. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 87.

Doblin, M., Coyne, K., Rinta-Kant o, J., Wilhelm, S., & Dobbs, F. (2007) Dynamics and shortterm survival of toxic cyanobacteria speci es in ballast water from NOBOB vessels transiting the Great Lakes-implications for HAB invasions. Harmful Algae, 6, 519-530.

Dobroski, N., Takata, L., Scianni, C., & Fal kner, M. (2007). Assessment of the efficacy, availability and environmental impacts of ballast water treatment systems for use in California waters Produced for the California State Legislature. http://www.slc.ca.gov/Spec_Pub/MFD/Ballast _Water/Documents/Final_TechReport_revi sed.pdf.

Drake, J.M. & Lodge, D.M. (2007) Rate of species introductions in the Great Lakes via ships'
ballast water and sediments Canadian Jour nal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 64,

530-538.

113Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

Drake, L., Doblin, M., & Dobbs, F. (2007) Poten tial microbial bioinvasio ns via ships' ballast water, sediment, and biofilm. Ma rine Pollution Bulletin, 55, 333-341.

Durbin, E., Teegarden, G., Campbell, R., Cembella , A., Baumgartner, M.F., & Mate, B.R. (2002) North Atlantic right whales, Eubalaena glacia lis, exposed to shellfish poisoning (PSP) toxins via a zooplankton vector, Calanus finmarchicus. Harmful Algae, 1, 243-251.

Endresen, Ø., Behrens, H.L., Brynestad, S., Ande rsen, A.B., & Skjong, R. (2004) Challenges in global ballast water management. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48, 615-623.

Environmental Law Institute (2004) . Filling the gaps: ten strate gies to strengthen invasive species management in Florida, Washington DC. http://www.elistore.org/r eports_detail.asp?ID=11002.

Fountain, A.N.C.J.T.C.M.C. (1995) Introduction, di spersal and potential impacts of the green
crab Carcinus maenas in San Francisc o Bay, California. Marine Biology, 122, 225-237.

GESAMP (1993). Impact of oil and related chem icals and wastes on the marine environment. International Maritime Organization, London.

GESAMP (2007). Estimates of oil entering the ma rine environment from sea-based activities International Maritime Organization, London.

Govorushko, S.M. 2007. Effect of Human Activity on Rivers. International Conference on River Basin Management. Organized by the Genera l Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI), Turkey. Available at: http ://www.dsi.gov.tr/engl ish/congress2007/.

Gracki, J.A., Everett, R.A., H. Hack, Landrum, P.F., Long, D.T., Premo, B.J., Raaymakers, S.C., Stapleton, G.A., & Harrison, K.G. (2002). Critical review of a ballast water biocides treatment demonstration pr oject using copper and sodi um hypochlorite. Michigan
Environmental Science Bo ard, Lansing, Michigan. http://www.michigan.gov/documents /Ballast_Water_Report_43716_7.pdf.

Gray, D.K., Johengen, T.H., Reid, D.F., & MacIsaac, H.J. (2007) Efficacy of open-ocean ballast water exchange as a means of preventing inverteb rate invasions between freshwater ports Limnology and Oceanography, 52, 2386-2397.

Great Lakes Commission (1995) Interesting Facts About Oil Spills. ADVISOR. March/April, 1995. http://www.glc.org/docs/ advisor/95/oil/dyk.html Accessed on February 12, 2008

Gregg, M. & Hallegraeff, G. (2007a) Efficacy of three commercially available ballast water biocides against vegetative microalgae, dinof lagellate cysts and bacteria Harmful Algae, 6, 567-584.

Hall Jr., L.W. Scott, M.C. and Killen, W.D. 1998. Ecological risk assessment of copper and
cadmium in surface waters of Chesapeake Bay watershed. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,17 (6), 1172–1189

114Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

Haynes, D. & Loong, D. (2002) Antifoulant (buty ltin and copper) concentrations in sediments from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, Australia. Environmental Pollution, 120, 391-396.

Horne, A.J. & Goldman, C.R. (1994) Lim nology, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.

International Maritime Organiza tion. 2008. Harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water: update on the Ballast Water Management Conventi on. Note by the Secretariat. MEPC 57/2/9

Johnson, L.E., Ricciardi, A., & Carlton, J.T. ( 2001) Overland dispersal of aquatic invasive species: a risk assessment of transient recr eational boating. Ecological Applications, 11,

1789-1799.

Katranitsasa, A., Castritsi-Cath arios, J., & Persoone, G. (2003) The effects of a copper-based antifouling paint on mortality and enzymatic activity of a non-target marine organism. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46, 1491-1494.

Knight, I.T., Wells, C.S., Wiggins, B., Russell, H., Reynolds, K.A., & Huq., A. (1999) Detection and enumeration of fecal indicators and pathoge ns in the ballast water of transoceanic cargo vessels entering the Great Lakes. In General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, pp. 546, Chicago, IL, Abstract Q71.

Lamb, T. (2004) Ship design and construction 3rd edition. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.

Lloyds Register (2007). Balla st water treatment technol ogy: current status, London.

Locke, A., Reid, D.M., Leeuwen, H.C.v., Sprules, W.G., & Carlton, J.T. (1993) Ballast water exchange as a means of controlling dispersal of freshwater organisms by ships. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 50, 2086-2093.

Lockwood, J.L., Cassey, P., & Blackburn, T. (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Invasions, guest edited by Michael E. Hochberg and Nicholas J. Gotelli, 20, 223-228.

Lovell, S.J. & Stone, S.F. (2005) The Economic Im pacts of Aquatic Invasi ve Species. Working Paper #05-02. US Environmental Protection Agency.

Lucas, Z. & MacGregor, C. (2006) Characteriza tion and source of oil contamination on the beaches and seabird corpses, Sable Isla nd, Nova Scotia, 1996-2005. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52, 778-789.

Ludwig, D. (1999) Is It Meaningful to Estimat e a Probability of Extinct ion? Ecology, 80(1), 298-

310.

M.G.G., F., C.D., L., M.R., T., & M.R., L. (2003) Di spersion of discharged ship ballast water in Vancouver Harbour, Juan De Fuca Strait, and offshore of the Washington Coast Journal of Environmental Engineer ing and Science, 2, 163-176.

115Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

McCollin, T., Quilez-Badia, G., Josefsen, K., G ill, M., Mesbahi, E., & Frid, C. (2007a) Ship board testing of a deoxygenation ballast water treatment Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54,

1170-1178.

McCollin, T., Shanks, A., & Dunn, J. (2007b) The e fficiency of regional ballast water exchange: Changes in phytoplankton abundance and diversity Harmful Algae, 6, 531-546.

Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexi co Watershed Nutrient Task Force (2007). Gulf hypoxia action plan 2008: draft version for pub lic review, Washington DC.

National Research Council (1993). Managing Wa stewater in Coastal Urban Areas, Water Science and Technology Board.

National Research Council (2000). Clean Coas tal Waters: Understand ing and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution, Ocean Studi es Board and Water Science and Technology
Board.

Negri, A.P., Hales, L.T., Batters hill, C., Wolff, C., & Webster, N.S. (2004) TBT contamination
identified in Antarctic marine sedime nts. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48, 1142-1144.

Negri, A.P. & Heyward, A.J. (2001) Inhibition of coral fertilisation and larval metamorphosis by tributyltin and copper. Marine Environmental Research, 51, 17-27.

NOAA (2008) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Oil and Chemical Spills. http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/topic_subtopic_ent ry.php?RECORD_KEY%28entry _subtopic_topic%29=entry_id,sub topic_id,topic_id&entry_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=359 &subtopic_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=9&topic_ id(entry_subtopic_topic)=2. Accessed on February 5, 2008

Orange County Coastkeeper (2007). Lower New port Bay copper/metals marina study, Newport Beach. http://www.waterboards.ca.go v/santaana/html/tmdl_toxics.html

Perrins, J.C., Cordell, J.R., Ferm, N.C., Gr ocock, J.L., & Herwig, R.P. (2006) Mesocosm experiments for evaluating the biological efficacy of ozone treatment of marine ballast water. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52, 1756-1767.

Phelps, H.L. (1994) The Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) invasion and system-level ecological change in the Potomac. Estuaries, 17, 614-621.

Phillips, S. (2006) Proceedings of the work shop on alternate ballast water exchange areas: physical and biological oceanographic consider ations. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. June 20-22, 2006. Available at: ( http://www.psmfc.org/ballast/ABW EA%20Final%20Report%20Aug%20%202007%20I V.pdf )

Quilez-Badia, G., McCollin, T., Josefsen, K.D., V ourdachas, A., Gill, M.E., Mesbahi, E., & Frid, C.L.J. (2008) On board short-time high temperature heat treatment of ballast water: A field trial under operatio nal conditions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56, 127-135.

116Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

Raikow, D.F., Reid, D.F., Blatchley, E.R.I., J acobs, G., & Landrum, P.F. (2007) Effects of proposed physical ballast ta nk treatments on aquatic i nvertebrate resting eggs. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 26, 717-725.

Reynolds, K., Knight, I., Wells, C., Pepper, I ., & Gerba, C. (1999) Detection of human pathogenic protozoa and viruses in ballast water using conventional and molecular methods. In General Meeting of the Am erican Society for Microbiology, pp. 594, Chicago, IL, Abstract Q318.

Ricciardi, A., Neves, R.J., & Rasmussen, J.B. (1 998) Impending extinctions of North American freshwater mussels (Unionoida) following the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion. Journal of Animal Ecology, 67, 613-619.

Roman, J. (2006) Diluting the founder effect: cryptic invasions expand a marine invader's range Proceedings of the Royal Society of L ondon, Series B: Biological Sciences, 273, 2453-

2459.

RPA & environment, B. (2004). Pe rfluorooctane Sulthonate: risk re duction strategy and analysis of advantages and drawbacks, Prepared fo r the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs and the Environmental Agency for England and Wales.

Ruiz, G.M., Fofonoff, P.W., Carlton, J.T., Wonh am, M.J., & Hines, A.H. (2000a) 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., Rawlings, T.K., Dobbs, F.C., Drake, L.A., Mullady, T., Huq, A., & Colwell, R.R. (2000b) Global spread of microorga nisms by ships. Nature, 408, 49-50.

Ruiz, G.M. & Reid, D.F. (2007). 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.

Ruiz, J.M., Bryan, G.W., & Gibbs, P.E. (1995) E ffects of tributyltin (TBT) exposure on the veliger larvae development of the bivalve Scrobicularia plana (d a Costa). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 186, 53-63.

Rützler, K. & Sterrer, W. (1970) Oil pollution. Damage observed in trop ical communities along
the Atlantic seaboard of Panama. BioScience, 20, 222-224.

Sakai, A.K., Allendorf, F.W., Holt, J.S., Lodge , D.M., Molofsky, J., With, K.A., Baughman, S., Cabin, R.J., Cohen, J.E., Ellstrand, N.C., Mc Cauley, D.E., O’Neil, P., Parker, I.M., Thompson, J.N., & Weller, S.G. (2001) The Population Biology of Invasive Species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 32, 305-332.

Schiff, K., Diehl, D., & Valkirs, A. (2004) Copper emissions from antifouling paint on
recreational vessels. Marine Pollution Bulletin 48, 371-377.

117Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

Shaw, D.G., Hogan, T.E., & McIntosh, D.J. ( 1985) Hydrocarbons in the sediments of Port Valdez, Alaska: Consequences of five years' permitted discharge. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 21, 131-144.

Smayda, T.J. (2007) Reflections on the ballast wa ter dispersal--harmful algal bloom paradigm. Ballast Water, 6, 601-622.

Srinivasan, M. & Swain, G.W. (2007) Managing the Use of Copper-Based Antifouling Paints. Environmental Management, 39, 423-441.

Stekoll, M.S., Clement, L.E., & Shaw, D.G. (19 80) Sublethal effects of chronic oil exposure on the intertidal clam Macoma balthica. Marine Biology, 57, 51-60.

Suchanek, T.H. (1993) Oil impacts on marine invertebrate populations and communities. American Zoologist, 33, 510-533.

Tamburri, M.N., Wasson, K., & Matsuda, M. ( 2002) Ballast water deoxygenation can prevent aquatic introductions while reducing sh ip corrosion. Invasion Biology, 103, 331-341.

Trocine, R.P. & Trefry, J.H. (1996) Metal concen trations in sediment, wa ter and clams from the Indian River Lagoon, Florida. Ma rine Pollution Bulletin, 32, 754-759.

US EPA (1986). Quality criter ia for Water Washington DC. http://www.epa.gov/watersci ence/criteria/goldbook.pdf.

US EPA (1999). Phase I Uniform National Discharg e Standards for vessels of the armed forces: technical development document., Re p. No. EPA 821-R-99-001, Washington DC. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/rules/UNDS/vessels.pdf.

US EPA (2001a). Aquatic nuisance species in ba llast water discharges: issues and opinions. . http://epa.gov/owow/invasive_spe cies/ballast_report_attch5.pdf.

US EPA (2001b). National management measures guidance to control no npoint source pollution from marinas and recreational boating, Re p. No. EPA 841-B-01-005, Washington D.C.

US EPA (2004). National Coastal C ondition Report II, Washington DC.

US EPA (2007) Draft cruise ship discha rge assessment report. (Office of Water).

US EPA (2008) Disinfection byproduct health effects. http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/icr/dbp_health.html. Accessed on June 21, 2007

USGS (2007) Nonindigenous Aquatic Species . http://nas.er.usgs.gov/. Accessed on Feb. 12,

2008

V. Axiak, Sammut, M., Chircop, P., Vella, A., & Mintoff, B. (1995) Laboratory and field investigations on the effects of organotin (tributyltin) on the oyster, Ostrea edulis.

118Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet December 18, 2008

119 Environmental Toxicology: Hazards to the Environment and Man in the Mediterranean Region, 171, 117-120.

Van der Putten, W.H. (2002) How to be invasive. Nature, 417, 32-33.

Wiese, F.K. & Ryan, P.C. (2003) The extent of chronic marine oil pollution in southeastern Newfoundland waters assessed through beached bird surveys 1984-1999. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46, 1090-1101.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) (2007) Harmful Algae: What are Harmful Algal Blooms (HABS). http://www.whoi.edu/red tide/page.do?pid=9257. Accessed on October 5, 2007

Wurts, W.A. and R.M. Durborrow. (1992) Inte ractions of pH, Carbon Dioxide, Alkalinity and Hardness in Fish Ponds. Southern Regiona l Aquaculture Center Publication No. 464.

Zo, Y., Grimm, C., Matte, M., Matte, G., Kni ght, I.T., Huq, A., & Colwell, R.R. (1999) Detection and Enumeration of Pathogenic B acteria in Ballast Water of Transoceanic Vessels Entering the Great Lakes and Resist ance to Common Antibiotics. In General Meeting of the American Society for Mi crobiology, Chicago, IL, Abstract Q317.