45298 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

40 CFR Chapter VII and Part 1700

[FRL–6145–4]

RIN 2040–AC96

Uniform National Discharge Standards

for Vessels of the Armed Forces

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and Department of

Defense (DOD).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule describes

the types of discharges generated

incidental to the normal operation of

Armed Forces vessels and identifies

which of these discharges the Armed

Forces will be required to control, and

which vessel discharges will not require

pollution controls.

Today’s proposal also addresses; the

mechanism by which States can petition

EPA and DOD to review whether or not

a discharge should require control by a

marine pollution control device

(MPCD), or to review a Federal

performance standard for a MPCD; the

effect on State regulation of vessel

discharges; and the processes to be

followed by EPA and States when

establishing no-discharge zones (where

any release of a specified discharge is

prohibited).

This is the first phase of a threephased process to set uniform national

discharge standards (UNDS) for Armed

Forces vessels. Phase I will establish

which types of discharges warrant

control and which do not, based on

consideration of the anticipated

environmental effects of the discharge

and other factors listed at section 312(n)

of the Clean Water Act. Phase II will

promulgate MPCD performance

standards, and Phase III will specify

requirements for the design,

construction, installation, and use of

MPCDs.

Uniform national discharge standards

will result in enhanced environmental

protection because standards will be

established for certain discharges that

currently are not regulated

comprehensively. These standards will

also advance the ability of the Armed

Forces to better design and build

environmentally sound vessels, to train

crews to operate vessels in a manner

that is protective of the environment,

and to maintain operational flexibility

both domestically and internationally.

In addition, these standards are

expected to stimulate the development

of innovative vessel pollution control

technology.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

must be received or postmarked by

October 9, 1998. For information on

submitting comments on the draft

information collection request that was

prepared for the proposed rule, see

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ‘‘How to

Submit Comments on the Information

Collection Request.’’

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on

the proposed rule to: Docket W–97–21

UNDS Comment Clerk, Water Docket,

Mail Code 4101, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street

SW., Washington, DC 20460. Please

submit an original and three copies of

your comments and enclosures

(including references). No facsimiles

(faxes) will be accepted. Commenters

requesting acknowledgment that their

comments were received should enclose

a self-addressed stamped envelope with

their comments. Comments may also be

filed electronically to owdocket@epa.gov. Electronic comments

must be submitted as an ASCII or

WordPerfect file avoiding the use of

special characters and any form of

encryption. Electronic comments must

be identified by the docket number W–

97–21 and may be filed online at many

Federal Depository Libraries.

The record for this proposed

rulemaking has been established under

docket number W–97–21 and is

available for review at the Office of

Water Docket, Room EB–57, 401 M

Street SW., Washington, DC The record

is available for inspection from 9:00

a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays. For

access to docket materials, please call

(202) 260–3027 to schedule an

appointment.

For information on how to obtain a

copy of the Information Collection

Request (ICR) that has been prepared for

this proposed rule, or for information on

where to submit comments on the draft

ICR document, see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION ‘‘How to Submit Comments

on the Information Collection Request.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Gregory Stapleton (U.S. EPA) at (202)

260–0141, or Mr. David Kopack (U.S.

Navy) at (703) 602–3594 ext. 243.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

This proposed rule would apply to

discharges incidental to the normal

operation of vessels of the Armed

Forces, establish procedures for States

to petition EPA and DOD to review

whether a discharge should be

controlled, and establish procedures for

creating no-discharge zones in State

waters. Regulated categories and entities

include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Federal Government.Vessels of the Armed Forces,

including the Navy, Military

Sealift Command, Marine

Corps, Army, Air Force, and

Coast Guard.

The preceding table is not intended to

be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities

likely to be regulated by this proposed

action. This table lists the types of

entities that EPA and DOD are now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether a

particular category of vessel, discharge

from a vessel, or governmental entity is

regulated by this proposed action,

carefully examine the applicability

criteria at proposed 40 CFR 1700.1 in

the regulatory text following this

preamble. For answers to questions

regarding the applicability of this

proposed action to a particular entity,

consult one of the persons listed in the

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

Exclusions

This proposed rule would not apply

to commercial vessels; private vessels;

vessels owned or operated by State,

local, or tribal governments; vessels

under the jurisdiction of the Army

Corps of Engineers; vessels, other than

those of the Coast Guard, under the

jurisdiction of the Department of

Transportation; vessels preserved as

memorials and museums; time- and

voyage-chartered vessels; vessels under

construction; vessels in drydock; and

amphibious vehicles.

Supporting Documentation

The technical basis for this proposed

rule is detailed in the ‘‘Technical

Development Document for Proposed

Phase I Uniform National Discharge

Standards for Vessels of the Armed

Forces’’ (EPA–821–R–98–009), hereafter

referred to as the Technical

Development Document. This

background document is available

through EPA’s Internet Home Page at

http://www.epa.gov/OST/rules, or

through the UNDS Internet Home Page

at http://206.5.146.100/n45/doc/unds/

unds.html. This document is also

available from the EPA Water Resource

Center, Room EB–47, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202)

260–7786 for the voice mail publication

request line.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45299

How To Submit Comments on the

Information Collection Request

An Information Collection Request

(ICR) document has been prepared by

EPA (ICR No.1791.02, amending the

collection with OMB control #2040–

0187) and a copy may be obtained from

Sandy Farmer by mail at OPPE

Regulatory Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137); 401 M St., SW; Washington, DC

20460, by email at

farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by

calling (202) 260–2740. A copy may also

be downloaded off the internet at http:/

/www.epa.gov/icr.

Send comments on the ICR to the

Director, OPPE Regulatory Information

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (2137), 401 M St., S.W.,

Washington, DC 20460, and to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, 725 17th St., NW, Washington,

DC 20503, marked ‘‘Attention: Desk

Officer for EPA.’’ Include the ICR

number in any correspondence. Since

OMB is required to make a decision

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60

days after August 25, 1998, a comment

to OMB is best assured of having its full

effect if OMB receives it by September

24, 1998.

Overview

This preamble describes the legal

authority, background, technical basis,

and other aspects of the proposed

regulation. The definitions, acronyms,

and abbreviations used in this proposed

rule are defined in appendix A to the

preamble. The regulatory text for this

proposed rule (40 CFR Part 1700)

follows the preamble.

Organization of This Document

I. Purpose and Summary of This Rulemaking

A. Pollution Control Requirements for

Vessel Discharges

B. Effect on State and Local Laws and

Regulations

II. Legal Authority and Background

A. Clean Water Act Statutory Requirements

B. Summary of Public Outreach and

Consultation With States and Federal

Agencies

III. Description of Armed Forces Vessels

A. U.S. Navy

B. Military Sealift Command (MSC)

C. U.S. Coast Guard

D. U.S. Army

E. U.S. Marine Corps

F. U.S. Air Force

G. Vessels Not Covered by This Proposed

Rule

IV. Summary of Data Gathering Efforts

A. Surveys and Consultations

B. Sampling and Analysis

V. Marine Pollution Control Device (MPCD)

Requirements

A. Overview of Assessment Methodology

B. Peer Review

C. Discharges Requiring the Use of a MPCD

D. Discharges That Do Not Require Use of

a MPCD

VI. Section-By-Section Analysis of the

Regulation

A. Subpart A—Scope

B. Subpart B—Discharge Determinations

C. Subpart C—Effect on States

D. Subpart D—MPCD Performance

Standards

VII. Related Acts of Congress and Executive

Orders

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and

Executive Order 12875

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. Executive Order 13045

F. Endangered Species Act

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Appendix A to the Preamble—Abbreviations,

Acronyms, and Other Terms Used in

This Document

I. Purpose and Summary of This

Rulemaking

A. Pollution Control Requirements for

Vessel Discharges

Today’s document proposes to create

a new 40 CFR Part 1700 establishing

uniform national discharge standards

that would apply to discharges

incidental to the normal operation of

vessels of the Armed Forces. Incidental

discharges include effluent from the

normal operation of vessel systems or

hull protective coatings, but do not

include such things as emergency

discharges, air emissions, or discharges

of trash. These proposed regulations

identify discharges that would require

control through the use of marine

pollution control devices (MPCDs). This

document also identifies discharges that

are proposed to be excluded from any

requirement for a marine pollution

control device because of their low

potential for causing environmental

impacts.

This proposed rule addresses 39 types

of discharges from Armed Forces

vessels. EPA and DOD are proposing to

require the use of MPCDs to control 25

of these discharges. These discharges

are listed in Table 1 and described in

section V.C of the preamble. Section V.C

also discusses whether and to what

extent the discharges have the potential

to cause adverse impacts on the marine

environment, the availability of MPCDs

to mitigate adverse impacts, and the

rationale for proposing to require the

use of MPCDs.

TABLE 1.—DISCHARGES REQUIRING

MARINE POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES

Aqueous Film-Forming Foam.

Catapult Water Brake Tank and Post-Launch

Retraction Exhaust.

Chain Locker Effluent.

Clean Ballast.

Compensated Fuel Ballast.

Controllable Pitch Propeller Hydraulic Fluid.

Deck Runoff.

Dirty Ballast.

Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine.

Elevator Pit Effluent.

Firemain Systems.

Gas Turbine Water Wash.

Graywater.

Hull Coating Leachate.

Motor Gasoline Compensating Discharge.

Non-oily Machinery Wastewater.

Photographic Laboratory Drains.

Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge.

Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention.

Small Boat Engine Wet Exhaust.

Sonar Dome Discharge.

Submarine Bilgewater.

Surface Vessel Bilgewater/Oil-Water Separator Discharge.

Underwater Ship Husbandry.

Welldeck Discharges.

For 14 types of vessel discharges, EPA

and DOD have determined that it is not

reasonable and practicable to require the

use of MPCDs because these discharges,

listed in Table 2, exhibit a low potential

for causing adverse impacts on the

marine environment. Section V.D of the

preamble describes each of these

discharges and the reasons why MPCDs

would not be required.

TABLE 2.—DISCHARGES EXEMPTED

FROM CONTROLS

Boiler Blowdown.

Catapult Wet Accumulator Discharge.

Cathodic Protection.

Freshwater Lay-up.

Mine Countermeasures Equipment Lubrication.

Portable Damage Control Drain Pump Discharge.

Portable Damage Control Drain Pump Wet

Exhaust.

Refrigeration/Air Conditioning Condensate.

Rudder Bearing Lubrication.

Steam Condensate.

Stern Tube Seals and Underwater Bearing

Lubrication.

Submarine Acoustic Countermeasures

Launcher Discharge.

Submarine Emergency Diesel Engine Wet

Exhaust.

Submarine Outboard Equipment Grease and

External Hydraulics.

B. Effect on State and Local Laws and

Regulations

This proposed rule, identifying which

vessel discharges require control, is the

first step of a three-phased process to

establish uniform national discharge
45300 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

standards under section 312(n) of the

Clean Water Act (CWA). Establishing

MPCD performance standards and

promulgating regulations governing the

design and use of MPCDs will be

accomplished in the second and third

phases of the UNDS process. The

standards being proposed today affect

State and local laws and regulations in

several ways. Under section 312(n)(6) of

the Clean Water Act (CWA), States and

their political subdivisions would be

prohibited from adopting or enforcing

any State or local statute or regulation

with respect to the discharges listed in

Table 2 once this proposed rule is in

effect, other than to establish nodischarge zones for these discharges.

States and their political subdivisions

would be similarly prohibited from

adopting or enforcing any statutes or

regulations affecting the discharges

listed in Table 1 once regulations

governing MPCDs for those discharges

are in effect.

Second, this notice proposes the

procedural mechanisms by which a

State can petition EPA and DOD to

review whether a discharge should

require control by a MPCD. Finally, this

proposed rule would codify the process

for establishing no-discharge zones

(where any release of a specified

discharge is prohibited) where

necessary to protect and enhance the

quality of some or all of the waters

within a State. These procedures,

contained in proposed 40 CFR 1700.6

through 1700.13, are discussed in

section VI of this preamble.

II. Legal Authority and Background

A. Clean Water Act Statutory

Requirements

Section 325 of the National Defense

Authorization Act of 1996, entitled

‘‘Discharges from Vessels of the Armed

Forces’’ (Pub. L. 104–106, 110 Stat. 254),

amended section 312 of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act (also

known as the Clean Water Act, or CWA)

to require the Secretary of Defense

(Secretary) and the Administrator of the

United States Environmental Protection

Agency (Administrator) to develop

uniform national standards to control

certain discharges from vessels of the

Armed Forces. Congress established

requirements for the development of

uniform national discharge standards to

(1) enhance the operational flexibility of

vessels of the Armed Forces

domestically and internationally, (2)

stimulate the development of innovative

vessel pollution control technology, and

(3) advance the development by the U.S.

Navy of environmentally sound ships.

The term ‘‘UNDS’’ is used in this

preamble to refer to the provisions in

section 312(n) of the CWA (33 U.S.C.

1322(n)).

UNDS applies to vessels of the Armed

Forces and discharges (other than

sewage) incidental to their normal

operation, unless the Secretary finds

that compliance with UNDS would not

be in the national security interests of

the United States (see CWA section

312(n)(1)). UNDS does not apply to

discharges overboard of rubbish, trash,

garbage, or other such materials; air

emissions resulting from a vessel

propulsion system, motor driven

equipment, or incinerator; or discharges

that require permitting under the

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) program,

40 CFR part 122 (see CWA section

312(a)(12)).

UNDS is applicable to discharges of

Armed Forces vessels in the navigable

waters of the United States and the

contiguous zone. As defined in section

502(7) of the CWA, the term ‘‘navigable

waters’’ means waters of the United

States, including the Great Lakes, and

includes waters seaward from the

coastline to a distance of 3 nautical

miles from the shore of the States,

District of Columbia, Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,

American Samoa, the Canal Zone, and

the Trust Territories of the Pacific

Islands. The contiguous zone extends

from 3 nautical miles to 12 nautical

miles from the coastline. UNDS is not

enforceable beyond the contiguous

zone.

Although UNDS makes no changes to

the regulation of sewage from vessels,

UNDS was patterned after provisions for

the control of vessel sewage discharges

in the CWA (sections 312(a)—(m)).

These provisions require promulgation

of Federal standards for performance of

marine sanitation devices, preemption

of State regulation of marine sanitation

devices, and the opportunity to

establish no-discharge zones (see CWA

sections 312(a)–(m) and 40 CFR part

140).

UNDS requires EPA and the

Department of Defense (DOD) to

develop regulations and performance

standards for controlling discharges

incidental to the normal operation of

Armed Forces vessels where EPA and

DOD determine that it is reasonable and

practicable to require use of a marine

pollution control device (MPCD) to

mitigate adverse impacts on the marine

environment. The UNDS regulations are

to be developed in three phases:

Phase I: The first phase requires DOD

and EPA to determine Armed Forces

vessel discharges for which it is

reasonable and practicable to require

control with a MPCD to mitigate

potential adverse impacts on the marine

environment (CWA section 312(n)(2)).

The UNDS legislation states that a

MPCD may be a piece of equipment or

a management practice designed to

control a particular discharge (CWA

section 312(a)(13)). DOD and EPA are

required to consider seven factors in

determining whether a discharge

requires a MPCD (CWA section

312(n)(2)(B)):

• The nature of the discharge.

• The environmental effects of the

discharge.

• The practicability of using the

MPCD.

• The effect that installing or using

the MPCD has on the operation or the

operational capability of the vessel.

• Applicable United States law.

• Applicable international standards.

• The economic costs of installing

and using the MPCD.

The UNDS legislation requires DOD

and EPA to consult with the Secretary

of the department in which the Coast

Guard is operating, the Secretary of

Commerce, and interested States in the

Phase I rule development. UNDS

provides that after promulgation of the

Phase I rule, neither States nor political

subdivisions of States may adopt or

enforce any State or local statutes or

regulations with respect to discharges

identified as not requiring control with

a MPCD, except to establish nodischarge zones (CWA section

312(n)(6)).

Phase II: The second phase of UNDS

requires DOD and EPA to promulgate

Federal performance standards for each

MPCD determined to be required in

Phase I (CWA section 312(n)(3)). Phase

II requires consultation with the

Secretary of the department in which

the Coast Guard is operating, the

Secretary of State, the Secretary of

Commerce, other interested Federal

agencies, and interested States. In

developing performance standards for

the Phase II rulemaking, DOD and EPA

are to consider the same seven factors

identified for Phase I, and can establish

standards that (1) distinguish among

classes, types, and sizes of vessels; (2)

distinguish between new and existing

vessels; and (3) provide for a waiver of

applicability of standards as necessary

or appropriate to a particular class, type,

age, or size of vessel (CWA section

312(n)(3)(C)). The mechanisms for

determining compliance with

performance standards and the role of

States and Federal agencies in

enforcement matters will be addressed

during Phases II and III.

Phase III: The third phase requires

DOD, in consultation with EPA and the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45301

Secretary of the department in which

the Coast Guard is operating, to

establish requirements for the design,

construction, installation, and use of the

MPCDs identified in Phase II (CWA

section 312(n)(4)). These Phase III

requirements will be codified under the

authority of the Secretary of Defense.

Additional details regarding

codification of these requirements will

be provided in Phase II. Following

completion of Phase III, neither States

nor political subdivisions of States may

adopt or enforce any State or local

statutes or regulations with respect to

discharges identified as requiring

control with a MPCD, except to

establish no-discharge zones (CWA

section 312(n)(6)).

UNDS provides for the establishment

of no-discharge zones either by State

prohibition (CWA section 312(n)(7)(A))

or by EPA prohibition (CWA section

312(n)(7)(B)). Today’s proposal

addresses the criteria and procedures for

establishing no-discharge zones. For a

State prohibition, if a State determines

that the protection and enhancement of

the quality of some or all of its waters

require greater environmental

protection, the State may prohibit one or

more discharges, whether treated or not,

into those waters. However, the statute

provides that such a prohibition shall

not be effective until EPA determines

that there are adequate facilities for the

safe and sanitary removal of the

discharges(s), and that the prohibition

will not have the effect of

discriminating against an Armed Forces

vessel by reason of the ownership or

operation by the Federal Government, or

the military function, of the vessel.

For a no-discharge zone by EPA

prohibition, a State may request EPA to

prohibit, by regulation, the discharge of

one or more discharges, whether treated

or not, into specified waters within a

State. In this case, EPA makes the

determination that the protection and

enhancement of the quality of the

specified waters require a prohibition of

the discharge. As with a State

prohibition, EPA must also determine

that there are adequate facilities for the

safe and sanitary removal of the

discharge, and that the prohibition will

not discriminate against Armed Forces

vessels by reason of their Federal

ownership or operation, or their military

function. However, the statute directs

that EPA shall not disapprove an

application for an EPA prohibition for

the sole reason that there are not

adequate facilities for the safe and

sanitary removal of such discharges.

The UNDS legislation contains two

provisions for reviewing and modifying

performance standards and

determinations of whether a MPCD is

required. The first requires DOD and

EPA to review the determinations and

standards every five years, and if

necessary, revise them based on any

significant new information (CWA

sections 312(n)(5)(A) and (B)). The

second provision allows States, at any

time, to petition the Secretary and the

Administrator to review the

determinations (after Phase I) and

standards (after Phase II) if there is

significant new information, not

considered previously, that could

reasonably result in a change to the

determination or standard (CWA section

312(n)(5)(D)).

B. Summary of Public Outreach and

Consultation With States and Federal

Agencies

In developing this proposed rule, EPA

and DOD have consulted with other

interested Federal agencies, States, and

environmental organizations. Other

Federal agencies that have been

involved in UNDS development include

the Coast Guard (for the Department of

Transportation), the Department of

State, and the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (for the

Department of Commerce). The Coast

Guard has been involved in all aspects

of UNDS development. The other

agencies have participated with the

DOD, EPA, and the Coast Guard in the

UNDS Executive Steering Committee,

which is responsible for UNDS policy

development and is composed of seniorlevel managers. Separately, the DOD

and EPA have held discussions with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the

National Marine Fisheries Service on

UNDS matters.

Two mechanisms have been used to

consult with States. First, a

representative from the Environmental

Council of the States (ECOS)

participates in Executive Steering

Committee meetings. ECOS is the

national association of State and

territorial environmental commissioners

and has been established, in part, to

provide State positions on

environmental issues to EPA. Second,

representatives from the Navy (as the

lead for the DOD), EPA, and the Coast

Guard met at least once, and in most

cases twice, with each State expressing

an interest in the UNDS development.

The interested States were

predominantly those with a significant

presence of Navy or Coast Guard

vessels. The States participating in the

consultation meetings are identified in

the Technical Development Document.

In early 1996, the Navy and EPA

invited States with a DOD or Coast

Guard vessel presence to participate in

an initial round of consultation

meetings. Of the approximately 40

States invited, 21 States requested a

consultation meeting. These initial State

consultation meetings were held

between August and December 1996.

State environmental regulatory

authorities hosted each meeting, which

consisted of a Navy/EPA briefing on

UNDS activities and an opportunity to

discuss State-specific issues. A Coast

Guard representative was present at

each meeting to provide input on

discharges from Coast Guard vessels.

The Navy/EPA briefing provided a

summary of the UNDS history and

requirements, considerations for

evaluating discharges, the technical

approach to determining which

discharges will require control, an

overview of the vessels to which UNDS

is applicable, and the roles of DOD and

EPA in the rulemaking process. See

‘‘Uniform National Discharge Standards

(UNDS) State Consultation Meetings

(Round #1) Compendium of Minutes,’’

available in the record for this proposed

rule.

The Navy and EPA conducted a

second round of State consultation

meetings from October 1997 through

January 1998. Of the 22 States consulted

in the second round of meetings, five

were States that had not been briefed

during the initial round. The second

round of consultation meetings

provided Navy and EPA an opportunity

to summarize the activities that had

taken place since the initial round of

consultation meetings. This included

discussing the 39 types of vessel

discharges covered by this proposed

rule and the preliminary decisions

regarding which of the discharges

would be proposed to require control.

States were provided information that

included a description of the discharges

and the equipment or processes

generating the discharges, the locations

where the discharges occur, vessels

producing the discharges, the

preliminary results of environmental

effects analyses, and the preliminary

conclusions of whether controls would

be required. States were generally

supportive of the UNDS effort. States

most commonly expressed interest in

matters related to the implementation of

UNDS regulations, including

enforcement and procedures for

establishing no-discharge zones, the

relationship between UNDS and other

State programs, which vessels are

subject to UNDS, and discussions about

potential MPCD options.

In addition to State meetings, the

Navy, EPA, and Coast Guard met with

several environmental organizations in

December 1997 and May 1998. Details
45302 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

of the topics discussed and

environmental organizations

represented at those meetings are in the

record for this proposed rule. A

compendium of the minutes from the

second round of State consultation

meetings and the meetings with

environmental organizations is available

in the record for this proposed rule. See

‘‘Uniform National Discharge Standards

(UNDS) Consultation Meetings (Round

#2) Compendium of Minutes.’’

The Navy and EPA publish a

newsletter that contains feature articles

on UNDS-related subjects (e.g.,

nonindigenous species, Navy research

and development programs), provides

answers to frequently asked questions,

and provides an update on recent

progress and upcoming events. The

newsletter is mailed to State and

environmental group representatives,

Armed Forces and EPA contacts, and

interested members of the general

public. The newsletter has a current

circulation of 360 copies, approximately

200 of which are distributed outside of

the EPA, DOD, or their contractors. In

addition, electronic copies of the

newsletter are available from an UNDS

web site on the Internet (http://

206.5.146.100/n45/doc/unds/

unds.html). In addition to the

newsletter, the Internet web site

provides UNDS legislative information,

a summary of the technical and

management approach to rule

development, and a description of the

benefits expected to result from the

development of UNDS.

III. Description of Armed Forces

Vessels

Section 312(a)(14) of the CWA, as

amended by the National Defense

Authorization Act of 1996, defines a

vessel of the Armed Forces as ‘‘(A) any

vessel owned or operated by the

Department of Defense, other than a

time or voyage chartered vessel; and (B)

any vessel owned or operated by the

Department of Transportation that is

designated by the Secretary of the

department in which the Coast Guard is

operating as a vessel equivalent to a

vessel [owned or operated by the

DOD].’’ The CWA defines a vessel as

every type of watercraft or other

artificial contrivance used, or capable of

being used, as a means of transportation

on the navigable waters of the United

States. See CWA sections 312(a)(1) and

312(a)(2). Also see 40 CFR 140.1(d).

The scope of the UNDS legislation

addresses incidental discharges from

over 7,000 vessels (i.e., ships,

submarines, and small boats and craft)

of differing designs and mission

requirements. The Armed Forces that

operate vessels subject to UNDS include

the Navy, Military Sealift Command,

Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, and

Coast Guard. Table 3 summarizes the

number of vessels operated by each of

these branches of the Armed Forces as

of August 1997. The following sections

provide a general description of the

mission of vessels operated by each

branch of the Armed Forces and the

types of vessels covered by UNDS. Also

provided is a description of the vessels

that are excluded from this proposed

rule. Armed Forces vessels and their

operating locations are discussed in

more detail in the Technical

Development Document.

TABLE 3.—NUMBER OF ARMED

FORCES VESSELS

Branch of armed forces Number of

vessels

Navy .......................................... 4,760

Military Sealift Command .......... 57

Army .......................................... 334

Marine Corps ............................ 538

Air Force ................................... 36

Coast Guard ............................. 1,445

Total ................................... 7,172

A. U.S. Navy

The role of the Navy is to maintain an

effective naval fighting force for the

defense of the United States in times of

war, and to deploy this force to prevent

conflicts and control crises around the

world. The Navy is responsible for

organizing, training, and equipping its

forces to conduct prompt and sustained

combat operations at sea. The fleet must

be capable of carrying personnel,

weapons, and supplies wherever

needed.

The Navy currently owns and

operates over 4,700 vessels. Navy

vessels can be categorized into eight

groups by similar mission: aircraft

carriers, surface combatants,

amphibious ships, submarines,

auxiliaries, mine warfare ships, service

craft and small boats, and inactive

assets. Naval ships and submarines are

ocean-going vessels that for the most

part operate within 12 nautical miles

(n.m.) from shore only during transit in

and out of port. However, many of these

vessels spend approximately 180 days

per year in port, and many testing and

maintenance activities are conducted in

port or during transits. Service craft and

small boats typically operate in ports or

other coastal waters within 12 n.m. from

shore. Unlike service craft, small boats

are often kept out of the water when not

in use to increase the vessels’ longevity.

Inactive assets include a variety of

vessel types. The majority of inactive

vessels are scheduled for scrapping,

transfer to the Maritime Administration,

or foreign sale. Table 4 provides a brief

description of the vessel types, and

information on the number of vessels

and the vessels’ primary operating areas.

The Navy bases the majority of its

fleet at five major ports: Norfolk,

Virginia; San Diego, California;

Mayport, Florida; Puget Sound,

Washington; and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

These ports provide services including:

pierside support services (e.g., potable

water, sewage and trash disposal, and

electrical power); supplies (e.g., repair

parts, consumable materials, and food);

and maintenance and repair functions.

The Navy operates additional ports,

identified in the Technical Development

Document, that provide a subset of these

services.

TABLE 4.—U.S. NAVY VESSELS

Vessel type Mission Number

Primary operational

area

Inside 12

n.m.

Outside

12 n.m.

Aircraft Carriers .............................. Provide air combat support to the fleet with landing and launch platforms for airplanes and helicopters.12 X

Surface Combatants ....................... Provide air defense, ballistic missile defense, antisubmarine warfare

support, antisurface warfare support, merchant and carrier group

protection, independent patrol operations, and tactical support of

land-based forces.

139 X
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45303

TABLE 4.—U.S. NAVY VESSELS—Continued

Vessel type Mission Number

Primary operational

area

Inside 12

n.m.

Outside

12 n.m.

Amphibious Ships ........................... Provide a landing and take-off platform for aircraft, primarily helicopters, and a means for launching and recovering smaller landing

craft.

39 X X

Submarines .................................... Provide strategic and ballistic defense, search and rescue, and research and survey capability.88 X

Auxiliaries ....................................... Provide logistical support, such as underway replenishment, material

support, and rescue and salvage operations.

20 X

Mine Warfare Ships ........................ Conduct minesweeping missions to find, classify, and destroy mines ... 26 X

Service Craft and Small Boats ....... Provide a variety of services. Includes tug boats, landing craft, training

craft, torpedo retrievers, patrol boats, utility boats, floating drydocks,

barges, and transport boats.

4,192 X

Inactive Assets ............................... Vessels in various states of readiness, the majority of which are

scheduled for scrapping, transfer to MARAD, or sale to foreign nations.

244 Xa

aThese vessels are not operated and are kept at various port locations

B. Military Sealift Command (MSC)

The primary mission of the MSC is to

transport Department of Defense

materials and supplies, provide towing

and salvage services, and conduct

specialized missions for Federal

agencies. To accomplish this, the MSC

maintains and operates a fleet of vessels

classified within four major maritime

programs: the Special Mission Support

Force (SMSF); the Naval Fleet Auxiliary

Force (NFAF); the Afloat Prepositioning

Force; and MSC Strategic Sealift

Program. MSC vessels are operated

primarily by civil service mariners, but

also by some military personnel or

mariners under contract to MSC. UNDS

does not apply to chartered Strategic

Sealift and Afloat Prepositioning Force

vessels. See CWA section 312(a)(14)

excluding time or voyage chartered

vessels from the definition of vessels of

the Armed Forces.

MSC vessels provide support to other

Armed Forces vessels and can be

stationed around the globe to ensure

rapid support. MSC vessels are oceangoing vessels that typically operate

within 12 n.m. only during transit in

and out of port. Some testing and

maintenance activities are conducted

while the vessel is in port or during

transits through coastal waters. Table 5

provides a brief description of MSC

vessel types, and information on the

number of vessels and their primary

operating areas.

The MSC operates no major port

facilities of its own, instead maintaining

its vessels at Navy and commercial port

facilities. A number of MSC

replenishment and auxiliary vessels

operate out of the Navy’s ports in

Norfolk, Virginia; San Diego, California;

and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

TABLE 5.—MSC VESSELS

Vessel type Mission Number

Primary operational

area

Inside 12

n.m.

Outside

12 n.m.

Special Mission Support Force ...... Support the Armed Forces in specialized missions such as undersea

surveillance, missile range tracking, oceanographic and hydrographic surveys, acoustic research, and submarine escort.

22 X

Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force ............ Provide underway replenishment services (i.e., deliver fuel, food,

spare parts, equipment, and ammunition) to Navy surface combatants, as well as ocean towing and salvage services.

35 X

C. U.S. Coast Guard

The Coast Guard is a component of

the Department of Transportation and is

responsible for enforcing laws on waters

of the U.S., including coastal waters,

oceans, lakes, and rivers subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States.

Peacetime missions include enforcing

recreational boating safety, conducting

search and rescue operations,

maintaining aids to navigation, ensuring

merchant marine safety, providing drug

interdiction, and facilitating

environmental protection efforts. In

time of war, the Coast Guard may

become a part of the Navy.

Coast Guard vessels may be

categorized as: icebreakers; cutters;

tenders; tugboats; small boats and craft;

and other vessels. Table 6 provides a

brief description of the vessel types, and

information on the number of vessels

and their typical operating areas.

The major Coast Guard facilities are

located in Boston, Massachusetts;

Honolulu, Hawaii; Charleston, South

Carolina; Alameda, California;

Galveston, Texas; Seattle, Washington;

Miami, Florida; and Portsmouth,

Virginia. Coast Guard duty stations can

also be found on inland, coastal, and

river waterways throughout the U.S.

Ship repair and overhaul is usually

conducted at a commercial facility near

the homeport of the vessel.
45304 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 6.—U.S. COAST GUARD VESSELS

Vessel type Mission Number

Primary operational

area

Inside 12

n.m.

Outside

12 n.m.

Ice breakers .................................... Support the winter icebreaking efforts in order to maintain open waterways in the Arctic, Antarctic, and the northern regions of the United

States including the Great Lakes, Northwest, and Northeast.

3 X X

Cutters ............................................ Provide multi-mission capability, including patrol, air defense, search

and rescue, and drug interdiction.

128 X X

Tenders .......................................... Used to maintain inland river, coastal, and offshore buoys and navigational aids, or to serve as a construction platform.76 X

Tugboats ......................................... Provide towing and support services to other vessels ........................... 20 X

Small Boats and Craft .................... Used in harbors, in rough surf for rescue, for inland river and lake patrol, as transports, and for firefighting.1,217 X

Other Vessel ................................... Includes a sailing cutter used for training ............................................... 1 X

D. U.S. Army

Army vessels are used primarily for

ship-to-shore transfer of equipment,

cargo, and personnel. The Army

operates one major port facility at Fort

Eustis, Virginia for active duty vessels,

and numerous other port facilities for

reserve duty vessels. The Army’s fleet is

divided into three categories: the

Transportation Corps, the Intelligence

and Security Command, and the Corps

of Engineers. The Army Transportation

Corps operates lighterage and floating

utility craft to provide waterborne

delivery (inland and ship-to-shore) of

equipment and supplies for all Armed

Forces and to perform port terminal

operations. The Intelligence and

Security Command operates patrol

vessels for drug interdiction. Army

Corps of Engineers (COE) boats and craft

are excluded from UNDS as discussed

in section III.G of the preamble. Table 7

provides a brief description of Army

vessels subject to the proposed rule, and

information on the number of vessels

and their primary operating areas.

TABLE 7.—U.S. ARMY VESSELS

Vessel type Mission Number

Primary operational

area

Inside 12

n.m.

Outside

12 n.m.

Lighterage ....................................... Transport equipment, cargo, and personnel ........................................... 159 X X

Floating Utility ................................. Perform port terminal operations ............................................................ 168 X

Patrol Ships .................................... Perform drug interdiction ......................................................................... 7 X

E. U.S. Marine Corps

A primary role of the Marine Corps is

to employ military forces and

equipment onto land from the sea. The

Marine Corps uses 538 inflatable rubber

craft for in-port, river, lake, and coastal

operations. These craft are often kept

out of the water when not in use to

increase the craft’s longevity. The

Marine Corps makes use of available

local port facilities and operates no

major port facilities of its own.

F. U.S. Air Force

The Air Force operates some large

vessels and a number of smaller boats

and craft at various locations to support

missile testing and operations. Table 8

provides a brief description of the vessel

types, and information on the number of

vessels and their primary operating

areas.

The Air Force operates no major port

facilities of its own. The larger Air Force

vessels are located at Tyndall Air Force

Base, Florida, and at Carrabelle, Florida.

Small boats and craft are distributed

among a number of local ports.

TABLE 8.—U.S. AIR FORCE VESSELS

Vessel type Mission Number

Primary operational

area

Inside 12

n.m.

Outside

12 n.m.

Missile Retriever ............................. Used to locate and recover practice missiles ......................................... 5 X X

Floating Utility ................................. Used primarily for transportation, training, and repair ............................ 31 X

G. Vessels Not Covered by This

Proposed Rule

This proposed rule would apply only

to Armed Forces vessels. This proposed

rule would not apply to commercial

vessels; privately owned vessels; vessels

owned or operated by State, local, or

tribal governments; vessels under the

jurisdiction of the Army Corps of

Engineers; vessels, other than those of

the Coast Guard, under the jurisdiction

of the Department of Transportation;

vessels owned or operated by other

Federal agencies that are not part of the

Armed Forces; vessels preserved as
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45305

memorials and museums; time- and

voyage-chartered vessels; vessels under

construction; vessels in drydock; and

amphibious vehicles. For clarification,

several categories of these types of

vessels that are beyond the scope of this

proposed rule are described below.

1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Vessels

Army Corps of Engineers vessels are

typically used for civil works purposes.

Congress has consistently addressed the

Army Corps of Engineers separately

from other parts of the Department of

Defense in both authorization and

appropriations bills. Therefore, the DOD

and EPA do not consider that Congress

intended to apply UNDS to Army Corps

of Engineers vessels.

2. Maritime Administration (MARAD)

Vessels

A number of vessels are operated or

maintained by the Maritime

Administration, a part of the

Department of Transportation. As

established in section 312(a)(14) of the

CWA, the definition of ‘‘vessel of the

Armed Forces’’ includes those

Department of Transportation vessels

that are designated by the Secretary of

the department in which the U.S. Coast

Guard is operating (currently the

Department of Transportation) as

operating as a vessel equivalent to a

DOD vessel. The Secretary of

Transportation has determined that

MARAD vessels, including the National

Defense Reserve Fleet, do not operate

equivalently to DOD vessels, and

therefore MARAD vessels are not

covered by UNDS.

3. Memorial and Museum Vessels

Ships and submarines preserved as

memorials and museums once served a

military mission. However, with the

exception of one submarine, these

vessels are no longer owned or operated

by the Armed Forces, and therefore,

they are not vessels of the Armed Forces

and UNDS does not apply to them.

The submarine Nautilus is owned and

operated by the Navy as a museum;

however, the vessel is stationary and its

systems are not routinely operated.

Therefore, the EPA and DOD are

proposing to exclude this vessel from

the scope of UNDS.

4. Time- and Voyage-Chartered Vessels

CWA section 312(a)(14) specifically

excludes time or voyage chartered

vessels from the definition of ‘‘vessels of

the Armed Forces.’’ Time- and voyagechartered vessels are vessels operating

under a contract between the vessel

owner and a charterer (in this case, the

Armed Forces) whereby the charterer

hires the vessel for a specified time

period or voyage, respectively. Such

vessels at all times remain manned and

navigated by the owner, and they are

not owned and operated by the Armed

Forces. Examples of chartered vessels

are those operated by the MSC in the

Afloat Prepositioning Force and the

Strategic Sealift Program.

5. Vessels Under Construction

EPA and DOD do not consider a

vessel under construction for the DOD

or Coast Guard, and for which the

Federal government has not taken

custody, to be a ‘‘vessel of the Armed

Forces.’’ UNDS would not apply to

these vessels until the Federal

government gains custody.

6. Vessels in Drydock

The statutory definition of ‘‘discharge

incidental to the normal operation of a

vessel’’ includes incidental discharges

whenever the vessel is waterborne. See

CWA section 312(a)(12). UNDS would

not apply to discharges from vessels

while they are in drydock because they

are not waterborne, even if the

discharges would otherwise meet the

definition of a ‘‘discharge incidental to

the normal operation of a vessel.’’

7. Amphibious Vehicles

EPA and DOD do not consider

amphibious vehicles as a vessel for the

purposes of UNDS because they are

operated primarily as vehicles on land.

Water use of these vehicles is of short

duration for nearshore transit to and

from vessels.

IV. Summary of Data Gathering Efforts

Once the scope of vessels to which

UNDS would apply was determined, it

was necessary to identify the universe of

discharges and to characterize the

nature of these discharges. The data

gathering effort to support these

objectives included surveys and

consultations involving DOD and Coast

Guard personnel with expertise in

vessel operations and shipboard systems

or equipment generating the discharges.

The survey and consultation results

were supplemented with sampling,

where necessary. The following sections

provide an overview of the data

collection efforts. Additional details are

presented in the Technical Development

Document.

A. Surveys and Consultations

The Navy initiated the data collection

process by compiling a list of discharges

and existing information on these

discharges, including summary results

of previous sampling studies. The

information was presented in a single

report, ‘‘U.S. Navy Ship Wastewater

Discharges,’’ available in the record for

this proposed rule. The Navy provided

this report, along with a survey, to each

branch of the Armed Forces at the

headquarters and field levels, including

both shore installations and shipboard

operators. The survey solicited

comments on the accuracy and

completeness of the attached report, and

sought information on which vessels

generate the discharges, discharge

characteristics (e.g., pollutant

constituents, discharge volumes, and

flow rates), and any existing reports or

documentation relating to any

discharges not identified in the report.

The Navy and EPA supplemented the

survey results by conducting ship visits

and consulting with DOD and Coast

Guard personnel with expertise in

vessel systems, equipment, and

operations that produce the discharges.

The purpose of these consultations and

ship visits was to clarify information

gathered and to ensure all existing

information on discharges was obtained.

B. Sampling and Analysis

As a result of the survey and

consultation process, EPA and DOD

identified 39 types of discharges

incidental to the normal operation of

Armed Forces vessels. For 30 of the 39

discharges, existing information

gathered from surveys and consultations

was sufficient to characterize the nature

of the discharges and assess potential

environmental impacts, if any, resulting

from the discharges. EPA and DOD

determined that existing information

was insufficient to characterize the

constituents and determine the

environmental effects of the remaining

nine discharges. These nine discharges,

identified in Table 9, were sampled to

obtain the additional data.

TABLE 9.—DISCHARGES SAMPLED

—Boiler Blowdown.

—Compensated Fuel Ballast.

—Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine.

—Firemain Systems.

—Freshwater Lay-up

—Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater.

—Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge.

—Steam Condensate.

—Surface Vessel Bilgewater/Oil-Water Separator Discharge.

Samples were collected from ten

vessels, representing a total of six Navy,

Coast Guard, and MSC vessel types.

Navy vessels sampled included an

aircraft carrier, three surface

combatants, two amphibious ships, and

a submarine. Also sampled were a Coast

Guard cutter and two MSC oilers, which

are vessels used for fuel transport. The
45306 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

sampling program was structured to

address differences in wastestream

characteristics among certain vessel

types. Information on the discharges

that were sampled from each ship and

the constituents analyzed for each

discharge is presented in the Technical

Development Document. The technical

basis for selecting the constituents

analyzed and the reasons for sampling

specific discharges on certain ship

classes are presented in the document

entitled ‘‘Uniform National Discharge

Standards Rationale for Initial Discharge

Sampling.’’ Both documents are

available in the record for this proposed

rule.

V. Marine Pollution Control Device

(MPCD) Requirements

CWA section 312(n)(2)(B) identifies

the seven factors EPA and DOD are to

consider in determining for which

discharges it is reasonable and

practicable to require use of a MPCD to

mitigate adverse impacts on the marine

environment. Those factors are listed in

section II.A of this preamble. The

methodology EPA and DOD used to

assess the environmental effects, if any,

resulting from each of the discharges is

presented in section V.A below.

This proposed rule would apply to 39

types of vessel discharges. EPA and

DOD are proposing to require the use of

MPCDs to control 25 of these

discharges. These discharges are listed

in Table 1 and described below in

section V.C. Section V.C also discusses

the potential for the discharges to cause

adverse impacts on the marine

environment and the availability of

MPCDs to mitigate adverse impacts. The

MPCDs mentioned below in sections

V.C may not be uniformly applicable to

all vessels. The performance standards

to be promulgated in a future

rulemaking (UNDS Phase II) may

distinguish among classes, types, and

sizes of vessels; distinguish between

new and existing vessels; and provide

for a waiver of applicability for a

particular class, type, age or size of

vessel. (See CWA section 312(n)(3)C).)

EPA and DOD are proposing not to

require the use of MPCDs for the

remaining 14 vessel discharges. These

discharges, listed in Table 2 and

described below in section V.D, exhibit

a low potential for causing adverse

impacts on the marine environment.

Therefore, EPA and DOD have

determined, for this proposed rule, that

it is not reasonable and practicable to

require the use of MPCDs to mitigate

adverse impacts on the marine

environment.

A. Overview of Assessment Methodology

For the purposes of this proposed

rule, EPA and DOD assessed the

potential environmental effects of the

discharges by asking the following

questions concerning their chemical,

physical, and biological characteristics:

—Chemical Constituents. Does the

discharge contain constituents in

concentrations that exceed State

aquatic water quality criteria or

Federal aquatic water quality criteria

(as promulgated by EPA in the

National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR 131.36)

and have the potential to be released

into the environment in significant

amounts, resulting in a potential

adverse impact on the environment?

—Thermal Pollution. Does the discharge

pose the potential to exceed State

thermal water quality criteria in the

receiving waters beyond a mixing

zone, and to a degree sufficient to

have an adverse impact on the

environment?

—Bioaccumulative Chemicals of

Concern. Does the discharge have the

potential to contain bioaccumulative

chemicals of concern in amounts

sufficient to have an adverse impact

on the environment?

—Nonindigenous Species. Does the

discharge have the potential to

introduce viable nonindigenous

aquatic species to new locations?

If the answer to any of the above

questions was ‘‘yes,’’ EPA and DOD

determined that the discharge had a

potential for adverse environmental

effect.

EPA and DOD used sampling results

or process knowledge to identify the

potential presence and concentration of

constituents in the discharge.

Constituent concentrations in the

discharge were compared to Federal

criteria promulgated by EPA in its

National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR 131.36 (57

FR 60848; Dec. 22, 1992 and 60 FR

22230; May 4, 1995), referred to in this

preamble as ‘‘Federal criteria,’’ and

State water quality numeric criteria for

the ten States with the most significant

presence of Armed Forces vessels.

These ten States are California,

Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,

New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas,

Virginia, and Washington. Constituent

concentrations in the discharge were

compared against the most stringent of

the Federal and ten States’ criteria for

that constituent. For almost all

constituents, the State water quality

criteria are more stringent than the

Federal National Toxics Rule (NTR)

criteria.

EPA and DOD used aquatic water

quality criteria in this assessment

because they are a measure of the level

of water quality that provides for the

protection and propagation of aquatic

life.

EPA and DOD used saltwater aquatic

life criteria for screening the discharges

because most Armed Forces vessels

operate in the brackish water of

estuaries or bays, or in the marine

environment off the coast or in open

ocean, where the biology of the water

body is dominated by saltwater aquatic

life. Aquatic life criteria were used

instead of human health criteria, which

are related to consumption of fish and

shellfish, because recreational activities

such as fishing and swimming generally

do not occur in the immediate vicinity

of Armed Forces vessels.

Depending on the nature of the

discharge, EPA and DOD compared

discharge concentrations to either the

acute or chronic criteria values. Where

discharges are intermittent or occasional

in nature, of relatively short duration (a

few seconds to a few hours), and

dissipate rapidly in the environment,

constituent concentrations were

compared to acute water quality criteria.

Where discharges are of a longer

duration or continuous and likely to

result in concentrations in the

environment that approach a steady

state condition, the constituent

concentrations were compared to

chronic water quality criteria. Table

4–1 in the Technical Development

Document lists the State criteria or

Federal criteria used.

The initial screening process involved

comparing the constituent

concentrations in the undiluted

discharge to the water quality criteria.

For those discharges, such as cathodic

protection, where the constituents

diffuse from the exterior of a vessel or

vessel component, EPA and DOD

generally computed a concentration

within a small mixing zone (a few

inches to a few feet).

EPA and DOD further assessed those

discharges that had constituents

exceeding water quality criteria. EPA

and DOD considered mass loadings,

flow rates, the geographic location of the

discharge, the manner in which the

discharge occurs (e.g., continuous or

intermittent), and in some cases, the

effect of the dilution within a small

mixing zone. The purpose of this further

assessment was to determine whether

the constituents are discharged with

such a low frequency or in such small

amounts that the resulting constituent

mass loading has the potential to

produce only minor or undetectable

environmental effects, or whether the

constituents are released in such a

manner that dilution in a small mixing
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45307

zone quickly results in concentrations

below water quality criteria. If so, EPA

and DOD considered the chemical

constituents of the discharge not to have

the potential to adversely affect the

environment.

In addition to chemical constituents,

EPA and DOD assessed whether the

discharges exceeded State thermal water

quality criteria for the five States with

the most significant presence of Armed

Forces vessels. These States are

California, Florida, Hawaii, Virginia,

and Washington. Many discharges did

not need a detailed assessment because

they are discharged at ambient or only

slightly elevated temperatures, or the

volume or discharge rate is very low.

EPA and DOD determined that six

discharges are released at sufficiently

high temperatures and volumes that

further assessment was warranted to

determine whether the discharge had

the potential to cause an adverse

thermal effect. These discharges are:

—Boiler Blowdown,

—Catapult Water Brake Tank And PostLaunch Retraction Exhaust,

—Catapult Wet Accumulator Discharge,

—Distillation And Reverse Osmosis

Brine,

—Seawater Cooling Overboard

Discharge, and

—Steam Condensate.

EPA and DOD modeled these

discharges to determine the size of the

mixing zone that would be needed for

receiving waters to meet State thermal

water quality criteria and compared this

zone to State thermal mixing zone

allowances. A more complete

discussion of the models and

procedures used for these assessments is

provided in the Technical Development

Document.

EPA and DOD reviewed each

discharge to determine whether it

contained bioaccumulative chemicals of

concern, as identified in the Final Water

Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes

System (60 FR 15365; March 23, 1995).

This guidance contains a list of

bioaccumulative chemicals of concern

identified after scientific study, in a

process subjected to public notice and

comment, designed to support a

regionally uniform set of standards

applicable to the waters of the Great

Lakes. Table 4–1 of the Technical

Development Document lists these

bioaccumulative chemicals of concern.

In every case where the presence of a

bioaccumulative chemical of concern

was confirmed in a discharge, EPA and

DOD had already determined based on

other information that it was reasonable

and practicable to require control of that

discharge.

EPA and DOD also assessed each

discharge for its potential to transport

viable living aquatic organisms between

naturally isolated water bodies.

Preventing the introduction of invasive

nonindigenous aquatic species has been

recognized as important in maintaining

biodiversity, water quality, and the

designated uses of water bodies. If the

available data indicate that a discharge

has a potential for transporting and then

subsequently discharging viable aquatic

organisms into waters of the U.S., then

EPA and DOD considered the discharge

to present a potential for causing

adverse environmental effects from

nonindigenous species introduction. In

some cases EPA and DOD determined it

was reasonable and practicable to

require MPCDs to control a discharge

even though information in the record

indicates that the discharge has a low

potential for adversely affecting the

environment. For the chain locker

effluent and sonar dome discharges, at

least one class of Armed Forces vessel

has a management practice or control

technology already in place to control

the environmental effects of the

discharge. EPA and DOD considered the

existence of a currently applied

management practice or control

technology to be sufficient indication

that it was reasonable and practicable to

require a MPCD. In other cases (non-oily

machinery wastewater and

photographic laboratory drains),

analysis of whether the discharge had a

potential to adversely affect the

environment was inconclusive.

However, EPA and DOD determined

that it was reasonable and practicable to

require an MPCD to mitigate possible

adverse environmental effects from the

discharge.

For each discharge that was

determined to have the potential to

adversely affect the environment, EPA

and DOD conducted an initial

evaluation of the practicability,

operational impact, and economic cost

of using a MPCD to control each

discharge. EPA and DOD first

determined whether a control

technology or management practice is

currently in place to control the

discharge for environmental protection

on any vessel type. The use of existing

controls on a vessel was considered

sufficient demonstration that at least

one reasonable and practicable control

is available for at least one vessel type.

(This proposed Phase I UNDS rule does

not address whether existing control

technologies or management practices

are adequate to mitigate potential

adverse impacts. In Phase II of UNDS,

EPA and DOD will promulgate MPCD

performance standards for the

discharges requiring control.) For

discharges without any existing

pollution controls, EPA and DOD

analyzed potential pollution control

options to determine whether it is

reasonable and practicable to require the

use of MPCDs. For every discharge that

was found to have a potential to cause

adverse environmental effects, EPA and

DOD determined that it is reasonable

and practicable to require a MPCD for at

least one vessel type. The results of the

MPCD assessments are presented in the

Technical Development Document.

B. Peer Review

Peer review is a documented critical

review of a scientific and technical work

product. It is an in-depth assessment

that is used to ensure that the final work

product is technically sound. Peer

reviews are conducted by qualified

individuals who are independent of

those who prepared the work product.

For this proposed rule, reviewers were

selected because of their technical

expertise in assessing pollutant behavior

in coastal and estuarine ecosystems,

modeling pollutant concentrations, and

predicting the effects of pollutant

loadings on ambient water quality,

sediments, and biota.

A technical report was prepared for

each of the discharges covered by this

proposed rule. These Nature of

Discharge (NOD) reports include a

discussion of how the discharge is

generated, discharge volumes and

frequencies, where the discharge occurs,

chemical constituents present in the

discharge, and relevant regulatory

information or water quality criteria.

The NOD reports also assess the

potential for a discharge to cause an

adverse environmental effect, and

provide the process and environmental

background information used in

determining whether a particular

discharge warrants control. NOD reports

for each discharge are included as an

appendix to the Technical Development

Document.

NOD reports for five discharges were

selected for peer review. For each of

these discharges, EPA and DOD

determined that it is not reasonable and

practicable to require the use of MPCDs

because they exhibit a low potential for

causing adverse impacts on the marine

environment. Peer reviewers were asked

whether the data and process

information presented in the NOD

reports are sufficient to characterize the

discharges; whether the analyses are

appropriate for the discharges; and

whether the conclusions regarding the

discharges’ potential for causing adverse

environmental impacts are supported by
45308 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

the information presented in the NOD

reports.

Results of the peer review are

compiled in the ‘‘Peer Review

Comments Document for Nature of

Discharge Reports’’ and are available for

review in the rulemaking record. An

initial assessment of the comments does

not indicate any fundamental flaws in

the methodology used by EPA and DOD

to assess a discharge’s potential to cause

adverse impacts on the marine

environment. EPA and DOD will

address the peer review comments prior

to promulgating the final Phase I rule.

C. Discharges Requiring the Use of a

MPCD

For the reasons discussed below, EPA

and DOD have initially determined that

it is reasonable and practicable to

require the use of a MPCD to control 25

discharges from vessels of the Armed

Forces. Except where noted, the

pollutant characteristics of these

discharges indicate a potential to cause

adverse environmental impacts. Table

10 lists those discharges for which EPA

and DOD determined it was reasonable

and practicable to require the use of a

MCPD, and identifies the characteristics

of each discharge that formed the basis

of the determination. The terms

‘‘Chemical Constituents,’’ ‘‘Thermal

Pollution,’’ ‘‘Bioaccumulative

Chemicals of Concern’’ and

‘‘Nonindigenous Species’’ refer to the

four questions described in section V.A.

TABLE 10.—DISCHARGES REQUIRING THE USE OF A MPCD AND THE BASIS FOR THE DETERMINATION.a

Discharge

Chemical constituents

Thermal

pollution

Bioaccumulative

chemicals

of concern

Nonindigenous species

Other

Oil Metals Organic

Chemicals

Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... (b)

Catapult Water Brake Tank Discharge &

Post-Launch Retraction Exhaust ........... X .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Chain Locker Effluent ................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... (c)

Clean Ballast ............................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... X ....................

Compensated Fuel Ballast ........................ X .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Controllable Pitch Propeller Hydraulic

Fluid ....................................................... X .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Deck Runoff .............................................. X .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Dirty Ballast ............................................... X .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine ... .................... X .................... .................... .................... ....................

Elevator Pit Overboard Discharge ............ X .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Firemain Systems ..................................... .................... X .................... .................... .................... ....................

Gas Turbine Washdown Discharge .......... X .................... X .................... .................... ....................

Graywater .................................................. .................... .................... X .................... .................... ....................

Hull Coating Leachate ............................... .................... X .................... .................... .................... ....................

Motor Gasoline Compensated Overboard

Discharge ............................................... X .................... .................... .................... X ....................

Non-oily Machinery Wastewater ............... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... (d)

Photographic Laboratory Drains ............... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... (d)

Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge .. .................... X .................... X .................... ....................

Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention ..... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... (e)

Small Boat Engine Wet .............................

Exhaust ..................................................... .................... .................... X .................... .................... ....................

Sonar Dome Discharge ............................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... (c)

Submarine Bilge Water ............................. X .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Surface Vessel Bilge Water/Oil-Water

Separator ...............................................

Discharges ................................................ X .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Underwater Ship Husbandry ..................... .................... X .................... .................... X ....................

Welldeck Discharges ................................. X .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Notes:

(a)This table provides a simplified overview of the basis for requiring the use of MPCDs for particular discharges. It is not intended to fully characterize the discharges or describe the analyses leading to the decision. More complete characterizations of the discharges and the analyses

leading to the decisions are presented in section V.C. and in the appendices of the Technical Development Document. (b) Discharge may produce floating foam in violation of some State water quality standards. (c) Discharge was determined to have a low potential to adversely affect the environment, but an existing MPCD is in place on at least one type

of vessel to reduce this low potential even further. (d) No conclusion was drawn on the potential of the discharge to adversely affect the environment, but EPA and DOD determined a MPCD is

reasonable and practicable to mitigate any possible adverse effects. (e) Chlorine and chlorination byproducts.

For this Phase I proposed rule, EPA

and DOD identified at least one

potential MPCD control option for each

discharge that could mitigate the

environmental impacts of the discharge

from at least one class of Armed Forces

vessel. In Phase II of the UNDS

rulemaking, EPA and DOD will perform

a more detailed assessment of MPCD

control options. EPA and DOD will

consider options that are being

evaluated as part of research and

development programs in addition to

those that are currently available. EPA

and DOD will evaluate MPCDs for all

classes of vessels and promulgate the

specific performance standards for each

MPCD that are reasonable and

practicable for that class of vessel. In

developing specific MPCD performance

standards, EPA and DOD will consider

the same factors considered in Phase I.

The Phase II rule may distinguish

among vessel types and sizes, between

new and existing vessels, and may

waive the applicability of Phase II

standards as necessary or appropriate to

a particular type or age of vessel (see

CWA section 312(n)(3)(B)).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45309

The definition of a marine pollution

control device, or MPCD, as used in this

proposed rule is a control technology or

a management practice that can

reasonably and practicably be installed

or otherwise used on a vessel of the

Armed Forces to receive, retain, treat,

control or discharge a discharge

incidental to the normal operation of the

vessel.

The discussions below provide a brief

description of the discharges and the

systems that produce the discharges

EPA and DOD propose to control. The

discussions highlight the most

significant constituents released to the

environment, and describes the current

practice, if any, to prevent or minimize

environmental effects. Because of the

diversity of vessel types and designs,

these control practices are usually not

uniformly applied to all vessels

generating the discharge. In addition,

these controls do not necessarily

represent the only control options

available. The discharges are described

in more detail in Appendix A of the

Technical Development Document.

1. Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF)

This discharge consists of a mixture of

seawater and firefighting foam

discharged during training, testing, and

maintenance operations. Aqueous film

forming foam (AFFF) is the primary

firefighting agent used to extinguish

flammable liquid fires on surface ships

of the Armed Forces. AFFF is stored on

vessels as a concentrated liquid that is

mixed with seawater to create the

diluted solution (3–6% AFFF) that is

sprayed as a foam on the fire. The

solution is applied with both fire hoses

and fixed sprinkler devices. During

planned maintenance of firefighting

systems, system testing and inspections,

and flight deck certifications, the

seawater/foam solution is discharged

either directly overboard from hoses, or

onto flight decks and then subsequently

washed overboard. These discharges are

considered incidental to the normal

operation of Armed Forces vessels.

Discharges of AFFF that occur during

firefighting or other shipboard

emergency situations are not incidental

to normal operations and are not subject

to the requirements of this proposed

rule.

AFFF is discharged from all Navy

ships, those MSC ships capable of

supporting helicopter operations, and

Coast Guard cutters, icebreakers, and

tugs. AFFF discharges generally occur at

distances greater than 12 n.m. from

shore, and in all cases more than 3 n.m.

from shore due to existing Armed

Forces operating instructions. The

constituents of AFFF include water,

bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 2-(2-

butoxyethoxy)-ethanol, urea, alkyl

sulfate salts, amphoteric

fluoroalkylamide derivative,

perfluoroalkyl sulfonate salts,

triethanolamine, and methyl-1Hbenzotriazole. Because the water used to

mix with the AFFF concentrate comes

from the vessel’s firemain, the discharge

will also include nitrogen (measured as

total Kjeldahl nitrogen), copper, nickel,

and iron from the firemain piping.

The AFFF discharge produces an

aqueous foam intended to cool and

smother fires. Water quality criteria for

some States include narrative

requirements for waters to be free of

floating materials attributable to

domestic, industrial, or other

controllable sources, or include

narrative criteria prohibiting discharges

of foam. AFFF discharges in State

waters would be expected to result in

violating such narrative criteria for foam

or floating materials. At present, the

Navy uses certain management practices

to control these discharges, including a

self-imposed prohibition on AFFF

discharges in coastal waters by most

Armed Forces vessels. These

management practices to control

discharges of AFFF demonstrate the

availability of a MPCD to mitigate the

potential adverse impacts that could

result from the discharge of AFFF.

Therefore, EPA and DOD have

determined that it is reasonable and

practicable to require use of a MPCD for

this discharge.

AFFF discharges occur beyond 3 n.m.

but within 12 n.m. from shore

infrequently and in relatively small

volumes, and the diluted (3–6%) AFFF

solution is not believed to exhibit

significant toxic effects. Further, any

discharges that do occur take place

while the vessel is underway and will

be dispersed in the turbulence of the

vessel wake.

2. Catapult Water Brake Tank and PostLaunch Retraction Exhaust

This intermittent discharge is the oily

water skimmed from the catapult water

brake tank, and the condensed steam

discharged when the catapult is

retracted. Catapult water brakes are used

to stop the forward movement of the

steam-propelled catapults used to

launch aircraft from Navy aircraft

carriers. The catapult water brake

system includes a water brake tank that

contains freshwater, and water brake

cylinders . During flight operations,

water from the catapult water brake tank

is continuously injected into the

catapult water brake cylinders. At the

end of a launch stroke, spears located on

the front of the catapult pistons enter

the water brake cylinders. The water in

the cylinders builds pressure ahead of

the spears, cushioning the catapult

pistons to a stop. The catapult brake

water is continuously circulated

between the catapult water brake tank

and the catapult water brake cylinders.

Prior to the launch stroke, lubricating

oil is applied to the catapult cylinder

through which the catapult piston and

piston spear are driven. As the catapult

piston is driven forward during the

launch stroke, the catapult piston and

spear carries lubricating oil from the

catapult cylinder into the water brake

cylinder at the end of the stroke. Over

the course of multiple launchings, the

oil and water circulating through the

water brake cylinder and tank leads to

the formation of an oil layer in the water

brake tank. The oil layer can adversely

affect water brake operation by

interfering with the cooling of water in

the water brake tank. To prevent

excessive heat buildup in the tank, the

oil is periodically skimmed off and

discharged overboard. Additionally, as

the catapult piston is retracted following

the launch, expended steam from the

catapult launch stroke and some

residual lubricating oil from the catapult

cylinder walls are discharged below the

waterline through a separate exhaust

pipe.

Only aircraft carriers generate this

discharge. Catapult operations during

normal flight operations generate both

the water brake tank discharge and the

post-launch retraction exhaust;

however, flight operations take place

beyond 12 n.m. from shore. Catapult

testing which occurs within 12 n.m.

always discharges the post-launch

retraction exhaust, but usually does not

add sufficient quantities of oil to the

water brake tank to require skimming.

The water brake tank is used within

12 n.m. for dead-load catapult shots

when testing catapults on new aircraft

carriers, and following major drydock

overhauls or major catapult

modifications. This testing requires a

minimum of 60 dead-load shots each

and may occur over a period of several

days within 12 n.m. from shore. New

carrier testing occurs only once, and

major overhauls generally occur on 5- to

7-year cycles in conjunction with

drydocking. Major modifications to

catapults may occur during an overhaul

or pierside and are also infrequent

events. Carriers also routinely perform

no-load shots when leaving port. The

number of no-load shots conducted

when leaving port, however, usually do

not add enough lubricating oil to the

water brake tank to require skimming

the oil while the ship is within 12 n.m.

from shore.
45310 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

The water brake tank and post-launch

retraction exhaust discharges include

lubricating oil, a limited thermal load

associated with the heated oil and water

(or condensed steam, in the case of the

post-launch retraction exhaust),

nitrogen (in the form of ammonia,

nitrates and nitrites, and total Kjeldahl

nitrogen), and metals such as copper

and nickel from the piping systems.

EPA and DOD analyzed the thermal

effects of this discharge and concluded

they were unlikely to exceed thermal

mixing zone criteria in the States where

aircraft carriers most frequently operate.

The post-launch retraction exhaust

discharge can contain oil, copper, lead,

nickel, ammonia, bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate, phosphorus, and

benzidine in concentrations exceeding

State acute water quality criteria. The

post-launch retraction exhaust discharge

can also contain nitrogen in

concentrations exceeding the most

stringent State water quality criteria.

The Navy has imposed operational

controls limiting the amount of oil

applied to the catapult cylinder during

the launch stroke, which directly affects

the amount of oil that is subsequently

discharged from the water brake tank or

during the post-launch retraction

exhaust. The Navy has also established

requirements dictating when catapult

testing is required within 12 n.m. from

shore. These operational constraints

minimize discharges of oil from the

water brake tank and post-launch

retraction exhaust in coastal waters.

These existing management practices

demonstrate the availability of controls

for this discharge. Therefore, EPA and

DOD have determined that it is

reasonable and practicable to require

use of a MPCD to mitigate potential

adverse environmental impacts from

this discharge.

3. Chain Locker Effluent

This discharge consists of

accumulated precipitation and seawater

that is occasionally emptied from the

compartment used to store the vessel’s

anchor chain.

The chain locker is a compartment

used to store anchor chain aboard

vessels. Navy policy requires that the

anchor chain, appendages, and anchor

on Navy surface vessels be washed

down with seawater during retrieval to

prevent onboard accumulation of

sediment. During washdown, some

water adheres to the chain and is

brought into the chain locker as the

chain is stored. The chain locker sump

accumulates the residual water and

debris that drains from the chain

following anchor chain washdown and

retrieval, or washes into the chain

locker during heavy weather. Water

accumulating in the chain locker sump

is removed by a drainage eductor

powered by the shipboard firemain

system.

All Armed Forces vessels housing

their anchor chains in lockers, except

submarines, can generate this discharge.

Since submarine chain lockers are

always open to the sea, water is always

present in the chain locker and there is

no ‘‘collected’’ water to be discharged as

effluent. Navy policy prohibits

discharging chain locker effluent within

12 n.m. Other vessels of the Armed

Forces are currently authorized to

discharge chain locker effluent within

12 n.m.; however, most Armed Forces

vessels also observe the 12 n.m.

discharge prohibition. A recent review

of practices on several Navy ships found

no water accumulation in the chain

locker sump, and the ships’ crew

confirmed that discharges of chain

locker effluent occur outside 12 n.m.

In addition to water, materials

collecting in the chain locker sump can

include paint chips, rust, grease, and

other debris. Chain locker effluent may

contain organic and inorganic

compounds associated with this debris,

as well as metals from the sump and

from sacrificial anodes installed in the

chain locker to provide cathodic

protection. If the anchor chain

washdown is not performed and the

chain locker effluent is subsequently

discharged in a different port, the

discharge could potentially transport

nonindigenous species. Discharge

volume will vary depending upon the

frequency of anchoring operations, the

number of anchors used, and the depth

of water (which determines the amount

of chain that will be lowered into the

water).

Given the manner in which water

collects in the chain locker sump and

remains there for extended periods of

time, it is possible that the discharge

could contain elevated levels of metals

at concentrations exceeding State water

quality criteria. However, given the

small volume of the discharge and the

infrequency of anchoring operations, it

is unlikely that discharges of chain

locker effluent would adversely impact

the environment. Nevertheless, the

Navy and other Armed Forces already

have management practices in place for

most vessels requiring anchors and

anchor chains to be washed down with

seawater during retrieval, and

prohibiting the discharge of chain locker

effluent until beyond 12 n.m. from

shore. DOD has chosen as a matter of

policy to continue prohibiting the

discharge of chain locker effluent within

12 n.m. from shore. This prohibition,

while not considered necessary to

mitigate an existing or potential adverse

impact, will eliminate the possibility of

discharging into coastal waters any

metals, other contaminants, or

nonindigenous aquatic species that may

have accumulated in the chain locker

sump. EPA and DOD have determined

that the existing management practices

demonstrate that it is reasonable and

practicable to require use of a MPCD for

chain locker effluent.

4. Clean Ballast

This discharge is composed of the

seawater taken into, and discharged

from, dedicated ballast tanks used to

maintain the stability of the vessel and

to adjust the buoyancy of submarines.

Many types of Armed Forces vessels

store clean ballast in dedicated tanks in

order to adjust a vessel’s draft,

buoyancy, trim, and list. Clean ballast

may consist of seawater taken directly

onboard into the ballast tanks or

seawater received from the vessel’s

firemain system. Clean ballast differs

from ‘‘dirty ballast’’ and ‘‘compensated

ballast’’ discharges (described below) in

that clean ballast is not stored in tanks

that are also used to hold fuel. Many

surface vessels introduce clean ballast

into tanks to replace the weight of offloaded cargo or expended fuel to

improve vessel stability while

navigating on the high seas.

Amphibious ships also flood clean

ballast tanks during landing craft

operations to lower the ship’s stern,

allowing the well deck to be accessed.

Submarines introduce clean ballast into

their main ballast tanks when

submerging, and introduce clean ballast

into their variable ballast tanks to make

minor adjustments to buoyancy, trim,

and list while operating submerged or

surfaced. The discharge occurs when

fuel or cargo is taken on and the ballast

is no longer needed, when amphibious

operations are concluded and the vessel

is returned to its normal operating draft,

when submarines surface, or when

submarines make some operational

adjustments in trim or list while

submerged or surfaced.

Clean ballast discharges are

intermittent and can occur at any

distance from shore, including within

12 n.m. Constituents of clean ballast can

include materials from tank coatings

(e.g., epoxy), chemical additives (e.g.,

flocculant chemicals or rust inhibitors),

and metals from piping systems and

sacrificial anodes used to control

corrosion. Based on analytical data for

firemain system discharges, metals

expected to be present in the discharge

include copper, nickel, and zinc. These

data indicate that the pollutant
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45311

concentrations in the discharge may

exceed State water quality criteria.

Previous studies have documented

the potential of ballasting operations to

transfer nonindigenous aquatic species

into receiving waters. Ballast water

potentially contains living

microorganisms, plants, and animals

that are native to the location where the

water was pumped aboard. When the

ballast water is transported to another

port or coastal area and discharged, the

surviving organisms are released and

have the potential to invade and impact

the local ecosystem.

The Navy, MSC, and Coast Guard

either currently implement or are in the

process of approving a ballast water

management policy requiring openocean ballast water exchange, based on

guidelines established by the

International Maritime Organization

(Guidelines for Preventing the

Introduction of Unwanted Aquatic

Organisms and Pathogens from Ships’

Ballast Water and Sediment Discharge,

10 May 1995). These management

practices demonstrate the availability of

controls to mitigate the potential

adverse environmental impacts from

this discharge. Therefore, EPA and DOD

have determined that it is reasonable

and practicable to require a MPCD for

discharges of clean ballast.

5. Compensated Fuel Ballast

This intermittent discharge is

composed of the seawater taken into,

and discharged from, tanks designed to

hold both fuel and ballast water to

maintain the stability of the vessel.

Compensated fuel ballast systems are

configured as a series of fuel tanks that

automatically draw in seawater to

replace fuel as it is consumed. Keeping

the fuel tanks full in this manner

enhances the stability of a vessel by

using the weight of the seawater to

compensate for the mass of ballast lost

through fuel consumption. During

refueling, fuel displaces the seawater,

and the displaced seawater is

discharged overboard.

Compensated fuel ballast is

discharged by approximately 165 Navy

surface vessels and submarines. Surface

ships with compensated fuel ballast

systems discharge directly to surface

waters each time they refuel. Surface

vessels are refueled both inport and at

sea. All at-sea refueling is accomplished

beyond 12 n.m. from shore. For

submarines, refueling occurs only in

port and the compensated ballast is

transferred to shore facilities for

treatment and disposal.

The compensated fuel ballast

discharge can contain acrolein,

phosphorus, thallium, oil (and its

constituents, such as benzene, phenol,

and toluene), copper, mercury (a

bioaccumulative chemical of concern),

nickel, silver, and zinc. Concentrations

of acrolein, benzene, copper, nickel,

silver, and zinc can exceed acute

Federal criteria or State acute water

quality criteria. The compensated fuel

ballast discharge can also contain

nitrogen (in the form of ammonia,

nitrates and nitrites, and total Kjeldahl

nitrogen) in concentrations exceeding

the most stringent State water quality

criteria.

To reduce the discharge of fuel in

compensated fuel ballast discharge, the

Navy has instituted operational

guidelines intended to reduce the

potential for overfilling tanks or

discharging excessive amounts of fuel

entrained in the displaced

compensating water while refueling

surface vessels. These guidelines limit

the amount of fuel that can be taken on

in port (i.e., to prevent ‘‘topping off’’ the

fuel tanks) and establish maximum

allowable rates for inport refueling.

Additionally, submarines transfer all

compensated fuel ballast water to shore

facilities when refueling diesel fuel oil

tanks. These operational controls for

surface vessel refueling and the practice

of transferring the discharge to shore for

submarines demonstrates the

availability of MPCDs to mitigate

potential adverse environmental

impacts; therefore, EPA and DOD have

determined it is reasonable and

practicable to require the use of a MPCD

for compensated fuel ballast.

6. Controllable Pitch Propeller

Hydraulic Fluid

This discharge is the hydraulic fluid

that discharges into the surrounding

seawater from propeller seals as part of

normal operation, and the hydraulic

fluid released during routine

maintenance of the propellers.

Controllable pitch propellers (CPP)

are used to control a vessel’s speed or

direction while maintaining constant

propulsion plant output (i.e., varying

the pitch, or ‘‘bite,’’ of the propeller

blades allows the propulsion shaft to

remain turning at a constant speed). CPP

blade pitch is controlled hydraulically

through a system of pumps, pistons, and

gears. Hydraulic oil may be released

from CPP assemblies under three

conditions: leakage through CPP seals,

releases during underwater CPP repair

and maintenance activities, or releases

from equipment used for CPP blade

replacement.

Over 200 Armed Forces vessels have

CPP systems. Leakage through CPP seals

can occur within 12 n.m., but seal

leakage is more likely to occur while the

vessel is underway than while pierside

or at anchor because the CPP system

operates under higher pressure when a

vessel is underway. Blade replacement

occurs inport on an as-needed basis

when dry-docking is unavailable or

impractical, resulting in some discharge

of hydraulic oil. Approximately 30

blade replacements and blade port cover

removals (for maintenance) are

conducted annually, fleetwide.

CPP assemblies are designed to

operate at 400 psi without leaking.

Typical pressures while pierside range

from 6 to 8 psi. CPP seals are designed

to last five to seven years, which is the

longest period between dry-dock cycles,

and are inspected quarterly to check for

damage or excessive wear. Because of

the hub design and the frequent CPP

seal inspections, leaks of hydraulic oil

from CPP hubs are expected to be

negligible. During the procedure for CPP

blade replacement, however, hydraulic

oil is released to the environment from

tools and other equipment. In addition,

hydraulic oil could also leak from the

CPP hub during a CPP blade port cover

removal.

The Navy’s repair procedures impose

certain requirements during blade

replacement and blade port cover

removal to minimize the amount of

hydraulic oil released to the extent

possible. In addition, booms are placed

around the aft end of the vessel to

contain possible oil release during these

procedures. Nevertheless, EPA and DOD

believe that the amount of hydraulic oil

released during underwater CPP

maintenance could create an oil sheen

and exceed State water quality criteria.

Constituents of the discharge could

include paraffins, olefins, and metals

such as copper, aluminum, tin, nickel,

and lead. Metal concentrations are

expected to be low because hydraulic

oil is not corrosive, and the hydraulic

oil is continually filtered to protect

against system failures.

EPA and DOD have determined that

pollution controls are necessary to

mitigate the potential adverse

environmental impacts that could result

from releases of hydraulic oil during

underwater maintenance on controllable

pitch propellers. The existing repair

procedures and the staging of

containment booms and oil skimming

equipment to capture released oil

demonstrate the availability of MPCDs

(i.e., best management practices) for this

discharge. Therefore, EPA and DOD

have determined that it is reasonable

and practicable to require MPCDs to

control discharges of CPP hydraulic

fluid.
45312 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

17. Deck Runoff

Deck runoff is an intermittent

discharge generated when water from

precipitation, freshwater washdowns, or

seawater falls on the exposed portion of

a vessel such as a weather deck or flight

deck. This water is discharged

overboard through deck openings and

washes overboard any residues that may

be present on the deck surface. The

runoff drains overboard to receiving

waters through numerous deck

openings. All vessels of the Armed

Forces produce deck runoff, and this

discharge occurs whenever the deck

surface is exposed to water, both within

and beyond 12 n.m.

Contaminants present on the deck

originate from topside equipment

components and the many varied

activities that take place on the deck.

This discharge can include residues of

gasoline, diesel fuel, Naval distillate

fuel, grease, hydraulic fluid, soot, dirt,

paint, glycol, cleaners such as sodium

metasilicates, and solvents. A number of

metal and organic pollutants may be

present in the discharge, including

silver, cadmium, chromium, copper,

nickel, lead, benzene, ethylbenzene,

toluene, xylene, polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons, and phenol. Mass

loadings and concentrations of these

constituents will vary with a number of

factors including ship operations, deck

washdown frequency, and the

frequency, duration, and intensity of

precipitation events.

Based on the results from limited

sampling from catapult troughs (a

component of runoff from aircraft

carrier flight decks), oil and grease,

phenols, chromium, cadmium, nickel,

and lead could be present in this

discharge at levels exceeding acute

Federal criteria and State acute water

quality criteria. If not properly

controlled, oil collecting in catapult

troughs can cause deck runoff from

aircraft carrier flight decks to create an

oil sheen on the surface of the receiving

water, which would violate State water

quality criteria. Armed Forces vessels

already institute certain management

practices intended to reduce the amount

of pollutants discharged in deck runoff,

including keeping weather decks

cleared of debris, immediately mopping

up and cleaning spills and residues, and

engaging in spill prevention practices.

These practices demonstrate the

availability of controls to mitigate

adverse impacts from deck runoff.

Therefore, EPA and DOD have

determined it is reasonable and

practicable to require a MPCD for deck

runoff.

8. Dirty Ballast

This intermittent discharge is

composed of the seawater taken into,

and discharged from, empty fuel tanks

to maintain the stability of the vessel.

The seawater is brought into these tanks

for the purpose of improving the

stability of a vessel during rough sea

conditions. Prior to taking on the

seawater as ballast, fuel in the tank to

be ballasted is transferred to another

fuel tank or holding tank to prevent

contaminating the fuel with seawater.

Some residual fuel remains in the tank

and mixes with the seawater to form

dirty ballast. Dirty ballast systems are

configured differently from

compensated ballast and clean ballast

systems. Compensated ballast systems

continuously replace fuel with seawater

in a system of tanks as the fuel is

consumed. Clean ballast systems have

tanks that carry only ballast water and

are never in contact with fuel. In a dirty

ballast system, water is added to a fuel

tank after most of the fuel is removed.

Thirty Coast Guard vessels generate

dirty ballast as a discharge incidental to

normal vessel operations. These Coast

Guard vessels do so because their size

and design do not allow for a sufficient

volume of clean ballast tanks. The larger

of these vessels discharge the dirty

ballast at distances beyond 12 n.m. from

shore, while the smaller vessels are

cutters that discharge the dirty ballast

between 3 and 12 n.m. from shore. Coast

Guard vessels monitor the dirty ballast

discharge with an oil content monitor.

If the dirty ballast exceeds 15 ppm oil,

it is treated in an oil-water separator

prior to discharge.

Expected constituents of dirty ballast

are Naval distillate fuel or aviation fuel.

Based on sampling results for

compensated fuel ballast, which is

expected to have similar constituents to

dirty ballast, this discharge can contain

oil (and its constituents such as benzene

and toluene); biocidal fuel additives;

metals such as copper, mercury (a

bioaccumulative chemical of concern),

nickel, silver, and zinc; and the

pollutants acrolein, nitrogen (in the

form of ammonia and total Kjeldahl

nitrogen), and phosphorus.

Uncontrolled discharges of dirty

ballast would be expected to exceed

acute Federal criteria or State acute

water quality criteria for oil, benzene,

phenol, copper, nickel, silver, and zinc.

Concentrations of nitrogen would be

expected to exceed the most stringent

State water quality criteria. The use of

oil content monitors and oil-water

separators to reduce the concentration

of oil (and associated constituents)

demonstrates the availability of MPCDs

to control this discharge. Therefore, EPA

and DOD have determined that it is

reasonable and practicable to require the

use of MPCDs to control discharges of

dirty ballast.

9. Distillation and Reverse Osmosis

Brine

This intermittent discharge is the

concentrated seawater (brine) produced

as a byproduct of the processes used to

generate freshwater from seawater.

Distillation and reverse osmosis

plants are two types of water

purification systems that generate

freshwater from seawater for a variety of

shipboard applications, including

potable water for drinking and hotel

services, and high-purity feedwater for

boilers. Distillation plants boil seawater,

and the resulting steam is condensed

into high-purity distilled water. The

remaining seawater concentrate, or

‘‘brine,’’ that is not evaporated is

discharged overboard. Reverse osmosis

systems separate freshwater from

seawater using semi-permeable

membranes as a physical barrier,

allowing a portion of the seawater to

pass through the membrane as

freshwater and concentrating the

suspended and dissolved constituents

in a saltwater brine that is subsequently

discharged overboard.

Distillation or reverse osmosis

systems are installed on approximately

540 Armed Forces vessels. This

discharge can occur in port, while

transiting to or from port, or while

operating anywhere at sea (including

within 12 n.m.). Distillation plants on

steam-powered vessels may be operated

to produce boiler feedwater any time a

vessel’s boilers are operating; however,

operational policy limits its use in port

for producing potable water because of

the increased risk of biofouling from the

water in harbors and the reduced

demand for potable water. MSC steampowered vessels typically operate one

evaporator while in port to produce

boiler feedwater; most diesel and gasturbine powered MSC vessels do not

operate water purification systems

within 12 n.m.

Pollutants detected in distillation and

reverse osmosis brine include copper,

iron, lead, nickel, selenium, and zinc.

The sampling data indicate that copper,

lead, nickel and iron can exceed acute

Federal criteria and State acute water

quality criteria. The distillation and

reverse osmosis brine discharge can also

contain nitrogen (in the form of

ammonia) and phosphorus in

concentrations exceeding the most

stringent State water quality criteria.

The mass loadings of copper and iron

are estimated to be significant. Thermal
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45313

effects modeling of distillation plant

discharges indicates that the thermal

plume does not exceed State water

quality criteria.

Review of existing practices indicate

that certain operational controls limiting

the use of distillation plants and reverse

osmosis units can reduce the potential

for this discharge to cause adverse

environmental impacts in some

instances. Additionally, it appears that,

for some vessels, reverse osmosis units

may present an acceptable alternative to

the use of distillation plants. Reverse

osmosis units discharge brines are

expected to contain lower

concentrations of metals because these

systems have non-metallic membranes

and ambient operating temperatures,

resulting in less system corrosion.

Further analysis is necessary before

determining whether distillation plants

should be replaced by reverse osmosis

units. Nevertheless, existing operational

practices for distillation and reverse

osmosis plants and the availability of

reverse osmosis units to replace

distillation units on some vessels

demonstrates the availability of MPCDs

to reduce the effects of this discharge.

Therefore, EPA and DOD have

determined that it is reasonable and

practicable to require MPCD controls for

discharges of distillation plant and

reverse osmosis brines.

10. Elevator Pit Effluent

This discharge is the liquid that

accumulates in, and is occasionally

discharged from, the sumps of elevator

wells on vessels. Most large surface

ships have at least one type of elevator

used to transport supplies, equipment,

and personnel between different decks

of the vessel. These elevators generally

can be classified as either a closed

design in which the elevator operates in

a shaft, or an open design used to move

aircraft between decks. Elevators

operating in a shaft are similar to the

conventional design seen in many

buildings. For these elevators, a sump is

located in the elevator pit to collect

liquids entering the elevator and shaft

areas. Deck runoff and elevator

equipment maintenance activities are

the primary sources of liquids entering

the sump. On some vessels, the elevator

sump is equipped with a drain to direct

liquid wastes overboard. On others,

piping is installed that allows an

eductor to pump the pit effluent

overboard. However, most vessels

collect and containerize the pit effluent

for disposal onshore or process it along

with their bilgewater.

The elevators used on aircraft carriers

to move aircraft and helicopters from

one deck to another are an open design

(i.e., there is no elevator shaft). The

elevator platform is supported by cables

and pulleys, and it operates on either

the port or starboard side of the ship

away from the hull. Unlike elevators

with pits, the aircraft elevators are

exposed to the water below and there

are no systems in place for collecting

liquid wastes.

Coast Guard, Army and Air Force

vessels do not have elevators and

therefore do not produce this discharge.

The discharge of elevator pit effluent

may occur at any location, within or

beyond 12 n.m. from shore. Constituents

in elevator pit effluent are likely to

include grease, lubricating oil, fuel,

hydraulic fluid, cleaning solvents, dirt,

paint chips, aqueous film forming foam,

glycol, and sodium metasilicate. The

discharge can also contain nitrogen

(measured as total Kjeldahl nitrogen)

and metals from firemain water used to

operate eductors draining the elevator

pit.

The concentrations of copper, nickel,

and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in

firemain water (discussed below in

section V.C.11) may exceed acute

Federal criteria or State acute water

quality criteria. The elevator pit effluent

discharge can also contain nitrogen in

concentrations exceeding the most

stringent State water quality criteria.

Constituent concentrations and mass

loadings vary among ship classes

depending on the frequency of elevator

use, the size of the elevator openings,

the amount and concentration of deck

runoff, and the frequency of elevator

equipment maintenance activities.

Material accumulated in elevator pits is

either collected for disposal onshore or

directed to the bilgewater system for

treatment through an oil-water separator

prior to discharge. These existing

practices demonstrate the availability of

controls to reduce the potential for this

discharge to cause adverse impacts on

the environment. Therefore, EPA and

DOD have determined that it is

reasonable and practicable to require

MPCDs for elevator pit effluent.

11. Firemain Systems

This discharge is the seawater

pumped through the firemain system for

firemain testing, maintenance, and

training, and to supply water for the

operation of certain vessel systems.

Firemain systems distribute seawater

for firefighting and other services aboard

ship. Firemain water is provided for

firefighting through fire hose stations,

sprinkler systems, and foam

proportioners, which inject aqueous

film forming foam (AFFF) into firemain

water for distribution over flammable

liquid spills or fire. Firemain water is

also directed to other services including

ballast systems, machinery cooling,

lubrication, and anchor chain

washdown. Discharges of firemain water

incidental to normal vessel operations

include anchor chain washdown,

firemain testing, various maintenance

and training activities, bypass flow from

the firemain pumps to prevent

overheating, and cooling of auxiliary

machinery equipment (e.g., refrigeration

plants). UNDS does not apply to

discharges of firemain water that occur

during firefighting or other shipboard

emergency situations because they are

not incidental to the normal operation

of a vessel.

Firemain systems aboard Armed

Forces vessels are classified as either

wet or dry. Wet firemain systems are

continuously charged with water and

pressurized so that the system is

available to provide water upon

demand. Dry firemains are not

continuously charged with water, and

consequently do not supply water upon

demand. Dry firemain systems are

periodically tested and are pressurized

during maintenance or training

exercises, or during actual emergencies.

With the exception of small boats and

craft, all Armed Forces vessels use

firemain systems. All Navy surface

ships and some MSC vessels use wet

firemain systems. Submarines and all

Army and Coast Guard vessels use dry

firemains. Firemain system discharges

occur both within and beyond 12 n.m.

from shore. Flow rates depend upon the

type, number, and operating time of the

equipment and systems using water

from the firemain system.

Samples were collected from three

vessels with wet firemain systems and

analyzed to determine the constituents

present. Because of longer contact times

between seawater and the piping in wet

firemains, and the use of zinc anodes in

some seachests and heat exchangers to

control corrosion, pollutant

concentrations in wet firemains are

expected to be higher than those in dry

firemain systems. Pollutants detected in

the firemain discharge include nitrogen

(measured as total Kjeldahl nitrogen),

copper, nickel, iron, zinc, and bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate. The

concentrations of iron exceeded the

most stringent State chronic water

quality criteria. Copper, nickel, and

bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

concentrations exceeded both the

chronic Federal criteria and State

chronic water quality criteria. The

concentrations of nitrogen exceeded the

most stringent State water quality

criteria. These concentrations contribute

to a significant total mass loading in the

discharge due to the large volume of
45314 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

water discharged from wet firemain

systems. Circulation through heat

exchangers to cool auxiliary machinery

increases the temperature of the

firemain water, but the resulting thermal

effects do not exceed State mixing zone

criteria.

Firemain systems have a low potential

for transporting nonindigenous aquatic

species, primarily because the systems

do not transport large volumes of water

over great distances. In addition,

stagnant portions of the firemain tend to

develop anaerobic conditions which are

inhospitable to most marine organisms.

EPA and DOD believe that dry

firemain systems may offer one means

for reducing the total mass of pollutants

discharged from firemain systems. The

use of dry firemains for Coast Guard

vessels demonstrates that, for at least

some types of vessels, this option may

be an available control mechanism.

Another possible MPCD option for

achieving pollutant reductions is the

use of alternative piping systems (i.e.,

different metallurgy) that provide lower

rates of pipe wall corrosion and erosion.

The use of dry firemains and the

potential offered by alternative piping

systems demonstrates the availability of

controls to mitigate potential adverse

impacts on the environment. Therefore,

EPA and DOD have determined that it

is reasonable and practicable to require

the use of a MPCD for firemain systems.

12. Gas Turbine Water Wash

Gas turbine water wash consists of

water periodically discharged while

cleaning internal and external

components of propulsion and auxiliary

gas turbines. Approximately 155 Armed

Forces vessels use gas turbines for either

propulsion or auxiliary power

generation. Gas turbine water wash is

generated within 12 n.m. and varies by

the type of gas turbine and the amount

of time it is operated. Because the drain

collecting system is limited in size,

discharges may occur within 12 n.m. On

most gas turbine Navy and MSC ships,

gas turbine water wash is collected in a

dedicated collection tank and is not

discharged overboard within 12 n.m. On

ships without a dedicated collection

tank, this discharge is released as a

component of deck runoff, welldeck

discharges, or bilgewater.

Expected constituents of gas turbine

water wash are synthetic lubricating oil,

grease, solvent-based cleaning products,

hydrocarbon combustion by-products,

salts from the marine environment, and

metals leached from metallic turbine

surfaces. The concentration of

naphthalene (from solvents) in the

discharge is expected to exceed acute

Federal criteria and State acute water

quality criteria. Copper, nickel, and

cadmium are also expected to be present

in the discharge, but at concentrations

below the acute Federal criteria and

State acute water quality criteria. To

limit the impacts of gas turbine water

wash discharge while operating in

coastal areas, most vessels direct the

discharge to a dedicated holding tank

for shore disposal. This containment

procedure demonstrates the availability

of controls for this discharge. Therefore,

EPA and DOD have determined that it

is reasonable and practicable to require

the use of a MPCD for gas turbine water

wash.

13. Graywater

Section 312(a)(11) of the CWA defines

graywater as ‘‘galley, bath, and shower

water.’’ Recognizing the physical

constraints of Armed Forces vessels and

the manner in which wastewater is

handled on these vessels, graywater is

more broadly defined for the purposes

of UNDS. For the purposes of this

proposed regulation, the graywater

discharge consists of graywater as

defined in CWA section 312(a)(11), as

well as drainage from laundries, interior

deck drains, water fountains and

miscellaneous shop sinks. All ships,

and some small boats, of the Armed

Forces generate graywater on an

intermittent basis. Graywater discharges

occur both within and beyond 12 n.m.

from shore. Most Armed Forces vessels

collect graywater and transfer it to shore

treatment facilities while pierside. Some

vessel types, however, have minimal or

no graywater collection or holding

capability and discharge the graywater

directly overboard while pierside.

Less than half of all graywater

discharged within 12 n.m. occurs

pierside from vessels lacking graywater

collection holding capability. The

remainder of the discharge in coastal

waters occurs during transit within 12

n.m. from shore. Present in the

discharge are several priority pollutants

including mercury, which is a known

bioaccumulative chemical of concern.

Copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver,

and zinc were detected in

concentrations that exceed acute

Federal criteria and State acute water

quality criteria. Graywater also contains

conventional and nonconventional

pollutants, such as total suspended

solids, biochemical oxygen demand,

chemical oxygen demand, oil, grease,

ammonia, nitrogen, and phosphates.

Due to the large volume of graywater

generated each year, the mass loadings

of these constituents may be significant.

The use of containment systems to

transfer graywater to shore treatment

facilities demonstrates the availability of

controls to mitigate adverse impacts on

the environment. Therefore, EPA and

DOD have determined that it is

reasonable and practicable to require a

MPCD to control graywater discharges.

14. Hull Coating Leachate

This discharge consists of

constituents that leach, dissolve, ablate,

or erode from hull paints into the

surrounding seawater.

Vessel hulls that are continuously

exposed to seawater are typically coated

with a base anti-corrosive coating

covered by an anti-fouling coating. This

coating system prevents corrosion of the

underwater hull structure and, through

either an ablative (eroding or dissolving)

or non-ablative (leaching) action,

releases antifouling compounds. These

compounds inhibit the adhesion of

biological growth to the hull surface.

The coatings on most vessels of the

Armed Forces are either copper- or

tributyl tin (TBT)-based, with copperbased ablative paints being the most

predominant coating system. The

Armed Forces have been phasing out

the use of TBT paints and now it is

found only on approximately 10–20

percent of small boats and craft with

aluminum hulls. Small boats and craft

that spend most of their time out of

water typically do not receive an anticorrosive or anti-fouling coating.

Hull coating leachate is generated

continuously whenever a vessel hull is

exposed to water, within and beyond 12

n.m. from shore. Priority pollutants

expected to be present in this discharge

include copper and zinc. TBT is also

expected to be present in this discharge

for those vessels with TBT paint. The

release rate of the constituents in hull

coating leachate varies with the type of

paint used, water temperature, vessel

speed, and the age of the coating. Using

average release rates derived from

laboratory tests, the wetted surface area

of each vessel, and the number of days

the vessel is located within 12 n.m.,

EPA and DOD estimated the mass of

copper, zinc, and TBT released in the

leachate and concluded that the

discharge has the potential to cause an

adverse environmental effect.

Annual releases of TBT are expected

to decrease since TBT coatings are being

phased out by DOD and the Coast

Guard. Both DOD and the commercial

industry have conducted research on

the use of advanced antifouling coatings

such as easy release coatings (e.g.,

silicone) that resist biofouling when the

vessel is in motion and a critical speed

is reached. The combination of phasing

out TBT paints, the potential to

establish limits on copper release rates

for copper-based coating systems, and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45315

the potential for alternative coating

systems to reduce copper discharges

demonstrates the availability of controls

to mitigate potential environmental

impacts from hull coating leachate.

Thus, EPA and DOD determined that it

is reasonable and practicable to require

use of a MPCD for hull coating leachate.

15. Motor Gasoline Compensating

Discharge

This intermittent discharge consists of

seawater taken into, and discharged

from, motor gasoline tanks. Motor

gasoline (MOGAS) is used to operate

vehicles and equipment stored or

transported on some Navy amphibious

vessels. The MOGAS is stored in a

compensating fuel tank system in which

seawater is automatically added to fuel

tanks as the gasoline is consumed in

order to eliminate free space where

vapors could accumulate. During

refueling, gasoline displaces seawater

from the tanks, and the displaced

seawater is discharged directly

overboard. A compensating system is

used for MOGAS to provide supply

pressure for the gasoline and to keep the

tank full to prevent potentially

explosive gasoline vapors from forming.

The Navy has two classes of vessels

with MOGAS storage tanks. Eleven of

these vessels are homeported in the U.S.

Based on operational practices, vessels

with MOGAS storage tanks typically

refuel once per year, and the refuelings

are always conducted in port. Therefore,

all discharges from the MOGAS

compensating system occur in port.

Seawater in the MOGAS

compensating system is in contact with

the gasoline for long periods of time.

MOGAS discharges are expected to

contain benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene,

phenols, and naphthalenes at

concentrations that exceed acute water

quality criteria.

Specific operating procedures are

followed when refueling MOGAS tanks

to reduce the potential for discharging

gasoline. These procedures require

MOGAS tanks to be filled slowly and

prohibit filling the tanks beyond 80

percent of the total tank capacity.

Containment is placed around hose

connections to contain any releases of

gasoline, and containment booms are

placed in the water around the vessel

being refueled. Diffusers are used within

the tanks to prevent entraining fuel into

the discharged compensating water.

These management practices

demonstrate the availability of controls

to mitigate potential adverse impacts to

the environment. Therefore, EPA and

DOD have determined that it is

reasonable and practicable to require

MPCDs for the MOGAS compensating

discharge.

16. Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater

This intermittent discharge is

composed of water leakage from the

operation of equipment such as

distillation plants, water chillers, valve

packings, water piping, low- and highpressure air compressors, and

propulsion engine jacket coolers. The

discharge is captured in a dedicated

system of drip pans, funnels, and deck

drains to prevent mixing with oily

bilgewater. Only wastewater that is not

expected to contain oil is collected in

this system. Non-oily machinery

wastewater from systems and

equipment located above the waterline

is drained directly overboard. Non-oily

machinery wastewater from systems and

equipment below the waterline is

directed to collection tanks prior to

overboard discharge.

Nuclear-powered Navy surface vessels

and some conventionally-powered

vessels have dedicated non-oily

machinery wastewater systems. Most

other Armed Forces vessels have no

dedicated non-oily machinery

wastewater system, so this type of

wastewater drains directly to the bilge

and is part of the bilgewater discharge.

Non-oily machinery wastewater is

discharged in port, during transit, and at

sea. This discharge is generated

whenever systems or equipment are in

use, and varies in volume according to

ship size and the level of machinery

use.

Pollutants, including copper, nickel,

silver, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

were present in concentrations that

exceed acute Federal criteria or State

acute water quality criteria. Nitrogen (in

the form of ammonia, nitrates and

nitrites, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen) and

total phosphorus were present in

concentrations exceeding the most

stringent State water quality criteria.

Mercury (a bioaccumulative chemical of

concern) was also detected, but at

concentrations that did not exceed

Federal or State water quality criteria.

There was significant variability in

sampling data, and flow rate data were

insufficient for reliably estimating mass

loadings for this discharge. System

design changes to control the types and

numbers of contributing systems and

equipment, and implementation of

management practices to reduce the

generation of non-oily machinery

wastewater are potential options for

reducing the potential impact of this

discharge on the environment. For this

proposed rule, EPA and DOD have

determined that it is reasonable and

practicable to require MPCDs for nonoily machinery wastewater.

17. Photographic Laboratory Drains

This intermittent discharge is

laboratory wastewater resulting from

processing photographic film. Typical

liquid wastes from these activities

include spent film processing chemical

developers, fixer-bath solutions and film

rinse water.

Navy ship classes such as aircraft

carriers, amphibious assault ships, and

submarine tenders have photographic

laboratory facilities, including color,

black-and-white and x-ray photographic

processors. The Coast Guard has two

icebreakers with photographic and x-ray

processing capabilities. The MSC has

two vessels that have photographic

processing equipment onboard, but the

equipment normally is not operated in

U.S. waters. Army, Air Force, and

Marine Corps vessels do not use

photographic equipment aboard their

vessels and therefore do not produce

this discharge.

Photographic laboratory wastes may

be generated within and beyond 12 n.m.

from shore, although current practice is

to collect and hold the waste onboard

within 12 n.m. The volume and

frequency of the waste generation varies

with a vessel’s photographic processing

capabilities, equipment, and operational

objectives.

Expected constituents in

photographic laboratory waste include

acetic acid, aluminum sulfate, ammonia,

boric acid, ethylene glycol, sulfuric

acid, sodium acetate, sodium chloride,

ammonium bromide, aluminum sulfate,

and silver. Concentrations of silver can

exceed acute Federal criteria and State

acute water quality criteria; however,

the existing data are insufficient to

determine whether drainage from

shipboard photographic laboratories has

the potential to cause adverse

environmental effects.

The Navy has adopted guidance to

control photographic laboratory drains,

including containerizing for onshore

disposal all photographic processing

wastes generated within 12 n.m., and is

transitioning to digital photographic

systems. The current handling practices

and the availability of digital

photographic systems demonstrates that

MPCDs are available to mitigate

potential adverse effects, if any, from

photographic laboratory drains.

Therefore, EPA and DOD have

determined that it is reasonable and

practicable to require use of a MPCD for

this discharge.
45316 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

18. Seawater Cooling Overboard

Discharge

This discharge consists of seawater

from a dedicated system that provides

noncontact cooling water for other

vessel systems. The seawater cooling

system continuously provides cooling

water to heat exchangers, removing heat

from main propulsion machinery,

electrical generating plants, and other

auxiliary equipment. The heated

seawater is discharged directly

overboard. With the exception of some

small, non-self-propelled vessels and

service craft, all Armed Forces vessels

discharge seawater from cooling

systems. Typically, the demand for

seawater cooling is continuous and

occurs both within and beyond 12 n.m.

from shore.

Seawater cooling overboard discharge

contains trace materials from seawater

cooling system pipes, valves, seachests,

pumps, and heat exchangers. Pollutants

detected in seawater cooling overboard

discharge include copper, zinc, nickel,

arsenic, chromium, lead, and nitrogen

(in the form of ammonia, nitrates and

nitrities, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen).

Copper, nickel, and silver were detected

in concentrations exceeding both the

chronic Federal criteria and State

chronic water quality criteria. Nitrogen

was detected in concentrations

exceeding the most stringent State water

quality criteria. These concentrations

contribute to a significant total mass

released by this discharge due to the

large volume of cooling water. In

addition, thermal effects modeling

indicate that some vessels may exceed

State thermal mixing zone requirements.

The seawater cooling water system has

a low potential for transporting

nonindigenous species, because the

residence time for most portions of the

system are short. However, a strainer

plate is used to minimize the inflow of

larger biota during system operation.

The strainer plate is periodically

cleaned using low pressure air or steam

to dislodge any accumulated material.

This procedure may result in releasing

biota that have attached to the plate.

A potential MPCD option for

achieving pollutant reductions is the

use of alternative piping systems (i.e.,

different metallurgy) that provide lower

rates of pipe wall corrosion and erosion.

The potential substitution of materials

demonstrates the availability of controls

to mitigate potential adverse impacts on

the environment. Based on this

information, EPA and DOD have

determined that it is reasonable and

practicable to require use of a MPCD for

this discharge.

19. Seawater Piping Biofouling

Prevention

This discharge consists of the

additives used to prevent the growth

and attachment of biofouling organisms

in seawater cooling systems on selected

vessels, as well as the reaction

byproducts resulting from the use of

these additives. Aboard some vessels,

active biofouling control systems are

used to control biological fouling of

surfaces within the seawater cooling

systems. Generally, these active

biofouling control systems are used

when the cooling system piping does

not have inherent antifouling properties

(e.g., titanium piping). The most

common seawater piping biofouling

prevention systems include

chlorination, chemical dosing, and

anodic biofouling control systems. All

three systems act to prevent fouling

organisms from adhering to and growing

on interior piping and components.

Fouling reduces seawater flow and heat

transfer efficiency. Chlorinators use

electric current to generate chlorine and

chlorine-produced oxidants from

seawater. Anodic biofouling control

systems use electric current to

accelerate the dissolving of an anode to

release metal ions into the piping

system. Chemical dosing uses an

alcohol-based chemical dispersant that

is intermittently injected into the

seawater system.

Twenty-nine Armed Forces vessels

use active seawater piping biofouling

control systems. Nine vessels use

onboard chlorinators, 19 vessels use

anodic biofouling control systems, and

one vessel employs chemical dosing.

Chlorinators operate on a preset

schedule of intermittent operation, a

few hours daily. Chemical dispersant

dosing is performed for one hour every

three days. Anodic systems normally

operate continuously.

Seawater discharged from systems

with active biofouling control systems is

likely to contain residuals from the

fouling control agent (chlorine, alcoholbased chemical additives, or copper), in

addition to constituents normally found

in cooling water. Based on modeling of

the discharge plume, EPA and DOD

estimate that receiving water

concentrations of residual chlorine

could exceed chronic Federal criteria

and State chronic water quality criteria.

Because of the large volume of seawater

discharged from these systems, the

resulting mass loading of chlorine

released to the environment is

considered significant.

Existing operational controls that

limit the residual chlorine discharged to

the environment demonstrate the

availability of an MPCD to mitigate the

potential for adverse impacts from this

discharge. EPA and DOD have

determined that it is reasonable and

practicable to require a MPCD for

seawater piping biofouling prevention

systems.

20. Small Boat Engine Wet Exhaust

This discharge is the seawater that is

mixed and discharged with small boat

propulsion engine exhaust gases to cool

the exhaust and quiet the engine. Small

boats are powered by either inboard or

outboard engines. Seawater is injected

into the exhaust of these engines for

cooling and to quiet engine operation.

Constituents from the engine exhaust

are transferred to the injected seawater

and discharged overboard as wet

exhaust.

Most small boats with engines

generate this discharge. The majority of

inboard engines used on small boats are

two-stroke engines that use diesel fuel.

The majority of outboard engines are

two-stroke engines that use a gasolineoil mixture for fuel. This discharge is

generated when operating small boats.

Due to their limited range and mission,

small boats spend the majority of their

operating time within 12 n.m. from

shore.

Wet exhaust from outboard engines

contains several constituents that can

exceed acute Federal criteria or State

acute water quality criteria including

benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and

naphthalene. Wet exhaust from inboard

engines can contain benzene,

ethylbenzene, and total polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that can

exceed State water quality criteria. Mass

loadings of these wet exhaust

constituents are considered large.

Potential MPCD options include

replacing existing outboard engines

with new reduced-emission outboard

engines, and ensuring all new boats and

craft have inboard engines with dry

exhaust systems. Therefore, EPA and

DOD have determined that it is

reasonable and practicable to require

use of a MPCD for small boat engine wet

exhaust.

21. Sonar Dome Discharge

This discharge is generated by the

leaching of antifoulant materials from

the sonar dome material into the

surrounding seawater and the discharge

of seawater or freshwater from within

the sonar dome during maintenance

activities. Hull-mounted sonar domes

house the electronic equipment used to

navigate, detect, and determine the

range to objects. Sonar domes are

composed of either rubber impregnated

with TBT anti-foulant, rubber without
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45317

TBT, steel, or glass-reinforced plastic,

and are filled with freshwater and/or

seawater to maintain their shape and

internal pressure. The discharge is

generated when materials leach from the

exterior surface of the dome, or when

water from inside the dome is pumped

overboard to allow for periodic

maintenance or repairs on the sonar

dome or equipment housed inside the

dome.

Only Navy and MSC operate vessels

with sonar domes. Sonar domes are

currently installed on approximately

225 vessels, including eight classes of

Navy vessels and one class of MSC

vessels. Sonar domes on MSC vessels

are fiberglass and do not contain TBT.

The leaching of materials from the

exterior surface of the dome is a

continuous discharge and occurs both

within and beyond 12 n.m. from shore.

Discharges from the interior of the dome

are intermittent and occur while the

vessel is pierside as water inside the

dome is removed to allow for periodic

maintenance or repairs (approximately

twice per year per dome).

Expected constituents of sonar dome

water discharge are TBT, dibutyl tin,

monobutyl tin, and metals such as

copper, nickel, zinc, and tin. Based on

sampling data in the record,

concentrations of TBT, copper, nickel,

and zinc can exceed acute Federal

criteria or State acute water quality

criteria, although fleetwide mass

loadings of these constituents are not

considered large (15 lbs/year of TBT, 23

lbs/year of copper, 11 lbs/year of nickel,

and 122 lbs/year of zinc). Nevertheless,

the Navy has instituted a program to

install new sonar domes that do not

have TBT-impregnated internal surfaces

as existing domes require replacement.

This practice demonstrates the

availability of a control to mitigate

potential adverse environmental

impacts, if any, from sonar dome

discharges. Therefore EPA and DOD

have determined that it is reasonable

and practicable to require a MPCD for

sonar dome discharges.

22. Submarine Bilgewater

The submarine bilgewater discharge

contains a mixture of wastewater and

leakage from a variety of sources that are

allowed to drain to the lowest inner part

of the hull, known as the bilge. These

sources can include condensed steam

from steam systems, spillage from

drinking fountains, valve and piping

leaks, and evaporator dumps (i.e.,

evaporator water that fails to meet

specifications for use). From the various

collection points in the bilge, this

bilgewater is transferred via an auxiliary

drain system to a series of holding

tanks. Most submarines have the

capability to segregate oily wastewater

from non-oily wastewater. The non-oily

waste is discharged directly overboard

and the oily wastewater is collected in

a tank that allows gravity separation of

the oil and water. The separated water

phase is then discharged overboard, as

needed, and the oil phase held onboard

until it can be transferred to shore

facilities for disposal.

This discharge is generated by all

submarines, all of which are operated by

the Navy. Approximately 60 of the

submarines (the SSN 688 class)

discharge the separated water phase

from the bilgewater collection tanks

within and beyond 12 n.m. from shore.

The remaining submarines generally

hold all bilgewater onboard until they

are beyond 50 n.m. from shore. The

frequency and volume of the discharge

is highly variable, depending upon crew

size, operating depth, and equipment

conditions.

Sampling conducted onboard

submarines showed concentrations of

cadmium, chlorine, copper, cyanide,

heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide,

mercury (a bioaccumulative chemical of

concern), nickel, oil, phenol, silver, and

zinc that exceeded acute Federal criteria

or State acute water quality criteria.

Submarines use gravity separation to

reduce the concentration of oil in

bilgewater prior to discharge; however,

this method apparently does not

consistently produce a discharge that

meets water quality criteria. The

adequacy of existing gravity separation

treatment to provide effective

environmental protection will be

addressed by the Phase II rulemaking.

The nature of this discharge is such that

submarine bilgewater, if untreated,

could potentially impact the

environment. Because of this potential

to cause adverse environmental impacts,

coupled with the demonstration that

pollution controls are available to

reduce the oil content of the discharge,

EPA and DOD have determined that it

is reasonable and practicable to require

the use of a MPCD for submarine

bilgewater.

23. Surface Vessel Bilgewater/OWS

Discharge

The surface vessel bilgewater/OWS

discharge consists of a mixture of

wastewater and leakage from a variety of

sources that are allowed to drain to the

lowest inner part of the hull, known as

the bilge. The sources of surface vessel

bilgewater are generally similar to those

discussed above for submarines. An

additional source of bilgewater for

surface vessels is water from the

continual blowdown of boilers (i.e.,

boiler blowdown). On surface vessels,

bilgewater is usually transferred to an

oily waste holding tank, where it is

stored for shore disposal or treated in an

oil-water separator (OWS) to remove oil

before being discharged overboard.

Some vessels also have an oil content

monitor (OCM) installed downstream

from the OWS to monitor bilgewater oil

content prior to discharge. Vessels with

OCMs have the capability to return

bilgewater not meeting a preset oil

concentration limit to the OWS for

reprocessing until the limit is met. Oil

collected from the OWS separation

process is held in a waste oil tank until

transferred to shore facilities for

disposal.

All vessels of the Armed Forces

produce bilgewater and most of the

larger vessels have OWS systems. Small

craft bilgewater is collected and

transferred to shore facilities while

pierside.

Bilgewater accumulates continuously;

however, vessels of the Armed Forces

do not discharge untreated bilgewater.

Under current policy, bilgewater treated

by an OWS can be discharged as needed

within 12 n.m., while untreated

bilgewater is held for transfer to a shore

facility for treatment. For vessels with

an OWS and OCM, oil concentrations in

the treated bilgewater must be less than

15 ppm prior to overboard discharge.

Sampling data for OWS effluent show

oil, copper, iron, mercury (a

bioaccumulative chemical of concern),

nickel, and zinc exceed acute Federal

criteria or State acute water quality

criteria. Sampling data also show

concentrations of nitrogen (in the form

of ammonia, nitrates and nitrites, and

total Kjeldahl nitrogen) and phosphorus

exceed the most stringent State water

quality criteria. The estimated mass

loading for oil is considered to be large.

The existing policies prohibiting the

discharge of untreated bilgewater, and

the extensive use of oil-water separators

and oil content monitors demonstrate

the availability of pollution controls for

bilgewater. The data in the record

indicate that untreated bilgewater

would likely cause adverse

environmental impacts. Therefore, EPA

and DOD have determined that it is

reasonable and practicable to require the

use of a MPCD for this discharge.

24. Underwater Ship Husbandry

The underwater ship husbandry

discharge is composed of materials

discharged during the inspection,

maintenance, cleaning, and repair of

hulls and hull appendages performed

while the vessel is waterborne.

Underwater ship husbandry includes

activities such as hull cleaning,
45318 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

fiberglass repair, welding, sonar dome

repair, propulsor lay-up, nondestructive testing, masker belt repairs,

and painting operations.

Underwater ship husbandry discharge

is created occasionally by all Navy

surface ships and submarines, and some

Coast Guard vessels. These ship

husbandry operations are normally

conducted pierside. Of the underwater

ship husbandry operations, only

underwater hull cleaning and propulsor

(i.e., propeller) lay-up have the potential

for causing an adverse environmental

effect. Underwater hull cleaning is

conducted by divers using a mechanical

brush system. Copper and zinc are

released during cleaning in

concentrations that exceed acute

Federal criteria and State acute water

quality criteria and produce a

significant mass loading of constituents.

The copper and zinc in this discharge

originate from the anti-fouling and

anticorrosive hull coatings applied to

vessels. Data from commercial vessels

indicate that underwater hull cleaning

also has the potential to transfer

nonindigenous aquatic species.

Propulsor lay-up requires the placement

of a vinyl cover over the propulsor to

reduce fouling of the propulsor when

the vessel is in port for extended

periods. Chlorine-produced oxidants are

generated from impressed current

cathodic protection systems and can

build up within the cover to levels

exceeding State water quality criteria.

However, discharges from this

operation, as well as other ship

husbandry operations (excluding hull

cleaning) are infrequent and small in

terms of volume or mass loading.

The Navy has established policies to

minimize the number of hull cleanings,

based on the degree to which biological

fouling has occurred. In addition, the

Navy has established procedures to use

the least abrasive cleaning equipment

necessary as a means for reducing the

mass of copper and zinc in the

discharge. These practices represent

available controls to mitigate adverse

impacts from underwater ship

husbandry operations, and EPA and

DOD have determined that it is

reasonable and practicable to require the

use of a MPCD to control this discharge.

25. Welldeck Discharges

This discharge is the water that

accumulates from the seawater flooding

of the docking well (welldeck) of a

vessel used to transport, load, and

unload amphibious vessels, and from

the maintenance and freshwater

washings of the welldeck and

equipment and vessels stored in the

welldeck.

Amphibious operations by the Armed

Forces require transport of vehicles,

equipment, and personnel between ship

and shore on landing craft. The landing

craft are stored in a docking well, or

welldeck, of some classes of amphibious

warfare ships. To load or unload

landing craft, amphibious warfare ships

may need to flood the welldeck by

taking on ballast water and sinking the

aft (rear) end of the ship. Water that

washes out of the welldeck contains

residual materials that were on the

welldeck prior to flooding. Other

welldeck discharges are created by

routine operations such as washing

equipment and vehicles with potable

water, washing the gas turbine engines

of air-cushion landing craft (LCACs) in

the welldeck with mild detergents, and

graywater from stored utility landing

craft (LCUs). Additionally, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

requires washing welldecks, vehicle

storage areas, and equipment upon

return from overseas locations. The

washing is required to ensure that there

is no inadvertent transport of

nonindigenous species to land. USDArequired washes of welldecks and

vehicle storage areas occur pierside,

while vehicles and equipment are

washed onshore in a USDA-designated

area. Effluent from these activities drain

to unflooded welldecks and are

discharged directly overboard.

The Navy is the only branch of the

Armed Forces with ships having

welldecks. Thirty-three amphibious

warfare ships produce this discharge,

which is released both within and

beyond 12 n.m. from shore.

Depending upon the specific activities

conducted, welldeck discharges contain

a variety of residual constituents,

including oil and grease, ethylene glycol

(antifreeze), chlorine, detergents/

cleaners, metals, solvents, and sea-salt

residues. The volume of welldeck

washout varies depending upon the

type of landing craft to be loaded or

unloaded. The greatest volume of

welldeck discharge occurs when LCUs

are being loaded into, or unloaded from

the welldeck. Loading and unloading of

LCACs does not require the welldeck to

be flooded. Instead, a small ‘‘surge’’ of

water enters the ship during these

operations. Constituent concentrations

in welldeck washout are expected to be

low due to dilution in the large volume

of water discharged, and because of

general housekeeping procedures which

require containment and cleanup of

spills on the welldeck.

Other discharges from the welldeck

include vehicle and craft washwater, gas

turbine engine washes, and USDA

washes. Constituents of these discharges

are expected to be identical to those in

welldeck washout. Of the various

welldeck discharges, gas turbine water

washes and USDA washes may result in

hydrocarbon, chlorine, or metal

concentrations that exceed acute water

quality criteria. In addition, there is a

potential for nonindigenous species to

be introduced from USDA-required

welldeck washes, although it should be

noted that the viability of any species

introduced is questionable since they

generally would have been exposed to

air for extended periods of time prior to

their introduction into U.S. coastal

waters (i.e., for the most part, these

species would have been removed from

vehicles and deck surfaces and thus it

would not be a water-to-water transfer,

in contrast to species transfers from

ballast water systems).

Existing practices for containment

and cleanup of welldeck spills

demonstrate the availability of controls

to reduce contamination of welldeck

discharges and the potential for causing

adverse environmental impacts (e.g., oil

sheens). EPA and DOD have determined

that it is reasonable and practicable to

require a MPCD for welldeck discharges.

D. Discharges That Do Not Require Use

of a MPCD

For the reasons discussed below, EPA

and DOD have determined that it is not

reasonable and practicable to require the

use of a MPCD to control 14 discharges

incidental to the normal operation of

Armed Forces vessels. Based on the

information in the record, these

discharges have a low potential to

adversely affect the environment by

introduction of chemical constituents,

thermal pollution, bioaccumulative

chemicals of concern, or nonindigenous

species.

As discussed below, in some cases,

the concentration of one or more

constituents in the undiluted discharge

exceed water quality criteria at the point

of discharge. However, such discharges

occur in low volumes or infrequently. In

all of these instances, either the

pollutant concentration in the discharge

plume quickly falls below water quality

criteria once the dilution effect of

mixing zones is taken into account, or

the low mass loading of the discharge is

unlikely to adversely affect the

environment.

EPA and DOD have determined that it

is not reasonable and practicable to

require a MPCD to mitigate adverse

impacts on the marine environment for

the discharges listed in Table 2 of this

preamble and discussed below in this

section. These discharges would not

require control, and no control

standards will be set for them, in Phase
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45319

II of UNDS development. Upon

promulgation of the final Phase I rule,

States and their political subdivisions

would be prohibited from adopting or

enforcing any statute or regulation to

control these discharges, except by

establishing no-discharge zones (see

section VI.C of this preamble).

Following promulgation of the final

Phase I rule, States can petition EPA

and DOD to review the determination

not to require MPCDs for these

discharges using the procedures set

forth in proposed 40 CFR 1700.11 and

1700.12.

The discussion below provides a brief

description of the discharges and the

systems that produce the discharge and

highlights the most significant

constituents released to the

environment and other characteristics of

the discharge. A more detailed

discussion of these discharges is

presented in Appendix A of the

Technical Development Document.

1. Boiler Blowdown

This discharge is the water and steam

discharged during the blowdown of a

boiler or steam generator, or when a

safety valve is tested. Boilers are used to

produce steam for propulsion and a

variety of auxiliary and hotel services.

Water supplied to the boiler system

(feedwater) is treated with chemicals to

inhibit corrosion and the formation of

scale in the boiler and boiler system

piping. Periodically, water must be

removed from the boiler to control the

buildup of particulates, sludge, and

treatment chemical concentrations. The

term ‘‘blowdown’’ refers to the

minimum discharge of boiler water

required to prevent the buildup of these

materials in the boiler to levels that

would adversely affect boiler operation

and maintenance. There are four types

of boiler blowdown procedures

employed on Armed Forces vessels: (1)

surface blowdowns for removing

materials dissolved in the boiler water

and for controlling boiler water

chemistry; (2) scum blowdowns for

removing surface scum; (3) bottom

blowdowns for removing sludge that

settles at the bottom of boilers; and (4)

continuous blowdowns for removing

dissolved metal chelates and other

suspended matter. The type of

blowdown used is a function of the

boiler water chemistry and thus varies

among vessel classes. With the

exception of continuous blowdowns,

boiler blowdowns are discharged below

the vessel waterline. Continuous

blowdowns are discharged inside the

vessel and are directed to the bilge.

These are addressed as part of the

surface vessel bilgewater/OWS

discharge (see section V.C.23 of this

preamble). Another discharge occurs

during periodic testing of steam

generator safety valves on nuclearpowered vessels. The safety valve

discharge is a short-duration release of

steam below the vessel waterline.

Approximately 360 surface vessels

and submarines discharge boiler

blowdowns directly to receiving waters.

These blowdowns occur both within

and beyond 12 n.m. from shore.

Nuclear-powered ships perform steam

generator safety valve testing only in

port once every five years.

Boiler blowdown is discharged

intermittently in small volumes

(approximately 300 gallons per

discharge), at high velocities (over 400

feet per second), and at elevated

temperatures (over 325 degrees

Fahrenheit). Boiler water treatment

chemicals used by Armed Forces vessels

include ethylenediamine-tetraacetic

acid (EDTA), hydrazine, sodium

hydroxide, and disodium phosphate.

Sampling data for boiler blowdowns

indicate the presence of nitrogen (in the

form of ammonia, nitrates and nitrites,

and total Kjeldahl nitrogen),

phosphorus, hydrazine, iron, bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate, antimony, arsenic,

cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,

nickel, selenium, thallium, and zinc.

Boiler blowdown discharges from

conventionally-powered boilers exceed

Federal criteria and State water quality

criteria for copper, nickel, and zinc, and

the most stringent State water quality

criteria for nitrogen, phosphorus, iron,

and lead. Blowdown discharges from

nuclear-powered steam generators

exceed acute Federal criteria and State

acute water quality criteria for copper,

and the most stringent State acute water

quality criteria for lead and nickel. For

nitrogen and phosphorus, the most

stringent State water quality criteria was

exceeded. However, the turbulent

mixing resulting from the high velocity

discharge, and the relatively small

volume of the boiler blowdown causes

pollutant concentrations to rapidly

dissipate to background levels or below

acute Federal criteria and State acute

water quality criteria within a short

distance from the point of discharge.

Based on thermal modeling of the

discharge plume, boiler blowdowns are

not expected to exceed State standards

for thermal effects. Thermal effects from

safety valve testing are substantially less

than that from blowdowns, thus safety

valve testing also will not exceed State

standards for thermal effects. Annual

fleetwide pollutant discharges from

boiler blowdowns within 12 n.m. are

estimated at 3,036 pounds per year of

phosphorus, 513 pounds/year of

nitrogen, less than 11 pounds of copper,

less than 2 pounds of lead,

approximately 10 pounds of nickel, and

less than 12 pounds of zinc. The

fleetwide discharge of all pollutants

from safety valve testing is less than 5

pounds/year. While the pollutant

concentrations in the boiler blowdown

discharges exceed acute Federal criteria

and State acute water quality criteria,

they are discharged intermittently and

in small volumes. Further, these

discharges are distributed throughout

the U.S. at Armed Forces ports, and

each individual port receives only a

fraction of the total fleetwide mass

loading. Based on the information in the

record regarding the low mass of

pollutants discharged during boiler

blowdowns and safety valve discharges,

and the manner in which the discharges

take place, there is a low potential for

causing adverse environmental impacts.

Therefore, EPA and DOD have

concluded that it is not reasonable and

practicable to require the use of a MPCD

to mitigate adverse impacts on the

marine environment for this discharge.

2. Catapult Wet Accumulator Discharge

This discharge is the water discharged

from a catapult wet accumulator, which

stores a steam/water mixture for

launching aircraft from an aircraft

carrier.

The steam used as the motive force for

operating the catapults for launching

aircraft is provided to the catapult from

a steam reservoir, referred to as the

catapult wet accumulator. The catapult

wet accumulator is a pressure vessel

containing a steam/water mixture at a

high temperature and pressure. The

accumulator is fed an initial charge of

boiler feedwater and provided steam

from boilers. As steam is released from

the accumulator for the catapult launch,

the pressure reduction in the

accumulator allows some of the water to

flash to steam, providing additional

steam to operate the catapult. During

operation of the system, steam

condenses in the accumulator and

causes the water level in the

accumulator to gradually rise. Periodic

blowdowns of the accumulator are

required to maintain the water level

within operating limits. This steam/

water mixture released during the

blowdown is discharged below the

vessel waterline. In addition to

blowdowns required during catapult

operation and testing, wet accumulators

are emptied prior to major maintenance

of the accumulator or when a carrier

will be in port for more than 72 hours.

When emptying the accumulator,

multiple blowdowns are performed over

an extended period (up to 12 hours) to
45320 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

reduce pressure prior to draining the

tank.

The Navy is the only branch of the

Armed Forces with vessels generating

this discharge. Eleven of the aircraft

carriers are homeported in the United

States.

Wet accumulator blowdowns are

performed during flight operations,

which occur beyond 12 n.m., and

during catapult testing, which occurs

within 12 n.m. from shore. Wet

accumulators are emptied outside 12

n.m. when returning to port for

accumulator maintenance or when the

carrier will be in port for more than 72

hours. If catapult testing is conducted in

port, and the carrier will remain in port

for more than 72 hours following the

testing, the accumulator will be emptied

in port.

Catapult wet accumulator blowdowns

have little potential for causing adverse

environmental impacts because of the

low pollutant loadings and thermal

effects of this discharge. Because boiler

feedwater is used for the initial charge

of water to an empty accumulator, the

constituents of the discharge include

water treatment chemicals present in

boiler feedwater. These chemicals

include EDTA, disodium phosphate,

and hydrazine. During normal

operation, the boiler feedwater

chemicals are diluted by the supplied

steam. Additional constituents present

in the blowdowns originate from the

steam provided to the accumulator.

Based on sampling data for steam

condensate (a similar discharge

discussed below in section V.D.10) and

the volume of wet accumulator

blowdowns performed within 12 n.m.,

the combined mass loading for all

metals is estimated at less than 0.01

pounds per year. Constituents found in

steam condensate include antimony,

arsenic, benzidine, bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate, cadmium, copper,

nickel, nitrogen (in the form of

ammonia, nitrates and nitrites, and total

Kjeldahl nitrogen), phosphorus,

selenium, thallium, and zinc. The

concentrations of benzidine, copper,

and nickel in steam condensate were

found to exceed acute Federal criteria

and State acute water quality criteria.

The concentration of bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate was found to

exceed State acute water quality criteria.

The concentrations of nitrogen and

phosphorus were found to exceed the

most stringent State water quality

criteria. However, using steam

condensate data may overestimate wet

accumulator pollutant concentrations

because of the shorter contact time

between catapult steam and its

associated piping system (resulting in

less opportunity to entrain corrosion

products from the piping). Based on

thermal modeling of the discharge

plume, catapult wet accumulator

blowdowns are not expected to exceed

State standards for thermal effects.

Catapult wet accumulator blowdowns

have little potential for causing adverse

environmental impacts because of the

very low pollutant mass loadings in this

discharge and because of the low

thermal effects from this discharge.

Therefore, EPA and DOD determined

that it is not reasonable and practicable

to require the use of a MPCD to mitigate

adverse impacts on the marine

environment for this discharge.

3. Cathodic Protection

This discharge consists of the

constituents released into the

surrounding water from sacrificial

anodes or impressed current cathodic

protection systems used to prevent hull

corrosion.

Steel-hulled vessels require corrosion

protection. In addition to anti-corrosion

hull paints, these vessels employ

cathodic protection which is provided

by either sacrificial anodes or Impressed

Current Cathodic Protection (ICCP)

systems. The most common cathodic

protection system for vessels of the

Armed Forces is the zinc sacrificial

anode, although a few submarines use

aluminum anodes. With the sacrificial

anode system, zinc or aluminum anodes

attached to the hull will preferentially

corrode from exposure to the seawater

and thereby minimize corrosion of the

vessel’s hull.

In ICCP systems, the vessel’s electrical

system passes a current through inert

platinum-coated anodes. This current

protects the hull in a manner similar to

sacrificial anodes by generating current

as the anodes corrode. Depending on the

type of cathodic protection used, the

discharge will include either zinc or

aluminum from sacrificial anodes, or

chlorine-produced oxidants (CPO) from

ICCP systems.

Approximately 1,800 large Armed

Forces vessels use cathodic protection.

Of these, nearly 270 have ICCP systems,

fewer than five use aluminum sacrificial

anodes, and the remaining use zinc

sacrificial anodes. The discharge is

continuous while the vessel is

waterborne and occurs both within and

beyond 12 n.m. from shore.

EPA and DOD modeled the discharge

from cathodic protection systems to

determine the range of constituent

concentrations that could be expected in

the water surrounding a vessel. This

discharge is best described as a mass

flux of reaction byproducts emanating

from the electro-chemical reaction that

occurs at the anodes. Two separate

modeling techniques were used for both

sacrificial anodes and ICCP systems.

The first technique was a dilution

model for harbors that takes into

account the number of homeported

vessels and harbor-specific volume and

tidal flow information. Three Navy ports

were modeled, representing a range of

port sizes. The resulting constituent

concentrations calculated for the three

ports in this dilution model were below

chronic Federal criteria and State

chronic water quality criteria.

The second technique modeled

mixing zones around a vessel using

calculations for a hull size typical of

vessels using cathodic protection

systems. The mixing model results

indicate that a mixing zone of five feet

for CPO and 0.5 feet for zinc results in

concentrations below the chronic

Federal criteria or State chronic water

quality criteria. For vessels with

aluminum anodes, a mixing zone of less

than 0.1 feet achieves concentrations

below chronic Federal criteria and State

chronic water quality criteria.

Concentrations of mercury will be 1,000

times lower than the acute State water

quality criteria and 35 times lower than

the chronic criteria. The total amount of

mercury discharged from aluminum

anodes on all Armed Forces vessels is

estimated to be less than 0.001 pounds

annually.

For ICCP calculations, the modeling is

based on an assumption that 100

percent of the supplied electrical

current results in CPO generation. Less

CPO is actually expected to be generated

because the efficiency of the chlorine

generation process is known to be less

than 100 percent. In addition, using the

generation rate alone does not account

for the rapid decay of CPO in water

through chemical reactions involving

CPO, which occur within minutes.

The dilution and mixing zone

modeling performed for this discharge

indicates that cathodic protection has a

low potential for causing adverse

impacts on the marine environment.

Therefore, EPA and DOD determined

that it is not reasonable and practicable

to require the use of a MPCD to mitigate

adverse impacts on the marine

environment for this discharge.

4. Freshwater Lay-up

This discharge is the potable water

that is periodically discharged from the

seawater cooling system while the

vessel is in port, and the cooling system

is in a lay-up mode.

Seawater cooling systems are used

onboard some Armed Forces vessels to

remove heat from main propulsion

machinery, electrical generating plants
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45321

and other auxiliary equipment. These

are single-pass, non-contact cooling

systems whereby the seawater enters the

hull, is pumped through a piping

network and circulated through one or

more heat exchangers, then exits the

vessel. On certain vessels, the seawater

cooling systems are placed in a standby mode, or lay-up, when the machinery

is not in use. The lay-up is

accomplished by blowing the seawater

from the condenser with low-pressure

air. The condenser is then filled with

potable water and drained again to

remove residual seawater as protection

against corrosion. Then, the condenser

is refilled with potable water for the

actual lay-up. After 21 days, the lay-up

water is discharged overboard and the

condenser refilled. The condenser is

discharged and refilled on a 30-day

cycle thereafter. The volume of each

condenser batch discharge is

approximately 6,000 gallons.

The Navy is the only branch of the

Armed Forces with vessels discharging

freshwater lay-up. All submarines

generate this discharge, which only

occurs while in port. Eight aircraft

carriers also lay-up their condensers;

however, these condensers are drained

to the bilge and the water is handled as

bilgewater. Generally, the cooling

system is only placed in a lay-up

condition if the vessel remains in port

for more than three days and the main

steam plant is shut down.

Sampling data for submarine

freshwater lay-up indicate the presence

of chlorine, nitrogen (in the form of

ammonia, nitrates and nitrites, and total

Kjeldahl nitrogen), and the priority

pollutants chromium, copper, lead,

nickel, and zinc. The concentrations of

chlorine, copper, nickel, and zinc can

exceed acute Federal criteria or State

acute water quality criteria. For nitrogen

and total phosphorus, the most stringent

State water quality criteria was

exceeded. Chlorine was detected in the

initial flush discharge, but was not

found in the extended lay-up discharge.

Mass loadings for the priority pollutants

(copper, nickel, and zinc) were

estimated using total annual discharge

volumes and average pollutant

concentrations. The total mass loading

from all discharges of freshwater lay-up

from submarines is estimated at 7 lbs/

yr of copper, 36 lbs/yr of nickel, and 29

lbs/yr of zinc. The mass discharge from

any individual freshwater lay-up

discharge event would be a fraction of

that total. Because of the low total

annual mass loading, the low frequency

at which the discharge occurs, and the

volume of an individual discharge

event, discharges of freshwater lay-up

have a low potential for causing adverse

environmental impacts. Therefore, EPA

and DOD determined that it is not

reasonable and practicable to require the

use of a MPCD to mitigate adverse

impacts on the marine environment for

this discharge.

5. Mine Countermeasures Equipment

Lubrication

This discharge consists of the

constituents released into the

surrounding seawater by erosion or

dissolution from lubricated mine

countermeasures equipment when the

equipment is deployed or towed.

Various types of mine countermeasures

equipment are deployed and towed

behind vessels to locate and destroy

mines. Lubricating grease and oil

applied to this equipment can be

released into surrounding seawater

during its deployment and use,

including during training exercises.

The Navy is the only branch of the

Armed Forces with a mine

countermeasures mission. The Navy

uses two classes of vessels, totaling 23

ships, to locate, classify, and destroy

mines. The discharge is generated

during training exercises, which are

normally conducted between 5 and 12

n.m. from shore. Depending on the class

of vessel and the type of mine

countermeasures equipment being used,

the number of training exercises

conducted by each vessel ranges from 6

to 240 per year.

Using estimates of the amount of

lubricant released during each training

exercise, EPA and DOD calculated the

annual mass loading of lubricant

discharges to be approximately 770

pounds of grease and oil. Using the

estimates of the pollutant mass loading

released during an exercise, and the

volume of water through which the

countermeasures equipment is towed or

operated during an exercise, EPA and

DOD estimated the oil and grease

concentrations resulting from mine

countermeasures training exercises.

These estimated concentrations of oil

and grease in the receiving water range

from 0.0002 to 7.1 μg/l and do not

exceed acute water quality criteria.

An additional calculation was

performed for the lift cable for the SLQ–

48 mine neutralization vehicle (MNV).

This lift cable is lubricated with grease;

however, the cable is not towed through

the water and is only used to deploy or

recover the MNV while a vessel is

stationary. Using the maximum

predicted release of 0.15 ounces of

grease per deployment, modeling results

indicate that the grease released from

the lift cable would disperse in the

surrounding receiving waters and be at

concentrations below the most stringent

State acute water quality criteria within

3 to 5 feet from the cable.

Most discharges from mine

countermeasures equipment occur

while vessels are underway and the

pollutants are quickly dispersed in the

environment due to the turbulent

mixing conditions caused by the wake

of the vessel and towed equipment.

Further, these discharges take place

beyond 5 n.m. from shore in waters with

significant wave energy, allowing for

rapid and wide dispersion of the

releases. The manner in which these

releases occur, coupled with the

relatively small amounts of lubricants

released, results in this discharge having

a low potential for causing adverse

impacts on the marine environment.

Therefore, EPA and DOD determined

that it is not reasonable and practicable

to require the use of a MPCD to mitigate

adverse impacts on the marine

environment for the mine

countermeasures equipment lubrication

discharge.

6. Portable Damage Control Drain Pump

Discharge

This discharge consists of seawater

pumped through the portable damage

control drain pump and discharged

overboard during periodic testing,

maintenance, and training activities.

Portable damage control (DC) drain

pumps are used to remove water from

vessel compartments during

emergencies or provide seawater for

shipboard firefighting in the event water

is unavailable from the firemain system.

The types of pumps used are described

in section V.D.7, Portable Damage

Control Drain Pump Wet Exhaust.

Discharges from drain pumps being

used during onboard emergencies are

not incidental to normal vessel

operations, and therefore are not within

the scope of this proposed rule. These

pumps are, however, periodically

operated during maintenance, testing,

and training, and pump discharges

during these activities are within the

scope of this rule. To demonstrate that

the pumps are functioning properly, the

suction hose is hung over the side of the

vessel and the pump operated to verify

that the pump effectively transfers the

seawater or harbor water. This pump

effluent is discharged directly overboard

during this testing.

All large ships and selected boats and

craft of the Armed Forces generate this

discharge. As part of equipment

maintenance, testing, and training, the

pumps are operated both within and

beyond 12 n.m. from shore. Navy ,

Army, and MSC vessels operate portable

DC drain pumps for approximately 10

minutes per month and an additional 15
45322 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

minutes per year to demonstrate

working order and condition. Coast

Guard vessels operate their portable DC

drain pumps for approximately 30

minutes per month for maintenance and

testing.

This discharge consists of seawater/

harbor water that only briefly passes

through a pumping process. The drain

pump discharge is unlikely to cause

adverse impacts because the water has

a residence time of less than five

seconds in the pump and associated

suction and discharge hoses, and no

constituents are expected to be added to

the seawater/harbor water. Therefore,

EPA and DOD determined it is not

reasonable and practicable to require the

use of a MPCD to mitigate adverse

impacts on the marine environment for

this discharge.

7. Portable Damage Control Drain Pump

Wet Exhaust

This periodic discharge is seawater

that has mixed and been discharged

with portable damage control drain

pump exhaust gases to cool the exhaust

and quiet the engine.

Portable, engine-driven pumps

provide seawater for shipboard

firefighting in the event water is

unavailable from the firemain. Two

models of these portable damage control

(DC) drain pumps are used: P–250 and

P–100. The P–250 pumps operate on

gasoline injected with oil-based

lubricants. Part of the seawater output

from these pumps is used to cool the

engine and quiet the exhaust. This

discharge, termed wet exhaust, is

typically routed overboard through a

separate exhaust hose and does not

include the main discharge of the pump

which is classified separately as

Portable Damage Control Drain Pump

Discharge.

Fuel residuals, lubricants, or their

combustion byproducts are present in

P–250 engine exhaust gases, condense

in the cooling water stream, and are

discharged as wet exhaust. The P–100

model operates on diesel fuel. Although

the engine that drives the P–100 pump

is air-cooled and no water is injected

into the exhaust of the pump, a small

amount of water contacts the engine

during pump priming. Up to oneseventh of a gallon of water may be

discharged during each priming event.

This water discharged during P–100

priming is considered part of the

portable DC drain pump wet exhaust.

The Navy operates approximately 910

drain pumps, the MSC approximately

140 drain pumps, and the Coast Guard

approximately 370 drain pumps.

Portable DC drain pump wet exhaust

discharges occur during training and

monthly planned maintenance activities

both within and beyond 12 n.m. from

shore. During monthly maintenance

activities, the pumps are run for

approximately 10 to 30 minutes. The

use of portable DC drain pumps during

onboard emergencies is not incidental to

normal operations, and therefore not

within the scope of this proposed rule.

Based on data in the record, the wet

exhaust discharge is likely to include

metals, oil and grease, and volatile and

semi-volatile organic compounds. The

concentrations of copper, lead, nickel,

silver, zinc, and iron in portable DC

drain pump wet exhaust can exceed

acute Federal criteria and State acute

water quality criteria. Concentrations of

oil and grease, benzene, toluene,

ethylbenzene, and napthalene can

exceed State acute water quality criteria.

Concentrations of these constituents in

receiving waters are not expected to

exceed water quality criteria because

they will dissipate quickly since the

mass loadings per discharge event are

small and the discharge locations are

dispersed fleetwide. The discharge from

each of the 500 P–250 pumps occurs

separately at different discharge

locations. On average, each P–250 pump

discharges less than 0.3 pounds of

pollutants per discharge event. The

duration of each discharge is short,

averaging less than 30 minutes. These

factors allow the pollutants to dissipate

rapidly. Based on this information, the

portable DC drain pump wet exhaust is

expected to have a low potential for

exhibiting adverse environmental

impacts on the marine environment.

Therefore, EPA and DOD determined it

is not reasonable and practicable to

require a MPCD to mitigate adverse

impacts on the marine environment for

this discharge.

8. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

Condensate

This discharge is the drainage of

condensed moisture from air

conditioning units, refrigerators,

freezers, and refrigerated spaces.

Refrigerators, refrigerated spaces,

freezers, and air conditioning (AC) units

produce condensate when moist air

contacts the cold evaporator coils. This

condensate drips from the coils and

collects in drains. Condensate collected

in drains above the vessel waterline is

continuously discharged directly

overboard. Below the waterline,

condensate is directed to the bilge, nonoily machinery wastewater system, or is

retained in dedicated holding tanks

prior to periodic overboard discharge.

Approximately 650 Navy, MSC, Coast

Guard, Army, and Air Force vessels

produce this discharge. The condensate

may be discharged at any time, both

within and beyond 12 n.m. from shore.

Condensate flow rates depend on air

temperature, humidity, and the number

and size of cooling units per vessel. The

discharge can contain cleaning

detergent residuals, seawater from

cleaning refrigerated spaces, food

residues, and metals contributed from

contact with cooling coils and drain

piping. Because evaporator coils are

made from corrosion-resistant materials

and condensation is non-corrosive,

condensate is not expected to contain

metals in significant concentrations.

Discharges of refrigeration/AC

condensate are expected to have a low

potential for causing adverse

environmental impacts, therefore EPA

and DOD determined it is not

reasonable and practicable to require a

MPCD to mitigate adverse impacts on

the marine environment for condensate

discharges.

9. Rudder Bearing Lubrication

This discharge is the oil or grease

released by the erosion or dissolution

from lubricated bearings that support

the rudder and allow it to turn freely.

Armed Forces vessels generally use two

types of rudder bearings, and two

lubricating methods for each type of

rudder bearing: (1) grease-lubricated

roller bearings; (2) oil-lubricated roller

bearings; (3) grease-lubricated stave

bearings; and (4) water-lubricated stave

bearings. Only oil-lubricated roller

bearings and grease-lubricated stave

bearings generate a discharge.

Approximately 220 Navy vessels, 50

Coast Guard vessels, and eight MSC

vessels use a type of rudder bearing that

generates this discharge. The discharge

occurs intermittently, primarily when a

vessel is underway or its rudder is in

use, although some discharges from oillubricated roller bearings could

potentially occur pierside even when

the rudder is not being used because the

oil lubricant is slightly pressurized.

This discharge consists of oil leakage

and the washout of grease from rudder

bearings. EPA and DOD developed an

upper bound estimate of the fleetwide

release of oil and grease based on

allowable leakage/washout rates and the

amount of time each vessel spends

within 12 n.m. from shore. The

maximum allowable oil leak rate for oillubricated roller bearings is one gallon/

day when the vessel is underway and

one pint/day while in port. In practice,

these leakage rates are not reached

under normal conditions. The grease

washout rate for grease-lubricated stave

bearings is based on Navy specifications

limiting grease washout to 5 percent.

Grease washout estimates for this
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45323

proposed rule are based on releasing 5

percent of the grease over a two-week

period, which corresponds to the time

between grease applications.

EPA and DOD calculated the expected

receiving water concentrations of oil

and grease from this discharge to

evaluate the potential for the discharge

to cause adverse impacts. The underway

receiving water volume was determined

using an average size vessel and

estimating the volume of water

displaced by the vessel while transiting

from port to a distance of 12 n.m. from

shore. In port, discharges are not

expected since the lower bearing seals

are designed to prevent leakage and, as

noted above, the oil to the bearings is

kept at a low pressure while in port. The

resulting estimated pollutant

concentrations do not exceed acute

Federal criteria or State acute water

quality criteria. The rudder bearing

lubrication discharge has a low

potential for causing adverse

environmental impacts. EPA and DOD

determined that it is not reasonable and

practicable to require a MPCD to

mitigate adverse impacts on the marine

environment for this discharge.

10. Steam Condensate

This discharge is the condensed steam

discharged from a vessel in port, where

the steam originates from shore-based

port facilities. Navy and MSC surface

ships often use steam from shore

facilities during extended port visits to

operate auxiliary systems such as

laundry facilities, heating systems, and

other shipboard systems. In the process

of providing heat to ship systems, the

steam cools and a portion of it

condenses. This condensate collects in

drain collection tanks and is

periodically discharged by pumping it

overboard. The steam condensate is

discharged above the vessel waterline

and a portion of the condensate can

vaporize as it contacts ambient air.

This discharge is generated only in

port because vessels only discharge the

condensed steam if it was generated by

a shore facility. Ships producing their

own steam will recycle their condensate

back to the boiler. Vessels take on shore

steam when their own boilers are shut

down, and thus they have no means for

reusing the condensate. There are no

systems in place that would allow

vessels to return steam condensate to

shore for reuse.

Depending on the steam needs of

individual vessels, the discharge can be

intermittent or continuous whenever

shore steam is supplied. Approximately

180 Navy and MSC vessels discharge

steam condensate. Coast Guard vessels

do not generate this discharge because

they operate their auxiliary boilers to

produce their own steam even while in

port. Army and Air Force vessels do not

have steam systems and therefore do not

discharge steam condensate.

The constituents of steam condensate

include metals from onshore steam

piping, ship piping, and heat

exchangers, and may have some

residual water treatment chemicals.

Pollutants found in the discharge

include nitrogen (in the form of

ammonia, nitrates and nitrites, and total

Kjeldahl nitrogen), bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzidine,

antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper,

chromium, lead, nickel, phosphorus,

selenium, thallium, and zinc. Sampling

of steam condensate from four vessels

found copper concentrations that

exceed both acute Federal criteria and

State acute water quality criteria. Nickel

concentrations exceeded the most

stringent State acute water quality

criteria, but not the acute Federal

criteria. Nitrogen concentrations

exceeded the most stringent State water

quality criteria. Using upper-bound

estimates of the volume of steam

condensate discharged, the fleetwide

mass loadings for nitrogen, copper and

nickel were calculated to be 1972 lbs/

year, 49 lbs/year and 28 lbs/year,

respectively. The mass discharged from

any individual vessel while in a given

port would be a fraction of that total.

The upper-bound estimate for the

fleetwide discharge volume is 300

million gallons per year.

Based on modeling of the discharge

plume, the thermal effects resulting

from the steam condensate discharge

exceed mixing zone requirements for

Washington. However, these modeling

results may overstate the actual thermal

effects because the computer model

predicted the plume to be only twelve

centimeters in depth, which appears to

underestimate the degree of mixing that

is likely to occur. In addition, certain

assumptions used in the model tend to

be more representative of worst-case

conditions in how they influence the

size of the calculated thermal plume.

For example, parameters included in the

model assume minimum wind speed

and slack water (resulting in less

mixing) and winter conditions (which

results in larger discharge flows).

The low mass loadings in the

discharge and the thermal effects

modeling results indicate that steam

condensate has a low potential for

causing adverse environmental impacts.

Therefore, EPA and DOD determined

that it is not reasonable and practicable

to require a MPCD to mitigate adverse

impacts on the marine environment for

this discharge.

11. Stern Tube Seals and Underwater

Bearing Lubrication

This discharge is the seawater

pumped through stern tube seals and

underwater bearings to lubricate and

cool them during normal operation.

Propeller shafts are supported by

stern tube bearings at the point where

the shaft exits the hull (for surface ships

and submarines), and by strut bearings

outboard of the ship (for surface ships

only). A stern tube seal is used to

prevent seawater from entering the

vessel where the shaft penetrates the

hull. The stern tube seals and bearings

are cooled and lubricated by forcing

seawater from the firemain or auxiliary

cooling water system through the seals

and over the bearings. On submarines,

potable water (freshwater) may be

supplied from pierside connections for

stern tube seal lubrication during

extended periods in port.

Strut bearings are not provided with

forced cooling or lubrication. Instead,

strut bearings use the surrounding

seawater flow for lubrication and

cooling when the vessel is underway.

Submarines do not have strut bearings

and instead use a self-aligning bearing

aft of the stern tube that supports the

weight of the propeller and shafting

outboard of the vessel.

Almost all classes of surface vessels

and submarines have stern tube seals

and bearings that require lubrication,

and these discharges are continuous.

The discharge can contain synthetic

(Buna-N) rubber used in the

construction of the bearings. Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate and metals such as

copper, nickel and zinc are also

expected to be present in the discharge.

The primary source of bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate and the metals in

the discharge is the lubricating water

(firemain or auxiliary cooling water).

The shaft and the stern tube seal may

also be a small contributor to the metals

present in the discharge. When

freshwater is used for lubricating

submarine seals, the freshwater may

contain residual chlorine. Based on

estimates of chlorine concentrations in

potable water, fleetwide approximately

0.8 lbs/year of chlorine exit through the

stern tube seals and bearings.

Since the majority of metals

discharged through the stern tube seals

and bearings originate from the firemain

system, mass loadings for metals

discharged through the stern tube seals

and bearings is included as part of the

total mass loading calculations for the

firemain system discharge, presented in

section V.C.11 of the preamble. Metals

contributions from the seals and

bearings themselves are expected to be
45324 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

negligible. It should be noted that the

mass of metals exiting through the seals

and bearings would be reduced by any

controls imposed on firemain system

discharges in UNDS Phases II and III.

While the metals concentrations in the

firemain discharge exceed chronic

Federal criteria and State chronic water

quality criteria, the rate at which the

water is discharged through a vessel’s

stern tube seal and bearings is relatively

small—20 gal/min each shaft, 2 shafts

per ship—resulting in the low pollutant

mass loading exiting through the seals

and bearings. Further, these discharges

are distributed throughout the U.S. at

Armed Forces ports, and each

individual port receives only a fraction

of the total fleetwide mass loading. (See

the Technical Development Document

for details on vessel ports.) Given the

low rate of the discharge and the low

mass loadings, this discharge has a low

potential for causing adverse

environmental impacts. Therefore, EPA

and DOD determined it is not

reasonable and practicable to require the

use of a MPCD to mitigate adverse

impacts on the marine environment for

this discharge.

12. Submarine Acoustic

Countermeasures Launcher Discharge

This intermittent discharge is

composed of seawater that mixes with

acoustic countermeasure device

propulsion gas after launching an

acoustic countermeasure device, then

subsequently discharged either through

exchange with the surrounding seawater

or while draining from an expended

device being removed from the

submarine.

Navy submarines have the capability

to launch acoustic countermeasures

devices to improve the survivability of

a submarine by generating sufficient

noise to be observed by hostile

torpedoes, sonars, or other monitoring

devices. The only countermeasures

systems that generate a discharge within

12 n.m. are the countermeasures set

acoustic (CSA) Mk 2 systems, which

launch the countermeasure devices by

gas propulsion through a launch tube.

Following the launch, a metal plate

closes the launch tube forming a

watertight endcap. To equalize pressure,

a one-way check valve allows water to

flow into the tube after launch, but does

not allow any of the water to be released

through the opening. The launch tube

cap contains three, 3⁄8 inch, bleed hole

plugs that dissolve approximately three

days after the launch. This allows

exchange between the launch tube and

the surrounding seawater while the

submarine is moving. The bleed holes

also allow some launch tube water to

drain into the surrounding water when

the assembly is removed from the

submarine for replacement. The CSA

Mk2 system is installed on 24 Navy

submarines.

Constituents found in the CSA Mk2

launch tubes after launching

countermeasures devices include

copper, cadmium, lead, and silver. The

discharge may also contain constituents

from the propulsion gas including

hydrochloric acid, carbon dioxide,

carbon monoxide, nitrogen, alumina,

iron (II) chloride, titanium dioxide,

hydrogen, and iron (II) oxide. Sampling

indicates that copper, cadmium, and

silver concentrations are above both

Federal acute water criteria and the

most stringent State acute water quality

criteria; lead concentrations are above

the most stringent State water quality

criteria. The total annual mass loadings

from all discharges from submarine CSA

Mk2 countermeasure launcher systems

are estimated at 0.0005 lbs/year

cadmium, 0.0009 lbs/year lead, 0.0007

lbs/year copper, and 0.00009 lbs/year

silver.

Because of the low annual mass

loading, the low frequency at which the

discharge occurs, and the volume of the

individual discharge event (17 gallons),

discharges from submarine CSA

launcher systems have a low potential

for causing adverse environmental

impacts. Therefore EPA and DOD

determined it is not reasonable and

practicable to require a MPCD to

mitigate adverse impacts on the marine

environment for this discharge.

13. Submarine Emergency Diesel Engine

Wet Exhaust

This discharge is seawater that is

mixed and discharged with exhaust

gases from the submarine emergency

diesel engine for the purpose of cooling

the exhaust and quieting the engine.

Submarines are equipped with an

emergency diesel engine that is also

used in a variety of non-emergency

situations, including electrical power

generation to supplement or replace

shore-supplied electricity, routine

maintenance, and readiness checks.

This wet exhaust discharge is generated

by injecting seawater (or harbor water)

as a cooling stream into the diesel

engine exhaust system. The cooling

water mixes with and cools the hot

exhaust gases, and is discharged

primarily as a mist that disperses in the

air before depositing on the surface of

the water body.

All submarines generate this

discharge. Diesel engines must be

operated for equipment checks that

occur prior to submarine deployment,

monthly availability assurance, and

periodic trend analyses. On average,

each submarine will operate the diesel

engine for approximately 60 hours/year

while within 12 n.m. from shore. Most

of the operating time (54 hours/year)

occurs while the submarine is pierside.

Typical constituents of diesel engine

exhaust include various hydrocarbon

combustion by-products, measured as

volatile and semi-volatile organic

compounds. The priority pollutants

expected to be present in the discharge

include polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs), toluene, and

possibly metals. Although no individual

pollutant exceeds water quality criteria,

the total concentration of PAHs in the

discharge is predicted to exceed State

acute water quality criteria.

Nevertheless, the discharge of PAHs is

unlikely to cause adverse impacts on the

marine environment because the total

fleetwide annual mass loading of PAHs

is calculated to be less than 0.06 pounds

per year. Therefore, EPA and DOD

determined that it is not reasonable and

practicable to require a MPCD to

mitigate adverse impacts on the marine

environment for submarine diesel

engine wet exhaust.

14. Submarine Outboard Equipment

Grease and External Hydraulics

This discharge occurs when grease

applied to a submarine’s outboard

equipment is released to the

environment through the mechanical

action of seawater eroding the grease

layer while the submarine is underway,

and by the slow dissolution of the

grease into the seawater. This discharge

also includes any hydraulic oil that may

leak past the seals of hydraulicallyoperated external components of a

submarine (e.g., bow planes).

Outboard equipment grease is

discharged by all submarines, but the

discharge of oil from external hydraulic

equipment is limited to 22 submarines.

This discharge occurs continuously both

within and beyond 12 n.m. from shore,

although the rate of discharge depends

upon the degree of contact between

seawater and the greased outboard

components, and how fast the

submarine is traveling. Most

hydraulically-operated outboard

equipment, for example, does not

contact seawater within 12 n.m. from

shore because submarines generally

operate on the surface in this region,

and the hydraulically-operated

equipment producing this discharge is

located mostly above the waterline.

This discharge consists of grease

(Termalene #2) and hydraulic oil.

Termalene #2 consists of mineral oil, a

calcium-based rust inhibitor, thickening

agents, an antioxidant, and dye. Using
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45325

an assumption that 100 percent of all

grease applied to outboard equipment is

washed away at a constant rate during

submarine operations, the amount of

grease released fleetwide within 12 n.m.

is approximately 520 lbs/year. This

value is believed to overstate the actual

mass of grease discharged within 12

n.m. because submarines operate at

lower rates of speed in coastal waters

(thus leading to less erosion of the

grease) and a surfaced submarine

exposes a lesser amount of grease to the

water than is exposed by a submerged

submarine.

Hydraulic oil consists of paraffinic

distillates and additives. Using a

calculation that assumes all hydraulic

system seals leak oil at the maximum

allowable leak rate, approximately 0.4

lbs/year of hydraulic oil is released

fleetwide within 12 n.m. from shore.

(Based on discussions with Navy

hydraulic system experts, such oil

leakage rates are not common and thus

this calculation overestimates the

amount of oil actually leaked.) The

submarine will displace approximately

120 million cubic feet of water as it

travels within 12 n.m. from shore.

Assuming that hydraulic oil and

outboard grease are leaked at a constant

rate, this will result in concentrations

below the levels established in acute

Federal criteria and State acute water

quality criteria.

In addition, the turbulence created by

the vessel wake is expected to result in

rapid dispersion of the constituents

released. As a result, the submarine

outboard equipment grease and external

hydraulics discharge has low potential

for causing adverse environmental

effects. EPA and DOD determined it is

not reasonable and practicable to

require a MPCD to mitigate adverse

impacts on the marine environment for

this discharge.

VI. Section-By-Section Analysis of the

Regulation

A. Subpart A—Scope

Section 1700.1 Applicability

Section 1700.2 Effect

This rule proposes how discharges

incidental to the normal operation of

Armed Forces vessels would be

controlled within the navigable waters

of the United States and the waters of

the contiguous zone. The rule would

apply to owners and operators of Armed

Forces vessels. This rule would not

apply to commercial and privately

owned vessels.

The rule also would preempt States

and political subdivisions of States from

regulating these discharges, except that

States may establish a no-discharge zone

or apply to EPA for a no-discharge zone.

Federal standards of performance for

each required Marine Pollution Control

Device will be published in § 1700.14 of

this part after the completion of Phase

II of UNDS.

Section 1700.3 Definitions

The definitions in the proposed rule

are based on definitions in the Clean

Water Act (CWA).

The proposed regulatory definition of

‘‘Armed Forces vessel’’ is based on the

statutory definition of ‘‘vessel of the

Armed Forces’’ in CWA section

312(a)(14), which includes vessels

owned or operated by the Department of

Defense, as well as vessels owned or

operated by the Department of

Transportation that are designated by

the Secretary of the department in

which the U.S. Coast Guard is operating

as operating equivalently to Department

of Defense vessels. At present, the U.S.

Coast Guard is operating in the

Department of Transportation. The

Secretary of Transportation has

determined that U.S. Coast Guard

vessels operate equivalently to vessels

of the Department of Defense, and

therefore are included in the proposed

regulatory definition of ‘‘Armed Forces

vessel.’’ Armed Forces vessels are

discussed in section III of this preamble.

CWA section 312(n) applies to

‘‘discharges, other than sewage,

incidental to the normal operation of a

vessel of the Armed Forces.’’ The

proposed regulatory definition of

‘‘discharge incidental to the normal

operation of a vessel’’ is based on the

statutory definition (see CWA section

312(a)(12)(A)), which includes

incidental discharges, other than

sewage, whenever a vessel is

waterborne. If a vessel is not waterborne

(e.g., the vessel is in drydock), its

discharges would not be covered by this

rule; instead these discharges would be

covered under the facility’s drydock

NPDES permit. Discharges not

incidental to the normal operation of a

vessel, such as those resulting from an

emergency situation or unavoidable

accident, also would not be covered by

this rule. Discharges containing source,

special nuclear, or byproduct materials

are regulated by the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et

seq., and are excluded from regulation

under the CWA. Therefore these

discharges would not be covered by this

rule.

CWA section 312(a)(12)(B)

specifically excludes from the definition

of discharge incidental to the normal

operation of a vessel, and thus from the

UNDS program, certain types of

discharges. First, incidental discharges

do not include discharges of rubbish,

trash, garbage, or other such material

discharged overboard. Shipboard solid

waste, including pulper discharges, is

regulated separately under the Act to

Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS), 33

U.S.C. 1901 et seq., which requires

public vessels, including warships, to

comply with the requirements of Annex

V of the Convention to Prevent

Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) for

shipboard solid waste. Each branch of

the Armed Forces and the Coast Guard

has developed regulations, separate

from UNDS, to implement the

requirements of APPS for their vessels.

Second, incidental discharges do not

include air emissions resulting from the

operation of a vessel propulsion system,

motor driven equipment, or incinerator.

Third, incidental discharges do not

include any discharges not covered by

40 CFR 122.3 (as in effect of February

10, 1996). This section of the CFR lists

discharges that are excluded from

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit

requirements, such as discharges

incidental to the normal operation of a

vessel. In other words, UNDS covers

discharges that are excluded by EPA in

40 CFR 122.3.

By enacting CWA section 312(n),

Congress has chosen to regulate

discharges from Armed Forces vessels

through uniform national discharge

standards, rather than by NPDES

permits. This is supported by the

statutory change in CWA section 502(c)

specifically excluding from the

definition of ‘‘pollutant’’ any discharges

incidental to the normal operation of

Armed Forces vessels. Therefore, after a

discharge incidental to the normal

operation of an Armed Forces vessel is

determined not to require control, or

after the regulations for the use of

MPCDs for controlled discharges are

implemented (in Phase III of UNDS),

Armed Forces vessels would not be

required to obtain or comply with

NPDES permits for those discharges.

Although discharges incidental to the

normal operation of a vessel are

excluded from NPDES requirements

under 40 CFR 122.3, that exclusion does

not include discharges when a vessel is

operating in a capacity other than as a

means of transportation, such as when

used as a mining facility or seafood

processing facility. EPA and DOD do not

believe, however, that Congress

intended the UNDS program to be

limited to Armed Forces vessels only

when they are under power. Rather, the

purpose of CWA section 312(n)—to

enhance the operational flexibility of

Armed Forces vessels by avoiding the
45326 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

problems caused by subjecting these

vessels to varying State regulation under

the CWA—and its legislative history,

clearly indicate congressional intent

that this program be comprehensive

with respect to these discharges. This

intent would not be met if Armed

Forces vessels were subject to UNDS

technology standards only when under

power but then subject to State

permitting requirements when they are

docked for any period of time,

especially when the State standards

could be very different from the UNDS

standards and would vary from State to

State. Indeed, this is the very situation

Congress was intending to remedy by

prohibiting States from adopting or

enforcing regulations affecting

discharges covered by UNDS. Therefore,

discharges incidental to the normal

operation of Armed Forces vessels

include incidental discharges whenever

a vessel is waterborne, including

pierside.

By enacting CWA section 312(n),

Congress has chosen to regulate

discharges from Armed Forces vessels

through uniform national discharge

standards, rather than by NPDES

permits. Congress made no such

statements and passed no legislation

regarding commercial and private

vessels, and the distinction in 40 CFR

122.3 between discharges from a vessel

‘‘when it is operating as a means of

transportation’’ and when it is not

remains unchanged for those vessels.

Finally, under CWA section

312(n)(6)(B), this rule would not affect

the application of CWA section 311 to

discharges incidental to the normal

operation of Armed Forces vessels.

No-discharge zone is defined in the

proposed rule as an area of water into

which one or more specified discharges

incidental to the normal operation of

Armed Forces vessels, whether treated

or not, are prohibited. No-discharge

zones are identified and established

following the requirements in §§ 1700.7

to 1700.10 of this proposed rule.

B. Subpart B—Discharge Determinations

Section 1700.4 Discharges Requiring

Control

Section 1700.5 Discharges Not

Requiring Control

Information on vessel discharges was

gathered as described in section IV,

above. The decision methodology

described in section V.A was used to

determine which discharges require

control (described in section V.C) and

which discharges do not require control

(described in section V.D).

C. Subpart C—Effect on States

Section 1700.6 Effect on State and

Local Statutes and Regulations

There are two types of discharges

identified in today’s proposed rule—

those that would require control (listed

in § 1700.4) and those that would not

require control (listed in § 1700.5). The

effect of today’s proposed rule on State

and local statutes and regulations

depends on the type of discharge.

After final promulgation of this rule,

neither States nor political subdivisions

of States would be able to adopt or

enforce any State or local statutes or

regulations controlling a discharge that

will not require control (listed in

§ 1700.5). However, States would be

able to establish a no-discharge zone by

State prohibition (following the

provisions of § 1700.9), or apply for a

no-discharge zone by EPA prohibition

(following the provisions of § 1700.10),

for these discharges.

After final promulgation of this rule,

States also would be able to apply for

a no-discharge zone by EPA prohibition

(following the provisions of § 1700.10)

for discharges that will require control

(listed in § 1700.4). Note that States and

their political subdivisions will not be

prohibited from controlling discharges

listed in § 1700.4 by State or local

statute or regulation until after

regulations governing the design,

construction, installation, and use of the

MPCDs are promulgated (i.e., the third

phase of UNDS is completed). However,

EPA and DOD recommend that States

and political subdivisions coordinate

their actions with EPA and DOD such

that any interim requirements would be

consistent with the final Phase III

regulations. After Phase III regulations

are issued by the Secretary, States and

political subdivisions will not be able to

adopt or enforce any State of local

statute or regulation controlling

discharges listed in § 1700.4 except to

establish a no-discharge zone by State or

EPA prohibition.

States and their political subdivisions

will not be prohibited from regulating

any discharge that is not listed in either

§ 1700.4 or § 1700.5.

This rule also proposes the

requirements for a State to petition the

Administrator and the Secretary to

review whether a discharge should

require control by a MPCD, or to review

a Federal standard of performance for a

MPCD (§§ 1700.11 to 1700.13).

Section 1700.7 No-discharge Zones

For this part, a no-discharge zone is

a waterbody, or portion thereof, where

one or more incidental discharges from

Armed Forces vessels, whether treated

or not, are prohibited. No-discharge

zones are established on the basis of a

need to provide additional

environmental protection for the

designated area of water. A no-discharge

zone may be established by either State

prohibition (see proposed § 1700.9) or

EPA prohibition (see proposed

§ 1700.10). The most significant

difference between the two prohibitions

is that in a State prohibition, adequate

facilities for the safe and sanitary

removal of the prohibited discharge

must be reasonably available. In an EPA

prohibition, adequate collection

facilities are not necessary if EPA

determines, following consultation with

the Secretary, that the significance of

the waters and the potential impact of

the discharge are of sufficient

magnitude to warrant any resulting

constraints on Armed Forces vessels.

The purpose for this difference, which

was established initially in section 312

of the CWA to apply to discharges from

vessel marine sanitation devices, is to

provide the opportunity for States to

seek additional protection for

waterbodies even where collection

facilities for the discharge may not be

available.

The process for establishing an EPA

prohibition is different from the process

for establishing a State prohibition,

including the requirement for the nodischarge zone to be established through

rulemaking rather than by a State statute

or regulation. Another difference is that

for a State prohibition, the

determination that greater protection of

the waters is necessary is made by the

State; for an EPA prohibition, this

determination is made by EPA.

Armed Forces vessels must comply

with State and EPA prohibitions, except

where the Secretary finds that

compliance would not be in the interest

of national security (CWA section

312(n)(1)).

Section 1700.8 Discharges for Which

No-discharge Zones Can Be Established

After the final promulgation of this

rule, no-discharge zones may be

established by State or EPA prohibition

for any discharge identified as not

requiring control (listed in § 1700.5).

After the final promulgation of this

rule, no-discharge zones can be

established by EPA prohibition for any

discharge identified as requiring control

(listed in § 1700.4). States will not be

preempted from regulating or

prohibiting these discharges until after

the Secretary identifies design,

construction, installation, and operation

standards for MPCDs (i.e., after the third

phase of UNDS is complete). After the

third phase is complete, States wanting
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45327

to establish a no-discharge zone by State

prohibition for the discharges listed in

§ 1700.4 must use the procedures in this

part.

Section 1700.9 No-discharge Zones by

State Prohibition

For a State to establish a no-discharge

zone to prohibit one or more Armed

Forces discharges from a specified

waterbody or portion of a waterbody,

several determinations, as specified by

section 312(n)(7)(A) of the CWA, must

be made. The State must determine that

protection and enhancement of the

waters of interest require greater

environmental protection than provided

by UNDS. EPA must determine that: (1)

adequate facilities for the safe and

sanitary removal of the discharge

incidental to the normal operation of

Armed Forces vessels are reasonably

available for the waters being protected;

and (2) the prohibition will not have the

effect of discriminating against an

Armed Forces vessel by reason of the

ownership or operation by the Federal

government, or the military function, of

the vessel. In making its determinations,

EPA will consult with the Secretary on

the adequacy of the facilities and the

operational impact of any prohibition

on Armed Forces vessels.

A State must provide EPA with

enough information, as set forth in

§ 1700.9(a), to make the determinations

listed above. This information is

consistent with the information required

for establishing a State prohibition for

sewage discharges as provided in 40

CFR part 140. The required information

must include:

(1) The discharge from § 1700.4 or

§ 1700.5 of this part to be prohibited

within the no-discharge zone. An area

can be designated as a no-discharge

zone for more than one discharge, and

this may be done in a single request, but

all information required must be

presented separately for each discharge.

(2) A detailed description of the

waters, or portions thereof, to be

included in the prohibition. The

description must include a map,

preferably a USGS topographic quadrant

map, clearly marking the zone

boundaries by latitude and longitude.

(3) A determination that the

protection and enhancement of the

waters described require greater

environmental protection than provided

by existing Federal standards. The

determination should present an

argument that the proposed area is in

need of greater environmental

protection, and a rationale indicating

the justification for the no-discharge

zone.

(4) A complete description of the

facilities available for collecting the

discharge. The State must provide a

map showing the location(s) and

provide a written location description of

the facilities, a demonstration that the

facilities have the capacity to manage

the volume of discharge being

prohibited in terms of both vessel

berthing and discharge reception, the

schedule of operating hours of the

facilities, the draft requirements of the

vessels that will be required to use the

facilities and the available water depth

at the facilities, and information

showing that handling of the discharge

at the facilities is in conformance with

Federal law. Information on Armed

Forces vessel population and usage of

an area and on existing Armed Forces

collection facilities may be obtained

from the Office of the Chief of Naval

Operations, Environmental Protection,

Safety and Occupational Health

Division, N45, Washington DC, 20350–

2000. Information on the amount of

discharge expected from Armed Forces

vessels may be obtained from the

Technical Development Document

available in the docket for this

rulemaking, or by contacting the Office

of the Chief of Naval Operations.

(5) Information on whether the

prohibition would be applied to all

vessels in the area, and, if not,

documentation of the technical or

environmental basis for applying the

prohibition only to Armed Forces

vessels. Documentation on a technical

or environmental basis for applying the

prohibition only to Armed Forces

vessels must include an analysis

showing the relative contributions of the

discharge from Armed Forces and nonArmed Forces vessels, and a description

of State efforts to control the discharge

from non-Armed Forces vessels. EPA is

asking for information on vessels other

than those of the Armed Forces only in

order to determine whether there is

discrimination against Armed Forces

vessels based on their Federal

ownership or operation, or military

function, and not because it is

approving the prohibition with respect

to these other vessels.

The first determination to be made by

EPA—that adequate collection facilities

are reasonably available—will be based

upon a finding that the capacity of

existing facilities is sufficient to handle

the number of vessels and the quantity

of discharge produced.

The second determination to be made

by EPA—that the prohibition will not

have the effect of discriminating against

Armed Forces vessels by reason of

Federal ownership or operation, or

military function—may be based upon a

showing that (1) the prohibition will be

applied to all vessels (not just vessels of

the Armed Forces); or (2) any

distinction between Armed Forces

vessels and other vessels is based on

valid environmental or technical

reasons. For example, if a discharge is

produced only by Armed Forces vessels,

this could be an acceptable technical

basis for such a distinction.

If EPA determines that adequate

facilities are reasonably available and

that the prohibition would not

discriminate against Armed Forces

vessels by reason of Federal ownership

or operation, or military function, the

State may promulgate the no-discharge

zone as a State statute or regulation,

which will be binding on the vessels of

the Armed Forces to which UNDS

applies.

Section 1700.10 No-discharge Zones

by EPA Prohibition

For EPA to establish a no-discharge

zone to prohibit one or more Armed

Forces discharges from a specified

waterbody or portion of a waterbody,

several determinations, as specified by

section 312(n)(7)(B) of the CWA, must

be made. Although these determinations

are similar to those for a State

prohibition, there are three differences:

(1) EPA rather than the State must

determine that the protection and

enhancement of the specified waters

require a prohibition; (2) EPA can not

disapprove an application for an EPA

prohibition for the sole reason that

adequate collection facilities are not

available; and (3) EPA must establish

the no-discharge zone by rulemaking. In

making its determinations, EPA will

consult with the Secretary on the

adequacy of the facilities and the

operational impact of any prohibition

on Armed Forces vessels.

For EPA to make the determinations

required by the legislation and establish

the no-discharge zone, a State must

provide an application to EPA including

the information set forth in § 1700.10(a).

The information required in the

application is consistent with the

application requirements for requesting

an EPA prohibition for sewage

discharges as provided in 40 CFR part

140. The application must include:

(1) The discharge from § 1700.4 or

§ 1700.5 of this part to be prohibited

within the no-discharge zone. An area

can be designated as a no-discharge

zone for more than one discharge, and

this may be done in a single request, but

all information required must be

presented separately for each discharge.

(2) A detailed description of the

waters, or portions thereof, to be

included in the prohibition. The
45328 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

description must include a map,

preferably a USGS topographic quadrant

map, clearly marking the zone

boundaries by latitude and longitude.

(3) A technical analysis demonstrating

the need for protection and

enhancement of the waters of the nodischarge zone beyond those protections

provided by Federal regulations. The

analysis must provide specific

information on why the discharge

adversely impacts the zone and how

prohibition will protect the zone. In

addition, the justification should

characterize any sensitive areas, such as

aquatic sanctuaries, fish-spawning and

nursery areas, pristine areas, areas not

meeting water quality standards,

drinking water intakes, and recreational

areas, that would justify an EPA

prohibition. Less technical justification

as to why the proposed waters need

special protection will be required for

an area where there is little or no

anticipated Armed Forces vessel

presence than for an area where the

impact on Armed Forces vessels is

considered likely or great.

(4) A complete description of the

facilities available for collecting the

discharge. The State must provide a

map showing the location(s) and

provide a written location description of

the facilities, a demonstration that the

facilities have the capacity to manage

the volume of discharge being

prohibited in terms of both vessel

berthing and discharge reception, the

schedule of operating hours of the

facilities, the draft requirements of the

vessels that will be required to use the

facilities and the available water depth

at the facilities, and information

showing that handling of the discharge

at the facilities is in conformance with

Federal law. Information on Armed

Forces vessel population and usage of

an area and on existing Armed Forces

collection facilities may be obtained

from the Office of the Chief of Naval

Operations, Environmental Protection,

Safety and Occupational Health

Division, N45, Washington DC, 20350–

2000. Information on the amount of

discharge expected from Armed Forces

vessels may be obtained from the

Technical Development Document

available in the docket for this

rulemaking, or by contacting the Office

of the Chief of Naval Operations.

(5) Information on whether a similar

prohibition would be applied to other

vessels in the area, and, if not,

documentation of the technical or

environmental basis for applying the

prohibition only to Armed Forces

vessels. Documentation on a technical

or environmental basis for applying the

prohibition only to Armed Forces

vessels must include an analysis

showing the relative contributions of the

discharge from Armed Forces and nonArmed Forces vessels, and a description

of State efforts to control the discharge

from non-Armed Forces vessels. EPA is

asking for information on vessels other

than those of the Armed Forces only in

order to determine whether there is

discrimination against Armed Forces

vessels based on their Federal

ownership or operation, or military

function, and not because it is

approving the prohibition with respect

to these other vessels.

In considering a no-discharge zone

application under this section, EPA

must determine whether adequate

facilities for the safe and sanitary

removal of the discharge are available.

However, the statute directs that EPA

shall not disapprove an application

under this section for the sole reason

that there are not adequate facilities. If

adequate facilities are not available,

EPA may approve the application but

delay the effective date of the

prohibition or place other conditions on

the prohibition that will provide an

opportunity for adequate facilities to

become available. EPA may also

approve the application without

facilities if it determines that the

significance of the waters and the

potential impact of the discharge are of

sufficient magnitude to warrant the

resulting constraints on Armed Forces

vessels. Such a finding would depend

on many factors including the size,

shape, and location of the area, the

nature and amount of the discharge, and

the types of Armed Forces vessels that

use the area and their missions. EPA

will only make such a determination

after careful consultation with the

Secretary.

EPA will make a determination

regarding the need for additional

protection or enhancement of the

waters; the availability of adequate

collection facilities for vessels of the

Armed Forces, or whether, in the

absence of available facilities, a

prohibition is warranted; and whether

the no-discharge zone discriminates

against vessels of the Armed Forces. If

the EPA prohibition is approved, EPA

will establish the no-discharge zone by

regulation. When the rule goes into

effect, it will be binding on the vessels

of the Armed Forces to which UNDS

applies.

Section 1700.11 State Petition for

Review of Determinations or Standards

Section 312(n)(5)(D) of the CWA

authorizes the Governor of any State to

submit a petition to the Administrator

and the Secretary requesting the reevaluation of whether a discharge

requires control, as identified in this

rule, or the re-evaluation of a

performance standard established for a

discharge requiring control, as

identified in the second phase of UNDS.

Until performance standards are

established in rulemaking, petitions can

only be submitted for review of

determinations of whether the discharge

requires control.

Section 1700.12 Petition Requirements

Section 312(n)(5)(D) of the CWA

allows States to submit a petition when

there is new, significant information not

considered previously that could result

in a change to a determination or

standard after consideration of the seven

factors in the legislation. Any petition

for re-evaluation of a determination or

standard must include:

(a) The discharge from § 1700.4 or

§ 1700.5 of this part for which a change

in determination is requested, or the

performance standard from § 1700.14 of

this part for which review is requested.

(b) The scientific and technical

information on which the petition is

based. Because such a decision will

have national implications, the data

must be sufficient to support a finding

that it is appropriate to change the

determination or standard on a nationwide basis. For this reason, any petition

must include or cite to the scientific and

technical information on which the

petition is based. If the results of field

work are submitted, information should

be included on the quality assurance

and quality control procedures used.

(c) A detailed explanation of how the

technical information presented affects

the previous determination or standard.

The explanation shall take into account

the seven factors identified in the UNDS

legislation and listed previously in this

preamble.

Section 1700.13 Petition Decisions

Section 312(n)(5)(D) of the CWA

requires the Administrator and the

Secretary to evaluate the petition and

grant or deny the petition no later than

two years after receiving the petition. If

the Administrator and Secretary grant

the petition, they will undertake

rulemaking to amend the necessary

sections of part 1700.

D. Subpart D—MPCD Performance

Standards

Section 1700.14 Marine Pollution

Control Device (MPCD) Performance

Standards

This section is reserved. No

performance standards are being

proposed in this rulemaking. MPCD
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45329

performance standards for discharges

requiring control will be promulgated

by the Administrator and Secretary in

§ 1700.14 of this rule at the completion

of the second phase of UNDS.

VII. Related Acts of Congress and

Executive Orders

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, Oct. 4, 1993), EPA and DOD

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may: (1) have an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more or adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities; (2) create

a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency; (3)

materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive

Order.

It has been determined that this

proposed Phase I rule is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

the terms of Executive Order 12866 and

is therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and

Executive Order 12875

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under Section 202 of UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, Section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of Section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, Section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Today’s rule contains

no Federal mandates (under the

regulatory provisions of Title II of the

UMRA) for State, local, or tribal

governments or the private sector. The

rule imposes no enforceable duty on any

State, local, or tribal governments or the

private sector. Thus today’s rule is not

subject to the requirements of Sections

202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Before EPA establishes any regulatory

requirements that may significantly or

uniquely affect small governments,

including tribal governments, it must

have developed under Section 203 of

the UMRA a small government agency

plan. The plan must provide for

notifying potentially affected small

governments, enabling officials of

affected small governments to have

meaningful and timely input in the

development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

regulatory requirements. As this rule

would not impose any mandate on

small governments, this rule is not

significant as that term applies under

Section 203 of the UMRA. This rule

does not uniquely affect small

governments because the preemption

that occurs after promulgation of this

rule applies to both large governments

(States) as well as small governments.

Further, the preemption originates from

the CWA rather than this rule. Finally,

the no-discharge zone procedures in the

rule would apply only to States, not

small governments. Thus, this rule

would not significantly or uniquely

affect small governments and Section

203 of the UMRA does not apply.

Nevertheless, as described elsewhere in

this preamble and in the record for the

rule, DOD and EPA sought meaningful

and timely input from States and

localities on this proposed rule.

Executive Order 12875 requires that,

to the extent feasible and permitted by

law, no Federal agency shall promulgate

any regulation that is not required by

statute and that creates a mandate upon

a State, local, or tribal government,

unless funds necessary to pay the direct

costs incurred by the State, local, or

tribal government in complying with the

mandate are provided by the Federal

government or that the Agency provide

OMB certain information about its

outreach efforts. As described above this

rule contains no Federal mandates. It

imposes no enforceable duty on any

State, local, or tribal government. Thus,

Executive Order 12875 does not apply

to this rulemaking.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA and

DOD generally are required to prepare

an initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis describing the impact of the

regulatory action on small entities as

part of rulemaking. However, under

section 605(b) of the RFA, if the

Administrator of EPA or the Secretary of

DOD certifies that the rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities,

EPA and DOD are not required to

prepare a Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis. The RFA recognizes three

kinds of small entities, and defines them

as follows: (1) Small governmental

jurisdictions: any government of a

district with a population of less than

50,000; (2) Small business: any business

which is independently owned and

operated and not dominant in its field,

as defined by the Small Business

Administration regulations under the

Small Business Act; and (3) Small

organization: any not for profit

enterprise that is independently owned

and operated and not dominant in its

field. This proposed Phase I rule would

address discharges from vessels of the

Armed Forces and proposes information

collection requirements on States that

wish to establish no-discharge zones or

petition the Secretary of Defense and the

Administrator to review a determination

regarding the need for a marine

pollution control device or a standard

issued under Phase II of the rule. Small

entities are not affected by this rule.

Therefore, pursuant to section 605(b) of

the RFA, the Administrator and the

Secretary certify that this proposed

Phase I rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed Phase I

rule 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. An

Information Collection Request (ICR)

document has been prepared by EPA

(ICR No.1791.02, amending the

collection with OMB control # 2040–

0187) and a copy may be obtained from

Sandy Farmer by mail at OPPE

Regulatory Information Division; U.S.
45330 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC

20460, by email at

farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by

calling (202) 260–2740. A copy may also

be downloaded off the internet at

http://www.epa.gov/icr.

There are three information

collections associated with this rule,

each of which is required by statute in

order for a State to obtain a benefit. Each

information collection is discussed

separately below (including authority

and projected annual hour and cost

burdens). The total projected annual

hour burden for all three information

collections is 958 hours; the projected

annual cost burden is $31,871.

In order for a State to establish a Nodischarge Zone (NDZ) by State

prohibition, EPA must make the

following determinations: (i) that

adequate facilities for the safe and

sanitary removal of the discharge are

reasonably available for the waters to

which the prohibition would apply; and

(ii) that the prohibition will not have the

effect of discriminating against a vessel

of the Armed Forces by reason of the

ownership or operation by the Federal

Government, or the military function, of

the vessel (see CWA section

312(n)(7)(A), 33 U.S.C. 1322(n)(7)(A)).

The State must provide EPA enough

information to be able to make those

determinations. The specific

information being requested is listed in

proposed 40 CFR 1700.9(a). The

information requested from the State

will be used by EPA to make the

determinations it is required to make by

law in order for a State prohibition to

be effective.

The projected annual hour burden for

requests by a State to EPA to make the

determinations required for the State to

establish a NDZ by State prohibition is

717 hours (with an average of 179.25

burden hours per response and an

estimated 4 respondents per year). The

projected annual cost burden is $23,815

(with an average of $23,215 for labor, $0

for capital and start-up costs, $600 for

operation and maintenance, and $0 for

the purchase of services).

In order for EPA to establish a NDZ

by EPA prohibition (upon application of

a State), EPA must make the following

determinations: (i) that the protection

and enhancement of the quality of the

specified waters require a prohibition of

the discharge; (ii) that adequate facilities

for the safe and sanitary removal of the

discharge are reasonably available for

the waters to which the prohibition

would apply; and (iii) that the

prohibition will not have the effect of

discriminating against a vessel of the

Armed Forces by reason of the

ownership or operation by the Federal

Government, or the military function, of

the vessel (see CWA section

312(n)(7)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1322(n)(7)(B)).

The State must provide EPA enough

information to be able to make those

determinations. The specific

information being requested is listed in

proposed 40 CFR 1700.10(a). The

information requested from the State

will be used by EPA to make the

determinations it is required to make by

law in order to establish a NDZ.

The projected annual hour burden for

applications by a State to EPA to

establish a NDZ by EPA prohibition is

194.25 hours (with an average of 194.25

burden hours per response and an

estimated 1 respondent per year). The

projected annual cost burden is $6,478

(with an average of $6,328 for labor, $0

for capital and start-up costs, $150 for

operation and maintenance, and $0 for

the purchase of services).

The Governor of any State may

request EPA and the Secretary of

Defense to review (i) a determination of

whether an UNDS discharge requires a

control, or (ii) a standard of performance

for a control on an UNDS discharge, by

submitting a petition which discusses

significant new scientific and technical

information that could reasonably result

in a change to the determination or

standard (see CWA section 312(n)(5)(D),

33 U.S.C. 1322(n)(5)(D)). The State must

provide EPA this information and a

discussion of how the information is

relevant to one or more of the seven

factors which EPA and the Secretary of

Defense are required to consider in

making these determinations and

standards (see CWA section

312(n)(2)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1322(n)(2)(B)).

These requirements are listed in

proposed 40 CFR 1700.12. The

information requested from the State

will be used by EPA and the Secretary

of Defense in order to review any

determinations and standards

promulgated under UNDS.

The projected annual hour burden for

petitions from a State to EPA and DOD

to review a determination or standard is

46.25 hours (with an average of 46.25

burden hours per response and an

estimated 1 respondent per year). The

projected annual cost burden is $1,578

(with an average of $1,428 for labor, $0

for capital and start-up costs, $150 for

operation and maintenance, and $0 for

the purchase of services).

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and 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 are listed

in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15.

Comments are requested on the

Agency’s need for this information, the

accuracy of the provided burden

estimates, and any suggested methods

for minimizing respondent burden,

including through the use of automated

collection techniques. Send comments

on the ICR to the Director, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137); 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC

20460; and to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,

NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.’’

Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Since OMB is required

to make a decision concerning the ICR

between 30 and 60 days after August 25,

1998, a comment to OMB is best assured

of having its full effect if OMB receives

it by September 24, 1998. The final rule

will respond to any OMB or public

comments on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposal.

E. Executive Order 13045

On April 23, 1997, the President

issued Executive Order 13045 entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885). The Executive

Order applies to any rule that EPA

determines (1) ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental or safety effects of the

planned rule on children; and explain

why the planned regulation is preferable

to other potentially effective and

reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45331

This proposed Phase I rule is not

subject to Executive Order 13045

because it is not an economically

significant regulatory action as defined

by Executive Order 12866.

F. Endangered Species Act

EPA and DOD have discussed the

applicability of the Endangered Species

Act (ESA) to the three phases of the

Uniform National Discharge Standards

rulemaking. As Phase I is a preliminary

step, simply identifying the discharges

that will require control and the

discharges that will not require control,

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

the National Marine Fisheries Service

have agreed that the consultation

requirements of section 7 of the ESA do

not apply to Phase I. Instead, EPA and

DOD will initiate consultation during

Phase II of the UNDS rulemaking, which

will establish performance standards for

the discharges identified in Phase I as

requiring control.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Under section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act (NTTAA), EPA and DOD are

required to use voluntary consensus

standards in their regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, business

practices, etc.) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. Where available and

potentially applicable voluntary

consensus standards are not used by

EPA or DOD, the Act requires the

Agency and Department to provide

Congress, through the Office of

Management and Budget, an

explanation of the reasons for not using

such standards.

EPA and DOD do not believe that this

proposed Phase I rule addresses any

technical standards subject to the

NTTAA. It simply addresses which

discharges would or would not require

a MPCD. A commenter who disagrees

with this conclusion should indicate

how the notice is subject to the Act and

identify any potentially applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

Appendix A to the Preamble—

Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other

Terms Used in This Document

Administrator—The Administrator of the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

AFFF—Aqueous film-forming foam

CFR—U.S. Code of Federal Regulations

CPO—Chlorine-produced oxidants

CPP—Controllable pitch propeller

Clean Water Act—The Federal Water

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972

(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)

CWA—Clean Water Act

DOD—U.S. Department of Defense

EPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ICCP—Impressed current cathodic protection

LCAC—Air-cushion landing craft

LCU—Utility landing craft

MPCD—Marine pollution control device

MSC—Military Sealift Command

n.m.—Nautical miles

No-discharge zone—An area of water into

which one or more specified discharges is

prohibited, as established under

procedures set forth in proposed 40 CFR

1700.7 to 1700.10

NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System

OCM—Oil content monitor

OWS—Oil-water separator psi—Pounds per

square inch

Secretary—The Secretary of the U.S.

Department of Defense

TBT—Tributyl tin

USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture

UNDS—Uniform national discharge

standards

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 1700

Environmental protection, Armed

Forces, Coastal zone, Vessels, Water

pollution control.

Dated: August 11, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator, Environmental Protection

Agency.

Dated: August 4, 1998.

Robert B. Pirie, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations

and Environment).

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, EPA and DOD propose to

establish a new chapter VII in title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations

consisting at this time of part 1700 to

read as follows:

CHAPTER VII—ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY AND

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

PART 1700—UNIFORM NATIONAL

DISCHARGE STANDARDS FOR

VESSELS OF THE ARMED FORCES

Subpart A—Scope

Sec.

1700.1 Applicability.

1700.2 Effect.

1700.3 Definitions.

Subpart B—Discharge Determinations

1700.4 Discharges requiring control.

1700.5 Discharges not requiring control.

Subpart C—Effect on States

1700.6 Effect on State and local statutes and

regulations.

No-Discharge Zones

1700.7 No-discharge zones.

1700.8 Discharges for which no-discharge

zones can be established.

1700.9 No-discharge zones by State

prohibition.

1700.10 No-discharge zones by EPA

prohibition.

State Petition for review

1700.11 State petition for review of

determinations or standards.

1700.12 Petition requirements.

1700.13 Petition decisions.

Subpart D—Marine Pollution Control Device

(MPCD) Performance Standards

1700.14 Marine Pollution Control Device

(MPCD) Performance Standards.

[reserved]

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1322, 1361.

PART 1700—UNIFORM NATIONAL

DISCHARGE STANDARDS FOR

VESSELS OF THE ARMED FORCES

Subpart A—Scope

§ 1700.1 Applicability.

(a) This part applies to the owners

and operators of Armed Forces vessels,

except where the Secretary of Defense

finds that compliance with this part is

not in the interest of the national

security of the United States. This part

does not apply to vessels while they are

under construction, vessels in drydock,

amphibious vehicles, or vessels under

the jurisdiction of the Department of

Transportation other than those of the

Coast Guard.

(b) This part also applies to States and

political subdivisions of States.

§ 1700.2 Effect.

(a) This part identifies those

discharges, other than sewage,

incidental to the normal operation of

Armed Forces vessels that require

control within the navigable waters of

the United States and the waters of the

contiguous zone, and those discharges

that do not require control. Discharges

requiring control are identified in

§ 1700.4. Discharges not requiring

control are identified in § 1700.5.

Federal standards of performance for

each required Marine Pollution Control

Device are listed in § 1700.14. This part

is not applicable beyond the contiguous

zone.

(b) This part prohibits States and their

political subdivisions from adopting or

enforcing State or local statutes or

regulations controlling the discharges

from Armed Forces vessels listed in

§§ 1700.4 and 1700.5 according to the

timing provisions in § 1700.6, except to

establish a no-discharge zone by State

prohibition in accordance with § 1700.9,

or to apply for a no-discharge zone by
45332 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

EPA prohibition in accordance with

§ 1700.10. This part also provides a

mechanism for States to petition the

Administrator and the Secretary to

review a determination of whether a

discharge requires control, or to review

a Federal standard of performance for a

Marine Pollution Control Device, in

accordance with §§ 1700.11 through

1700.13.

§ 1700.3 Definitions.

Administrator means the

Administrator of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency or

that person’s authorized representative.

Armed Forces vessel means a vessel

owned or operated by the United States

Department of Defense or the United

States Coast Guard, other than vessels

that are time or voyage chartered by the

Armed Forces, vessels of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, or vessels that are

memorials or museums.

Discharge incidental to the normal

operation of a vessel means a discharge,

including, but not limited to: graywater,

bilgewater, cooling water, weather deck

runoff, ballast water, oil water separator

effluent, and any other pollutant

discharge from the operation of a marine

propulsion system, shipboard

maneuvering system, crew habitability

system, or installed major equipment,

such as an aircraft carrier elevator or a

catapult, or from a protective,

preservative, or absorptive application

to the hull of a vessel; and a discharge

in connection with the testing,

maintenance, and repair of any of the

aforementioned systems whenever the

vessel is waterborne, including pierside.

A discharge incidental to normal

operation does not include:

(1) Sewage;

(2) A discharge of rubbish, trash, or

garbage;

(3) A discharge of air emissions

resulting from the operation of a vessel

propulsion system, motor driven

equipment, or incinerator;

(4) A discharge that requires a

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit

under the Clean Water Act; or

(5) A discharge containing source,

special nuclear, or byproduct materials

regulated by the Atomic Energy Act.

Environmental Protection Agency,

abbreviated EPA, means the United

States Environmental Protection

Agency.

Marine Pollution Control Device,

abbreviated MPCD, means any

equipment or management practice

installed or used on an Armed Forces

vessel that is designed to receive, retain,

treat, control, or discharge a discharge

incidental to the normal operation of a

vessel, and that is determined by the

Administrator and Secretary to be the

most effective equipment or

management practice to reduce the

environmental impacts of the discharge

consistent with the considerations in

Clean Water Act section 312(n)(2)(B).

No-discharge zone means an area of

specified waters established pursuant to

this regulation into which one or more

specified discharges incidental to the

normal operation of Armed Forces

vessels, whether treated or untreated,

are prohibited.

Secretary means the Secretary of the

United States Department of Defense or

that person’s authorized representative.

United States includes the States, the

District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the

Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,

the Canal Zone, and the Trust Territory

of the Pacific Islands.

Vessel includes every description of

watercraft or other artificial contrivance

used, or capable of being used, as a

means of transportation on navigable

waters of the United States or waters of

the contiguous zone, but does not

include amphibious vehicles.

Subpart B—Discharge Determinations

§ 1700.4 Discharges requiring control.

For the following discharges

incidental to the normal operation of

Armed Forces vessels, the

Administrator and the Secretary have

determined that it is reasonable and

practicable to require use of a Marine

Pollution Control Device for at least one

class of vessel to mitigate adverse

impacts on the marine environment:

(a) Aqueous Film-Forming Foam: the

firefighting foam and seawater mixture

discharged during training, testing, or

maintenance operations.

(b) Catapult Water Brake Tank & PostLaunch Retraction Exhaust: the oily

water skimmed from the water tank

used to stop the forward motion of an

aircraft carrier catapult, and the

condensed steam discharged when the

catapult is retracted.

(c) Chain Locker Effluent: the

accumulated precipitation and seawater

that is emptied from the compartment

used to store the vessel’s anchor chain.

(d) Clean Ballast: the seawater taken

into, and discharged from, dedicated

ballast tanks to maintain the stability of

the vessel and to adjust the buoyancy of

submarines.

(e) Compensated Fuel Ballast: the

seawater taken into, and discharged

from, ballast tanks designed to hold

both ballast water and fuel to maintain

the stability of the vessel.

(f) Controllable Pitch Propeller

Hydraulic Fluid: the hydraulic fluid that

discharges into the surrounding

seawater from propeller seals as part of

normal operation, and the hydraulic

fluid released during routine

maintenance of the propellers.

(g) Deck Runoff: the precipitation,

washdowns, and seawater falling on the

weather deck of a vessel and discharged

overboard through deck openings.

(h) Dirty Ballast: the seawater taken

into, and discharged from, empty fuel

tanks to maintain the stability of the

vessel.

(i) Distillation and Reverse Osmosis

Brine: the concentrated seawater (brine)

produced as a byproduct of the

processes used to generate freshwater

from seawater.

(j) Elevator Pit Effluent: the liquid that

accumulates in, and is discharged from,

the sumps of elevator wells on vessels.

(k) Firemain Systems: the seawater

pumped through the firemain system for

firemain testing, maintenance, and

training, and to supply water for the

operation of certain vessel systems.

(l) Gas Turbine Water Wash: the water

released from washing gas turbine

components.

(m) Graywater: galley, bath, and

shower water, as well as wastewater

from lavatory sinks, laundry, interior

deck drains, water fountains, and shop

sinks.

(n) Hull Coating Leachate: the

constituents that leach, dissolve, ablate,

or erode from the paint on the hull into

the surrounding seawater.

(o) Motor Gasoline and Compensating

Discharge: the seawater taken into, and

discharged from, motor gasoline tanks to

eliminate free space where vapors could

accumulate.

(p) Non-oily machinery wastewater:

the combined wastewater from the

operation of distilling plants, water

chillers, valve packings, water piping,

low- and high-pressure air compressors,

and propulsion engine jacket coolers.

(q) Photographic Laboratory Drains:

the laboratory wastewater resulting from

processing of photographic film.

(r) Seawater Cooling Overboard

Discharge: the discharge of seawater

from a dedicated system that provides

noncontact cooling water for other

vessel systems.

(s) Seawater Piping Biofouling

Prevention: the discharge of seawater

containing additives used to prevent the

growth and attachment of biofouling

organisms in dedicated seawater cooling

systems on selected vessels.

(t) Small Boat Engine Wet Exhaust:

the seawater that is mixed and

discharged with small boat propulsion

engine exhaust to cool the exhaust and

quiet the engine.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45333

(u) Sonar Dome Discharge: the

leaching of antifoulant materials into

the surrounding seawater and the

release of seawater or freshwater

retained within the sonar dome.

(v) Submarine Bilgewater: the

wastewater from a variety of sources

that accumulates in the lowest part of

the submarine (i.e., bilge).

(w) Surface Vessel Bilgewater/OilWater Separator Effluent: the

wastewater from a variety of sources

that accumulates in the lowest part of

the vessel (the bilge), and the effluent

produced when the wastewater is

processed by an oil water separator.

(x) Underwater Ship Husbandry: the

materials discharged during the

inspection, maintenance, cleaning, and

repair of hulls performed while the

vessel is waterborne.

(y) Welldeck Discharges: the water

that accumulates from seawater flooding

of the docking well (welldeck) of a

vessel used to transport, load, and

unload amphibious vessels, and from

maintenance and freshwater washings

of the welldeck and equipment and

vessels stored in the welldeck.

§ 1700.5 Discharges not requiring control.

For the following discharges

incidental to the normal operation of

Armed Forces vessels, the

Administrator and the Secretary have

determined that it is not reasonable or

practicable to require use of a Marine

Pollution Control Device to mitigate

adverse impacts on the marine

environment:

(a) Boiler Blowdown: the water and

steam discharged when a steam boiler is

blown down, or when a steam safety

valve is tested.

(b) Catapult Wet Accumulator

Discharge: the water discharged from a

catapult wet accumulator, which stores

a steam/water mixture for launching

aircraft from an aircraft carrier.

(c) Cathodic Protection: the

constituents released into surrounding

water from sacrificial anode or

impressed current cathodic hull

corrosion protection systems.

(d) Freshwater Lay-up: the potable

water that is discharged from the

seawater cooling system while the

vessel is in port, and the cooling system

is in lay-up mode (a standby mode

where seawater in the system is

replaced with potable water for

corrosion protection).

(e) Mine Countermeasures Equipment

Lubrication: the constituents released

into the surrounding seawater by

erosion or dissolution from lubricated

mine countermeasures equipment when

the equipment is deployed and towed.

(f) Portable Damage Control Drain

Pump Discharge: the seawater pumped

through the portable damage control

drain pump and discharged overboard

during testing, maintenance, and

training activities.

(g) Portable Damage Control Drain

Pump Wet Exhaust: the seawater mixed

and discharged with portable damage

control drain pump exhaust to cool the

exhaust and quiet the engine.

(h) Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

Condensate: the drainage of condensed

moisture from air conditioning units,

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerated

spaces.

(i) Rudder Bearing Lubrication: the oil

or grease released by the erosion or

dissolution from lubricated bearings

that support the rudder and allow it to

turn freely.

(j) Steam Condensate: the condensed

steam discharged from a vessel in port,

where the steam originates from port

facilities.

(k) Stern Tube Seals and Underwater

Bearing Lubrication: the seawater

pumped through stern tube seals and

underwater bearings to lubricate and

cool them during normal operation.

(l) Submarine Countermeasures Set

Acoustic Launcher Discharge: the

seawater that is mixed with acoustic

countermeasure device propulsion gas

following a countermeasure launch that

is then exchanged with surrounding

seawater, or partially drained when the

launch assembly is removed from the

submarine for maintenance.

(m) Submarine Emergency Diesel

Engine Wet Exhaust: the seawater that is

mixed and discharged with submarine

emergency diesel engine exhaust to cool

the exhaust and quiet the engine.

(n) Submarine Outboard Equipment

Grease and External Hydraulics: the

grease released into the surrounding

seawater by erosion or dissolution from

submarine equipment exposed to

seawater.

Subpart C—Effect on States

§ 1700.6 Effect on State and local statutes

and regulations.

(a) After the effective date of a final

rule determining that it is not

reasonable and practicable to require

use of a Marine Pollution Control

Device regarding a particular discharge

incidental to the normal operation of an

Armed Forces vessel, States or political

subdivisions of States may not adopt or

enforce any State or local statute or

regulation, including issuance or

enforcement of permits under the

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System, controlling that

discharge, except that States may

establish a no-discharge zone by State

prohibition (as provided in § 1700.9), or

apply for a no-discharge zone by EPA

prohibition (as provided in § 1700.10).

(b)(1) After the effective date of a final

rule determining that it is reasonable

and practicable to require use of a

Marine Pollution Control Device

regarding a particular discharge

incidental to the normal operation of an

Armed Forces vessel, States may apply

for a no-discharge zone by EPA

prohibition (as provided in § 1700.10)

for that discharge.

(2) After the effective date of a final

rule promulgated by the Secretary

governing the design, construction,

installation, and use of a Marine

Pollution Control Device for a discharge

listed in § 1700.4, States or political

subdivisions of States may not adopt or

enforce any State or local statute or

regulation, including issuance or

enforcement of permits under the

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System, controlling that

discharge except that States may

establish a no-discharge zone by State

prohibition (as provided in § 1700.9), or

apply for a no-discharge zone by EPA

prohibition (as provided in § 1700.10).

(c) The Governor of any State may

submit a petition requesting that the

Administrator and Secretary review a

determination of whether a Marine

Pollution Control Device is required for

any discharge listed in § 1700.4 or

§ 1700.5, or review a Federal standard of

performance for a Marine Pollution

Control Device.

No-Discharge Zones

§ 1700.7 No-discharge zones.

For this part, a no-discharge zone is

a waterbody, or portion thereof, where

one or more discharges incidental to the

normal operation of Armed Forces

vessels, whether treated or not, are

prohibited. A no-discharge zone is

established either by State prohibition

using the procedures in § 1700.9, or by

EPA prohibition, upon application of a

State, using the procedures in § 1700.10.

§ 1700.8 Discharges for which nodischarge zones can be established.

(a) A no-discharge zone may be

established by State prohibition for any

discharge listed in § 1700.4 or § 1700.5

following the procedures in § 1700.9. A

no-discharge zone established by a State

using these procedures may apply only

to those discharges that have been

preempted from other State or local

regulation pursuant to § 1700.6.

(b) A no-discharge zone may be

established by EPA prohibition for any

discharge listed in § 1700.4 or § 1700.5

following the procedures in § 1700.10.
45334 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

§ 1700.9 No-discharge zones by State

prohibition.

(a) A State seeking to establish a nodischarge zone by State prohibition

must send to the Administrator the

following information:

(1) The discharge from § 1700.4 or

§ 1700.5 to be prohibited within the nodischarge zone.

(2) A detailed description of the

waterbody, or portions thereof, to be

included in the prohibition. The

description must include a map,

preferably a USGS topographic quadrant

map, clearly marking the zone

boundaries by latitude and longitude.

(3) A determination that the

protection and enhancement of the

waters described in paragraph (a)(2) of

this section require greater

environmental protection than provided

by existing Federal standards.

(4) A complete description of the

facilities reasonably available for

collecting the discharge including:

(i) A map showing their location(s)

and a written location description.

(ii) A demonstration that the facilities

have the capacity and capability to

provide safe and sanitary removal of the

volume of discharge being prohibited in

terms of both vessel berthing and

discharge reception.

(iii) The schedule of operating hours

of the facilities.

(iv) The draft requirements of the

vessel(s) that will be required to use the

facilities and the available water depth

at the facilities.

(v) Information showing that handling

of the discharge at the facilities is in

conformance with Federal law.

(5) Information on whether vessels

other than those of the Armed Forces

are subject to the same type of

prohibition. If the State is not applying

the prohibition to all vessels in the area,

the State must demonstrate the

technical or environmental basis for

applying the prohibition only to Armed

Forces vessels. The following

information must be included in the

technical or environmental basis for

treating Armed Forces vessels

differently:

(i) An analysis showing the relative

contributions of the discharge from

Armed Forces and non-Armed Forces

vessels.

(ii) A description of State efforts to

control the discharge from non-Armed

Forces vessels.

(b) The information provided under

paragraph (a) of this section must be

sufficient to enable EPA to make the two

determinations listed below. Prior to

making these determinations, EPA will

consult with the Secretary on the

adequacy of the facilities and the

operational impact of any prohibition

on Armed Forces vessels.

(1) Adequate facilities for the safe and

sanitary removal of the discharge are

reasonably available for the specified

waters.

(2) The prohibition will not have the

effect of discriminating against vessels

of the Armed Forces by reason of the

ownership or operation by the Federal

Government, or the military function, of

the vessels.

(c) EPA will notify the State in writing

of the result of the determinations under

paragraph (b) of this section, and will

provide a written explanation of any

negative determinations. A no-discharge

zone established by State prohibition

will not go into effect until EPA

determines that the conditions of

paragraph (b) of this section have been

met.

§ 1700.10 No-discharge zones by EPA

prohibition.

(a) A State requesting EPA to establish

a no-discharge zone must send to the

Administrator an application containing

the following information:

(1) The discharge from § 1700.4 or

§ 1700.5 to be prohibited within the nodischarge zone.

(2) A detailed description of the

waterbody, or portions thereof, to be

included in the prohibition. The

description must include a map,

preferably a USGS topographic quadrant

map, clearly marking the zone

boundaries by latitude and longitude.

(3) A technical analysis showing why

protection and enhancement of the

waters described in paragraph (a)(2) of

this section require a prohibition of the

discharge. The analysis must provide

specific information on why the

discharge adversely impacts the zone

and how prohibition will protect the

zone. In addition, the analysis should

characterize any sensitive areas, such as

aquatic sanctuaries, fish-spawning and

nursery areas, pristine areas, areas not

meeting water quality standards,

drinking water intakes, and recreational

areas.

(4) A complete description of the

facilities reasonably available for

collecting the discharge including:

(i) A map showing their location(s)

and a written location description.

(ii) A demonstration that the facilities

have the capacity and capability to

provide safe and sanitary removal of the

volume of discharge being prohibited in

terms of both vessel berthing and

discharge reception.

(iii) The schedule of operating hours

of the facilities.

(iv) The draft requirements of the

vessel(s) that will be required to use the

facilities and the available water depth

at the facilities.

(v) Information showing that handling

of the discharge at the facilities is in

conformance with Federal law.

(5) Information on whether vessels

other than those of the Armed Forces

are subject to the same type of

prohibition. If the State is not applying

the prohibition to all vessels in the area,

the State must demonstrate the

technical or environmental basis for

applying the prohibition only to Armed

Forces vessels. The following

information must be included in the

technical or environmental basis for

treating Armed Forces vessels

differently:

(i) An analysis showing the relative

contributions of the discharge from

Armed Forces and non-Armed Forces

vessels.

(ii) A description of State efforts to

control the discharge from non-Armed

Forces vessels.

(b) The information provided under

paragraph (a) of this section must be

sufficient to enable EPA to make the

three determinations listed below. Prior

to making these determinations, EPA

will consult with the Secretary on the

adequacy of the facilities and the

operational impact of the prohibition on

Armed Forces vessels.

(1) The protection and enhancement

of the specified waters require a

prohibition of the discharge.

(2) Adequate facilities for the safe and

sanitary removal of the discharge are

reasonably available for the specified

waters.

(3) The prohibition will not have the

effect of discriminating against vessels

of the Armed Forces by reason of the

ownership or operation by the Federal

Government, or the military function, or

the vessels.

(c) If the three conditions in

paragraph (b) of this section are met,

EPA will by regulation establish the nodischarge zone. If the conditions in

paragraphs (b)(1) and (3) of this section

are met, but the condition in paragraph

(b)(2) of this section is not met, EPA

may establish the no-discharge zone if it

determines that the significance of the

waters and the potential impact of the

discharge are of sufficient magnitude to

warrant any resulting constraints on

Armed Forces vessels.

(d) EPA will notify the State of its

decision on the no-discharge zone

application in writing. If EPA approves

the no-discharge zone application, EPA

will by regulation establish the nodischarge zone by modification to this

part. A no-discharge zone established by

EPA prohibition will not go into effect

until the effective date of the regulation.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 164 /Tuesday, August 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 45335

State Petition for Review

§ 1700.11 State petition for review of

determinations or standards.

The Governor of any State may submit

a petition requesting that the

Administrator and Secretary review a

determination of whether a Marine

Pollution Control Device is required for

any discharge listed in § 1700.4 or

§ 1700.5, or review a Federal standard of

performance for a Marine Pollution

Control Device. A State may submit a

petition only where there is new,

significant information not considered

previously by the Administrator and

Secretary.

§ 1700.12 Petition requirements.

A petition for review of a

determination or standard must include:

(a) The discharge from § 1700.4 or

§ 1700.5 for which a change in

determination is requested, or the

performance standard from § 1700.14 for

which review is requested.

(b) The scientific and technical

information on which the petition is

based.

(c) A detailed explanation of why the

State believes that consideration of the

new information should result in a

change to the determination or the

standard on a nationwide basis, and an

explanation of how the new information

is relevant to one or more of the

following factors:

(1) The nature of the discharge.

(2) The environmental effects of the

discharge.

(3) The practicability of using a

Marine Pollution Control Device.

(4) The effect that installation or use

of the Marine Pollution Control Device

would have on the operation or

operational capability of the vessel.

(5) Applicable United States law.

(6) Applicable international

standards.

(7) The economic costs of the

installation and use of the Marine

Pollution Control Device.

§ 1700.13 Petition decisions.

The Administrator and the Secretary

will evaluate the petition and grant or

deny the petition no later than two years

after the date of receipt of the petition.

If the Administrator and Secretary grant

the petition, they will undertake

rulemaking to amend this part. If the

Administrator and Secretary deny the

petition, they will provide the State

with a written explanation of why they

denied it.

Subpart D—Marine Pollution Control

Device (MPCD) Performance Standards

§ 1700.14 Marine Pollution Control Device

(MPCD) Performance Standards.

[Reserved.]

[FR Doc. 98–22533 Filed 8–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P