Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP)

for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of 

Vessels Less than 79 Feet 

Fact Sheet

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Action: Notice of NPDES General Permit
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 DOES THIS ACTION APPLY TO ME? ....................................................................................................... 1

1.2 PUBLIC COMMENT................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2.1 Submitting Comments ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2.2 What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? ............................................................ 2

1.2.3 Tips for Preparing Your Comments....................................................................................................... 2

1.2.4 How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? ........................................................................................ 3

1.3 PUBLIC HEARING, MEETINGS, AND WEBCAST INFORMATION................................................................. 3

1.3.1 Public Hearing ....................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3.2 Public Meetings..................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3.3 Webcast ................................................................................................................................................. 4

1.4 FURTHER INFORMATION........................................................................................................................ 4

2. BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 THE CLEAN WATER ACT....................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE EXCLUSION OF VESSELS............................................................................ 5

2.3 CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION............................................................................................................. 5

2.4 GENERAL PERMITS................................................................................................................................ 6

2.5 ECONOMIC IMPACTS.............................................................................................................................. 7

3. PERMIT OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 STRUCTURE OF THE PERMIT .................................................................................................................. 8

3.2 THE VESSEL UNIVERSE AFFECTED BY THIS PERMIT.............................................................................. 9

3.2.1 Commercial Fishing Vessels................................................................................................................11

3.2.2 Other Non-recreational Vessels...........................................................................................................11

3.2.3 Vessel Size...........................................................................................................................................12

3.3 ELIGIBILITY.........................................................................................................................................12

3.4 WATERS COVERED/GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE.............................................................................................13

3.5 OBTAINING COVERAGE UNDER THIS PERMIT......................................................................................13

3.5.1 No Requirement to Submit a Notice of Intent (NOI)...........................................................................14

3.5.2 Terminating Coverage .........................................................................................................................15

3.6 VESSEL DISCHARGES ELIGIBLE FOR COVERAGE .................................................................................15

3.7 VESSEL DISCHARGES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR COVERAGE..........................................................................15

3.7.1 Discharges not Subject to Former NPDES Permit Exclusion including Vessels Being Operated in a 

Capacity other than as a Means of Transportation..............................................................................16

3.7.2 Sewage from Vessels...........................................................................................................................17

3.7.3 Used or Spent Oil................................................................................................................................. 17

3.7.4 Garbage or Trash ................................................................................................................................. 17

3.7.5 Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene) Degreasers and Other Products ..........................................17

3.7.6 Discharges Currently or Previously Covered by Another NPDES Permit ..........................................18

3.8 CONSTITUENTS CONTROLLED BY THIS PERMIT ...................................................................................18

3.8.1 Aquatic Nuisance Species....................................................................................................................18

3.8.2 Nutrients ..............................................................................................................................................19

3.8.3 Pathogens.............................................................................................................................................20

3.8.4 Oil and Grease .....................................................................................................................................21

3.8.5 Metals ..................................................................................................................................................22

3.8.6 Toxic and Non-Conventional Pollutants with Toxic Effects...............................................................23

3.8.7 Other Non-Conventional and Conventional Pollutants (Except Fecal Coliform)................................23

4. THE SVGP EFFLUENT LIMITS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS ...................................24

4.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................................................25

4.2 FUEL MANAGEMENT ...........................................................................................................................25
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

ii

4.3 ENGINE AND OIL CONTROL.................................................................................................................26

4.4 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT .........................................................................................27

4.5 DECK WASHDOWN AND RUNOFF AND ABOVE THE WATER LINE HULL CLEANING.............................27

4.6 VESSEL HULL MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................28

4.7 GRAYWATER .......................................................................................................................................29

4.8 FISH HOLD EFFLUENT .........................................................................................................................30

4.9 BALLAST WATER ................................................................................................................................31

4.10 SEAWATER COOLING OVERBOARD DISCHARGE (INCLUDING NON-CONTACT ENGINE COOLING 

WATER; HYDRAULIC SYSTEM COOLING WATER, REFRIGERATION COOLING WATER) ...........................................32

4.11 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ..................................................................32

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

4.11.2 National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. Section 1431 et seq. and implementing regulations found 

at 15 CFR Part 922 and 50 CFR Part 404 [NMSA]) ..........................................................................33

4.11.3 USDA Federal Noxious Weed Act, 7 CFR Part 361 ...........................................................................34

4.11.4 Act to Prevent Pollution From Ships (APPS), 33 U.S.C. 1901............................................................34

4.11.5 The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).................35

4.11.6 Oil Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) .............................................................................35

4.12 EPA ESTABLISHMENT OF TECHNOLOGY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS IN THE SVGP ..............................35

4.12.1 Background..........................................................................................................................................35

4.12.2 The Clean Water Act Requires EPA to Develop Effluent Limitations that Represent the Following: 36

4.12.2.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT).................................................................... 36

4.12.2.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)..................................................................36

4.12.2.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)............................................................36

4.12.3 Numeric Limitations are Infeasible......................................................................................................37

4.12.4 Technology-Based Effluent Limits......................................................................................................38

4.12.4.1 Types of Technology-Based Effluent Limits.......................................................................................38

4.12.4.2 Inclusion of Non-Numeric Technology-Based Limits in NPDES Permits..........................................38

4.12.4.3 EPA’s Decision to Include Non-Numeric Technology-Based Effluent Limits in This Permit and 

Rationale for Why the Limits Represent the Appropriate (BPT, BCT, or BAT) Level of Control....39

4.12.4.3.1 Non-Numeric Technology-Based Effluent Limits in This Permit ....................................................39

4.12.4.3.2 Requirements are Technologically Available and Meet the BPT and BAT Economic Tests Set Forth 

in the CWA.........................................................................................................................................40

5. MONITORING AND RECORDKEEPING...................................................................................41

5.1 RECORDKEEPING................................................................................................................................. 41

5.2 ROUTINE QUARTERLY VISUAL INSPECTION ........................................................................................41

6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS................................................................................................. 42

6.1 CONTINUATION OF THE PERMIT...........................................................................................................42

6.2 ALTERNATIVE PERMITS.......................................................................................................................42

6.2.1 EPA Requiring Coverage under an Alternative Permit .......................................................................42

6.2.2 Permittee Requesting Coverage under an Alternative Permit..............................................................42

6.3 PERMIT COMPLIANCE..........................................................................................................................43

6.4 OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS (PARTS 4.4-4.10 OF THE SVGP).............................................................43

6.5 WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS .............................................................................43

6.6 OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................... 46

6.6.1 Ocean Discharge Criteria.....................................................................................................................46

6.6.2 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).............................................................................................48

6.6.3 Endangered Species Consultation........................................................................................................48

6.6.4 Tribal Consultation ..............................................................................................................................48

6.6.5 Essential Fish Habitat Consultations ...................................................................................................49

7. STATE OR TRIBAL REQUIREMENTS RESULTING FROM 401 CERTIFICATION ........49

8. DEFINITIONS..................................................................................................................................49

9. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 49
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

1 

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

EPA has generally worded this fact sheet as if the proposed permit was final, using 

phrasing such as “the Permit requires XXX” rather than “the Permit, if finalized, would require 

XXX” or “the draft permit would require XXX,” because we believe this presentation would best 

allow commenters to see how the fact sheet would appear in final form. However, EPA will 

consider all public comments on the proposed permit and fact sheet and will make appropriate 

changes in response to such comments. 

1.1 DOES THIS ACTION APPLY TO ME? 

This permit is applicable to discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels 

identified in Part 1.4 from non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet (24.08 meters) into waters 

subject to this permit. Recreational vessels as defined in section 502(25) of the Clean Water Act 

and vessels of the Armed Forces as defined in Section 312 (a)(14) of the Clean Water Act are not 

subject to this permit. 

1.2 PUBLIC COMMENT

EPA is soliciting comment on the draft Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP). Comments 

on any provision of the permit, or comments on the draft fact sheet discussion, are welcome. The 

comment period is open for 75 days from publication of the Notice in the Federal Register 

announcing this permit. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov. 

1.2.1 Submitting Comments

Comments may be submitted to EPA in the following ways:

• EPA Dockets. Use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA 

electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to 

www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once

in the system, select “search” and then Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150. The 

system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, 

email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 

comment.

• Email. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (email) to ow-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150. In contrast to EPA's electronic 

public docket, EPA's email system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an 

email comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public 

docket, EPA's email system automatically captures your email address. Email addresses 

that are automatically captured by EPA's email system are included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the official public docket and are made available in EPA's 

electronic public docket.

• Disk or CD-ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the 

mailing address identified below. These electronic submissions will be accepted in 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

2 

Microsoft Word or ASCII file format. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 

• By Mail. Send the original and three copies of your comments to: Water Docket, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC, 20460, Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150. 

• By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Reading Room, Room 

B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket's normal hours of operation, as identified in section 1.2.4 below. 

Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. 

1.2.2 What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit this information to 

EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark all the information that you claim to 

be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of 

the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then electronically identify within the disk or CD-ROM the 

specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 

that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. CBI so marked 

will not be disclosed, except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. 

1.2.3 Tips for Preparing Your Comments

Please follow these guidelines as you prepare your comments so that EPA can better 

address them in a timely manner.

• Identify the agency action by docket number and other identifying information (subject 

heading, Federal Register date, and page number). 

• Explain why you agree or disagree with any proposed provisions; suggest alternatives 

and substitute language for your requested changes. You may wish to examine the draft 

NPDES Vessel General Permit (VGP) for discharges incidental to the normal operation 

of commercial vessels, also proposed today, for further information about issues 

associated with permitting vessel discharges. 

• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you 

used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in 

sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as possible.

• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline. EPA is not 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

3 

obligated to accept or consider late comments.

1.2.4 How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? 

The opportunity to raise issues and provide information on this general permit is during the 

public comment period (see 40 CFR 124.13 for more information). You may submit comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 

identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your 

comment. To ensure that EPA can read, understand, and therefore, properly respond to 

comments, the Agency would prefer that commenters cite, where possible, the paragraph(s) or 

section in the fact sheet or permit to which each comment refers. Please ensure that your 

comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the 

close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late 

comments. 

For additional information about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center home 

page at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the 

EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. A 

reasonable fee may be charged for copying. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 

Water Docket is (202) 566-1744. 

1.3 PUBLIC HEARING, MEETINGS, AND WEBCAST INFORMATION

1.3.1 Public Hearing 

Because EPA anticipates a significant degree of public interest in the sVGP, EPA will hold 

a public hearing on Wednesday January 11, 2012 to receive public comment and answer 

questions concerning the draft sVGP (and draft VGP), and will present the proposed 

requirements of the draft VGP and the draft sVGP and the basis for those requirements. The 

hearing will be held at EPA East Room 1153, 1201 Constitution Ave NW, Washington DC 

20460, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EST) or until all comments have been heard. Any person 

may provide written or oral statements and data pertaining to the draft permits at the public 

hearing. Depending on the number of people who desire to make an oral statement, EPA may 

impose limits on the time allowed for oral statements, which may result in the full statement not 

being heard. Therefore, EPA recommends that all those planning to present oral statements also 

submit written statements. Any person not making an oral statement may also submit a written 

statement. Please note that the public hearing may close early if all business is finished. 

1.3.2 Public Meetings

The focus of the public meeting is to present the proposed requirements of the sVGP (and 

VGP) and the basis for those requirements, as well as to answer questions concerning the draft 

permits. At this meeting, any person may provide written or oral statements and data pertaining 

to the draft permits. The date, time, and location of the public meeting is as follows: 

• Monday January 23, 2012, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. CST or until all comments have been heard, 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

4 

Ralph H. Metcalfe Federal Building, Room 331, 77 West Jackson Blvd, Chicago IL 

60604. 

Depending on public interest, EPA may host at least one additional public meeting. Please 

see EPA’s webpage at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels, which will announce any additional public 

meetings. EPA will announce the public meeting on its webpage at least four weeks before it is 

scheduled to occur. 

EPA encourages interested and potentially affected stakeholders to attend one of the 

scheduled public meetings or hearings and provide oral or written comments. These meetings 

are open to the public. Please note that the public meeting may end early if all business is 

finished. Oral or written comments received at the public meeting will be entered into the 

Docket. If you are unable to attend, you may submit comments to the EPA Water Docket at the 

address listed under Section 1.2.1 of this fact sheet. 

1.3.3 Webcast

EPA is scheduling a webcast to provide information on the draft permits and to answer 

questions for interested parties that are unable to attend the public meetings or public hearing. 

For information on the time, how to register, and how to attend the webcast, see EPA’s website 

at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels. EPA plans to schedule this webcast in the latter half of 

January and will announce it on its webpage at least four weeks before it is scheduled to occur. 

1.4 FURTHER INFORMATION

For further information on the sVGP, please send an email to svgp@epa.gov or contact 

Robin Danesi at (202) 564-1846 or Ryan Albert at (202) 564-0763. 

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 THE CLEAN WATER ACT 

Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides that “the discharge of any 

pollutant by any person shall be unlawful” unless the discharge is in compliance with certain 

other sections of the Act. 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). The CWA defines “discharge of a pollutant” as 

“(A) any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, (B) any addition of 

any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or ocean from any point source other than a 

vessel or other floating craft.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(12). A “point source” is a “discernible, confined 

and discrete conveyance” and includes a “vessel or other floating craft.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(14). 

The term “pollutant” includes, among other things, “garbage...chemical wastes...and 

industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.” The Act’s definition of 

“pollutant” specifically excludes “sewage from vessels or a discharge incidental to the normal 

operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces” within the meaning of CWA 312.33 U.S.C. 1362(b). 

One way a person may discharge a pollutant without violating the section 301 prohibition 

is by obtaining authorization to discharge (referred to herein as “coverage”) under a section 402 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (33 U.S.C. 1342). Under 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

5 

section 402(a), EPA may “issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of 

pollutants, not withstanding section 1311(a)” upon certain conditions required by the Act. 

2.2 LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE EXCLUSION OF VESSELS 

In December 2003, a long-standing exclusion of discharges incidental to the normal 

operation of vessels from the NPDES program became the subject of a lawsuit in the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 30, 2005, the U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of California determined that the exclusion exceeded the Agency’s 

authority under the CWA. Following the submission of briefs and oral arguments by parties and 

intervenors on the issue of a proper remedy, the District Court issued a final order in September 

2006 providing that: 

The blanket exemption for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, 

contained in 40 CFR 122.3(a), shall be vacated as of September 30, 2008. Northwest 

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

2006)

EPA appealed the District Court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit, and on July 23, 2008, the 

Court upheld the decision. Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. EPA, 537 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2008). 

This meant that, effective December 19, 2008, except for those vessels exempted from NPDES 

permitting by congressional legislation, discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels 

that were excluded from NPDES permitting by 40 CFR 122.3(a) were subject to CWA section 

301’s prohibition against discharging, unless authorized by an NPDES permit. The CWA 

authorizes civil and criminal enforcement for violations of that prohibition and also allows for 

citizen suits against violators.

2.3 CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION 

In late July 2008, Congress enacted two pieces of legislation to exempt discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of certain types of vessels from the need to obtain an NPDES 

permit. 

The first of these, entitled the Clean Boating Act of 2008, amends the CWA to provide that 

discharges incidental to the normal operation of recreational vessels are not subject to NPDES 

permitting, and instead, creates a new regulatory regime to be implemented by EPA and the U.S. 

Coast Guard under the new 312(o) of the CWA. S. 2766, Pub. L. 110-188 (July 29, 2008). As 

defined in § 3 of that law, recreational vessels subject to its NPDES exclusion are any vessel that 

is manufactured or used primarily for pleasure or leased, rented, or chartered to a person for the 

pleasure of that person, but do not include a vessel that is subject to Coast Guard inspection and 

that is engaged in commercial use or carries paying passengers. As a result of this legislation, 

discharges incidental to the normal operation of recreational vessels are not subject to NPDES 

permitting. EPA is currently developing regulations as directed under the Clean Boating Act for 

recreational vessels. For more information on this action, please see: 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/vessel/CBA/about.cfm. 

The second piece of legislation provides for a temporary moratorium on NPDES 

permitting for discharges subject to the 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion from (1) commercial fishing 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

6 

vessels (as defined in 46 U.S.C. § 2101 and regardless of size) and (2) from those other nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. S. 3298, Pub. L. 110-299 (July 31, 2008). The 

statute’s NPDES permitting moratorium ran for a two-year period beginning on its July 31, 2008 

enactment date, during which time EPA was to study the relevant discharges and submit a report 

to Congress. EPA finalized this Report to Congress, entitled “Study of Discharges Incidental to 

Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non-Recreational Vessels Less 

Than 79 Feet” in August 2010 (EPA, 2010)1. The moratorium was subsequently extended to 

December 18, 2013 by P.L. 111-215. In addition, the statute’s NPDES permitting moratorium 

does not extend to ballast water discharges. That moratorium also does not extend to other 

discharges, which on a case-by-case basis, EPA or the state, as appropriate, determine contribute 

to a violation of water quality standards or pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the 

environment. 

In order to ensure that permit coverage is available to vessels by the expiration of the 

moratorium, EPA is proposing today’s sVGP. 

2.4 GENERAL PERMITS 

An NPDES permit authorizes the discharge of a specified amount of a pollutant or 

pollutants into receiving water under certain conditions. The two basic types of NPDES permits 

are individual and general permits. Typically, dischargers seeking coverage under a general 

permit are required to submit a notice of intent (NOI) to be covered by the permit. However, 

EPA is not requiring vessel owner/operators to submit NOIs to be covered by the sVGP. See 

Section 3.5 of this fact sheet for additional discussion regarding EPA’s application of the 

NPDES NOI regulations to this permit. 

An individual permit is a permit specifically tailored for an individual discharger. Upon 

receiving the appropriate application(s), the permitting authority generally develops a permit for 

public comment for that particular discharger based on the information contained in the permit 

application (e.g., type of activity, nature of discharge, receiving water quality). Following 

consideration of public comments, a final permit may then be issued to the discharger for a 

specific time period (not to exceed five years), with a provision for reapplying for further permit 

coverage prior to the expiration date. 

A general permit is also subject to public comment and is developed and issued by a 

permitting authority (in this case, EPA). A general permit covers multiple facilities within a 

specific category for a specific period of time (not to exceed five years), after which the permit 

expires. Like individual permits, general permits may be reissued. Under 40 CFR 122.28, general 

permits may be written to cover categories of point sources having common elements, such as 

facilities that involve the same or substantially similar types of operations, that discharge the 

same types of wastes, or that are more appropriately regulated by a general permit. Given the 

vast number of vessels requiring NPDES permit coverage and the discharges common to these 

vessels, EPA believes that it makes administrative sense to issue the general permit, rather than 

issuing individual permits to each vessel. Courts have approved of the use of general permits. 

 

1 EPA’s 2010 Vessels Report to Congress cited here is discussed later in this fact sheet and available in its entirety 

at: www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

7 

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

EPA, 344 F.3d 832, 853 (9th Cir. 2003). The general permit approach allows EPA to allocate 

resources in a more efficient manner and to provide more timely coverage. As with any permit, 

the CWA requires the general permit to contain technology-based effluent limits, as well as any 

more stringent limits when necessary to meet applicable state water quality standards. State 

water quality standards apply in the territorial seas, defined in section 502(8) of the CWA as 

extending three miles from the baseline. Pacific Legal Foundation v. Costle, 586 F.2d 650, 655-

656 (9th Cir. 1978); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 863 F.2d 1420, 1435 

(9th Cir. 1988). In addition, discharges to the territorial seas are required to meet requirements to 

comply with section 403(c) of the CWA Ocean Discharge Criteria (40 CFR Part 125 Subpart M). 

As discussed in Section 6.2 of this fact sheet, the owner/operator of a vessel, after being covered 

by the permit, may request to be excluded from such coverage by applying for an individual 

permit. In addition, EPA may subsequently require a vessel to obtain an individual permit instead 

of receiving coverage under the general permit. 

2.5 ECONOMIC IMPACTS

EPA estimates that between 115,000 and 138,000 vessels are potentially affected by the 

sVGP requirements. The establishments that own and operate vessels that will be subject to the 

sVGP are primarily associated with the fishing and water transportation industries, and with the 

oil and gas sector within the mining industry. To estimate the effect of sVGP requirements on an 

industry as a whole, EPA’s analysis takes into account previous conditions and determines how 

the industry would act in the future in the absence of permit requirements. The baseline for this 

analysis is full industry compliance with existing federal and state regulations and with current 

industry practices or standards that exceed current regulations to the extent that they can be 

empirically observed. EPA estimated potential compliance costs to vessels associated with each 

of the practices and discharge categories identified in the sVGP, and with the inspection and 

recordkeeping requirements. Overall, EPA finds that sVGP requirements could result in total 

annual incremental costs for domestic vessels ranging between $7.0 million and $12.1 million 

(2010$) in the aggregate. This includes the paperwork burden costs and the sum of all practices 

for applicable discharge categories. Per vessel incremental compliance costs average between 

$17 and $98 per year, depending on the number of applicable discharge categories and baseline 

practices. 

To evaluate economic impacts of sVGP requirements on the affected industries, EPA 

performed a firm-level analysis. The firm-level analysis examines the impact of any incremental 

cost per vessel to comply with the sVGP requirements on model firms that represent the financial 

conditions of “typical” businesses in each of the examined industry sectors. Since nearly all 

firms in the affected industries are small, the firm-level analysis focuses on assessment of 

impacts on small businesses. Further, given the distribution of revenue among firms in the 

affected industry sectors, which suggests a relatively greater potential for impacts to small firms 

in the commercial fishing industry, EPA looked more specifically at this industry when assessing 

the significance of impacts. To evaluate the potential impact of the sVGP on small entities, EPA 

used a cost-to-revenue test to evaluate the potential severity of economic impact on vessels and 

facilities owned by small entities. The test calculates annualized pre-tax compliance cost as a 

percentage of total revenues and uses a threshold of 1 and 3 percent to identify facilities that 

would be significantly impacted as a result of this permit. Based on this firm-level analysis, EPA 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

8 

concludes that the sVGP will not, if issued have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities based on information showing that few firms have revenue below those 

where the compliance costs would exceed the 1 percent cost-to-revenue threshold under high-end 

cost assumptions. 

3. PERMIT OVERVIEW

Today’s permit is proposed pursuant to EPA’s authority to issue permits under CWA 

section 402. Clean Water Act section 402 and its implementing regulations contain standards that 

govern EPA’s imposition of NPDES permit conditions. See for example, 40 CFR Part 122 

(“EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System”). 

3.1 STRUCTURE OF THE PERMIT

This general permit addresses all vessels less than 79 feet in length, except recreational and 

military vessels, operating in a capacity as a means of transportation, that have discharges 

incidental to their normal operation. 

EPA has developed this permit to accommodate the variety of vessel types less than 79 feet

in length that will need to obtain permit coverage. Owner/operators of vessels covered under this 

permit may not be familiar with NPDES requirements and general or individual permits, so EPA 

has focused on developing a permit tailored to this particular universe of vessels. Part 1 of the 

permit provides a basic overview of the permit and how to obtain coverage. Part 2 of the permit 

contains the effluent limits and related requirements. This section has been organized into 

management areas rather than discharge-by-discharge requirements like EPA’s VGP. It contains 

general discharge requirements for all vessel discharges, followed by specific requirements for 

seven other management areas, including fuel management; engine and oil controls; solid and 

liquid waste management; deck washdown and runoff and above water line hull cleaning; vessel 

hull maintenance; graywater; and fish hold effluent. There is also a requirement to comply with 

specific other regulations applicable to vessel discharges. This organization allows EPA to 

develop permit terms and conditions that are more suitable for the vessels whose discharges are 

covered by this permit. Part 3 of the permit contains the monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements. Part 4 contains additional requirements, such as how to obtain an alternate permit, 

specifics about complying with the permit, and additional permit conditions. States, territories 

and certain tribes have the authority to require additional requirements under section 401 of the 

CWA. These additional requirements will be included in Part 5 of the final permit. The final 

two sections of the permit contain definitions in Part 6 and contacts in Part 7. 

Appendix A of this permit is the proposed Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection 

Form that will be required to be completed and maintained onboard each vessel.
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

9 

3.2 THE VESSEL UNIVERSE AFFECTED BY THIS PERMIT 

EPA estimates that there are between 118,000 and 140,000 vessels in the United States 

subject to the permitting moratorium established by P.L. 110-299.2

 Approximately 115,000 

to138,000 of these vessels are less than 79 feet. Roughly one-half of these vessels are 

commercial fishing vessels involved in such activities as fish catching (e.g., longliner, shrimper, 

trawler), fish processing,

3

 fishing tenders, and charter fishing. The other half is distributed 

among a variety of vessel classes, including passenger vessels (e.g., water taxis, tour boats, 

harbor cruise ships, dive boats), utility vessels (e.g., tug/tow boats, research vessels, offshore 

supply boats), and freight barges. The approximately 2,000 large commercial fishing vessels 

included in the permitting moratorium that are greater than 79 feet are not eligible for coverage 

under the sVGP; instead they are eligible for coverage under EPA’s VGP. 

As discussed above, the vessel universe eligible for coverage under this permit is limited to 

commercial fishing vessels and other non-recreational vessels 79 feet or less. According to the 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database, 

nearly 80 percent (722,522 vessels) of the 918,469 operational domestic vessels recorded in 

MISLE are recreational vessels, which are not subject to NPDES permitting requirements. 

Approximately 7.6 percent of these vessels are identified as commercial fishing vessels. The 

remainder of the MISLE universe of vessels less than 79 feet is composed of other types of nonrecreational vessels such as freight and tank barges and ships, passenger vessels, and utility 

vessels (10.5 percent collectively), and vessels of unspecified service (3 percent). 

Table 1 characterizes the vessel population in terms of length greater than or equal to and 

less than 79 feet. Figure 1 presents the MISLE population of operational, domestic vessels less 

than 79 feet for all vessel service categories, excluding recreational vessels. The remainder of 

this section gives additional detail about vessels eligible for coverage under the sVGP. For 

additional discussion about these vessels, please see EPA’s 2010 Vessels Report to Congress 

(EPA, 2010). 

Table 1: Population of Operational, Domestic MISLE Vessels by Vessel Length

Recreational

Commercial 

Fishing

Other NonRecreational Unspecified

Greater than or Equal to 79 

ft 2,256 2,2312 54,142 1,991

Less than 79 ft 676,915 54,176 32,799 15,011

Zero or Null1 43,351 13,537 9,696 12,364

Total 722,522 69,944 96,637 29,366

Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009

1 MISLE indicates a length of zero or the vessel length field is blank.

2 A separate estimate provided by U.S. Coast Guard personnel suggests that commercial fishing vessels 79 feet or greater number

approximately 1,800 to 1,900 vessels.

 

2 This range accounts for the exclusion and inclusion, respectively, of other non-recreational vessels for which U.S. 

Coast Guard’s Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database does not record the length or 

for which the recorded length is zero.

3 Seafood processing vessel discharges are an industrial activity; therefore, seafood processing activities are not 

eligible for coverage under this permit. EPA or state NPDES permitting authorities (as appropriate) issue separate 

NPDES permits for seafood processing vessels when they are engaged in this industrial activity.
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

10 

Figure 1. Estimated Number of Non-Recreational Vessels Potentially Less than 79 Feet Recorded in MISLE, 

by Vessel Service (Type)

Note: The figure is based on operational, U.S.-flagged commercial fishing vessels (regardless of length) and other nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. All information is compiled and presented in EPA’s 2010 Report to Congress on 

the study of discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial fishing vessels and other non-recreational vessels less 

than 79 feet.

Commercial fishing vessels also include fish processing vessels and fishing vessels. Passenger vessels include passenger 

(inspected), passenger (uninspected), passenger barge (inspected), passenger barge (uninspected), and passenger ships. Public 

vessel, unclassified includes military and other public service vessels. EPA notes that military vessels are specifically excluded 

from NPDES permitting. Utility vessels include towing vessels (i.e., tugs), school ships, research vessels/ships, mobile offshore 

drilling units, offshore vessels, offshore supply vessels, oil recovery vessels, and industrial vessels. Some vessel service categories 

did not fall into one of the listed categories. Therefore, based on the other classification fields (class, type, subtype), EPA 

determined an appropriate service category.

Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009

4,288 67 287 49

15,012

8,876

56,407

18,660

579 -

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Commercial

Fishing Vessel

Freight Barge

Freight Ship

Passenger

Vessel

Public Vessel,

Unclassified

Tank Barge

Tank Ship

Utility Vessel

Unspecified

Vessel Service

Number of Vessels

Other non-recreational

69,944

8,016

768

20,953

622 923 179

11,034

27,375

140,000 - Total number of vessels, 

including vessels of unspecified length

118,000 - Number of vessels with 

specified length less than 79 feet

Vessels with unspecified length

Vessels less than 79 feet in length
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

11 

3.2.1 Commercial Fishing Vessels

Approximately 68,000 commercial fishing vessels represent the largest category of vessels 

covered by the permit. According to the vessel service categories used by the U.S. Coast Guard 

in MISLE, “commercial fishing vessels” are vessels involved in such activities as fish catching 

(e.g., longliner, shrimper, trawler), fish processing, and charter fishing. 

For purposes of the MISLE database, the U.S. Coast Guard generally describes 

commercial fishing vessels as including fishing vessels, fish tender vessels, and fish processing 

vessels as follows 

• Fish processing vessel4 means a vessel that commercially prepares fish or fish products 

other than by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing, or brine 

chilling.

• Fish tender vessel means a vessel that commercially supplies, stores, refrigerates, or 

transports fish, fish products, or materials directly related to fishing or the preparation of 

fish to and from a fishing, fish processing, or fish tender vessel or a fish processing 

facility.

• Fishing vessel means a vessel that commercially engages in the catching, taking, or 

harvesting of fish or an activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the catching, 

taking, or harvesting of fish. 

While there is some overlap in service use for commercial fishing vessels and other vessel 

categories, such as passenger vessels (e.g., charter fishing), EPA assumed that the categorization 

used in MISLE generally follows the U.S. Coast Guard definition of commercial fishing vessels 

(EPA, 2010). 

3.2.2 Other Non-recreational Vessels

Excluding the approximately 27,000 “unspecified” vessels shown in Figure 1, “passenger 

vessels” have the second highest number of vessels potentially less than 79 feet, with 

approximately 21,000 vessels. These vessels are further divided into subtypes according to the 

types of activities in which they are involved (e.g., diving vessels, charter fishing vessels, ferry, 

harbor cruise vessels, sailing vessels). The service category labeled “public vessel, unclassified” 

accounts for nearly 700 vessels (e.g., lighthouse tender vessels, hospital ships, law enforcement 

vessels, ice breakers). The “utility vessels” category covers the remaining types of vessels, 

including tug/tow boats, school ships, research vessels/ships, mobile offshore drilling units, 

offshore vessels, offshore supply vessels, oil recovery vessels, and industrial vessels. More than 

11,000 vessels are classified as utility vessels in MISLE.5 Freight barges (8,016 vessels), freight 

ships (768 vessels), tank barges (622 vessels), and tank ships (179 vessels) account for the 

remaining non-recreational vessels covered under this permit. 

 

4 Please see footnote number 3 discussing the applicability of the sVGP versus other NPDES permits to fish 

processing vessels.

5 Some vessel service categories did not fall into one of the listed categories. EPA determined an appropriate service 

category based on information provided in other vessel classification fields (class, type, subtype).
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

12 

3.2.3 Vessel Size

Vessels can be characterized by size according to two metrics: length and gross tonnage. 

The two metrics are related to each other (gross tonnage is a function of the ship’s enclosed 

spaces as measured to the outside of the hull framing). In general, most non-recreational vessels 

in MISLE have a length ranging between 26 and 50 feet, which translates into a tonnage 

generally below 50 gross tons. The 79-foot length threshold for other non-recreational vessels 

(the criterion for applicability of P.L. 110-299 moratorium) corresponds roughly to a tonnage of 

150 gross tons. 

Approximately half of vessels for which MISLE contains a length entry fall within the 26- 

to 50-foot-length category, with an average vessel length of 41 feet. Tank ships are the only 

vessel service category with a large percentage of vessels longer than 300 feet. For almost all 

vessel service categories, vessels less than 79 feet represent the majority of vessels within the 

overall population. 

Most freight barges reported in MISLE are about 200 feet in length, and relatively few (10 

percent) are under 79 feet in length. Hence, most freight barges are not subject to the moratorium 

in P.L. 110-299 and are currently eligible for coverage under the VGP. In contrast, the majority 

of utility vessels (e.g., towing vessels), passenger vessels, and commercial fishing vessels overall 

are less than 79 feet in length. The majority of commercial fishing vessels are relatively small 

compared to other non-recreational vessels such as barges or utility vessels, with 56 percent of 

commercial fishing vessels in the 26- to 50-foot range. The length of other non-recreational

vessels varies among the subcategories, with as many as 64 percent of passenger vessels in the 

26- to 50-foot range, compared to less than 3 percent of freight barges within that same range. 

Overall, nearly 77 percent of all vessels in MISLE are less than 50 gross tons, while the 

remaining vessels generally fall within the 50- to 300-gross-tons range. Note that some vessel 

service categories appear underrepresented because the gross tons field is blank or is listed as 

zero in MISLE for approximately 56,000 vessels. 

3.3 ELIGIBILITY

The sVGP is applicable to discharges incidental to the normal operation of non-military, 

non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet. The discharges eligible for coverage under this permit 

are those covered by the exclusion in 40 CFR 122.3(a) prior to any vacatur of that exclusion (see 

discussion above in Section 2.2 of this fact sheet). Discharges incidental to normal operation 

include deck runoff from routine deck cleaning, ballast water (from vessels with less than 8 cubic 

meters of ballast water capacity), bilgewater from properly functioning oily water separators, and 

graywater. Some potential discharges are not incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. For 

example, any discharge that results from a failure to properly maintain the vessel and equipment, 

even if the discharge is of a type that is otherwise authorized by the permit, is not eligible for 

permit coverage. Discharges that are neither covered by this permit nor exempt from section 402 

of the CWA must be authorized under a separate individual or general NPDES permit. 

If owners/operators choose to do so, vessels less than 79 feet may obtain coverage under 

EPA’s VGP instead of obtaining coverage under the sVGP. Coverage of vessels less than 79 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

13 

feet under the VGP in lieu of the sVGP is likely an option that would not be exercised by most 

vessel owners/operators; however, EPA believes that this flexibility might maximize efficiency 

and consistency for certain companies that own and operate vessels. For instance, EPA can 

envision certain owners/operators electing to cover smaller vessels under the VGP instead of the 

sVGP for administrative reasons (e.g., they manage a fleet that includes vessels both smaller and 

larger than 79 feet and they would like to operate under one permitting framework). 

As discussed in Section 4 of this fact sheet, the requirements of this permit are organized 

by management group rather than by each discharge stream. These proposed categories contain 

the effluent limits and required best management practices necessary to be followed to maintain 

compliance with this permit. Permittees should follow all of the effluent limits and best 

management practices that are applicable to their vessel.

3.4 WATERS COVERED/GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE

This permit applies to non-recreational, non-military vessels less than 79 feet in length, as 

identified in Part 1.1 of this permit, that discharge into waters subject to this permit. These 

waters are “waters of the United States,” as defined in 40 CFR 122.2 (extending to the reach of 

the 3-mile territorial seas as defined in section 502(8) of the CWA). 

This general permit will cover vessel discharges in the waters of the United States in all 

states and territories, regardless of whether a state is authorized to implement other aspects of the 

NPDES permit program within its jurisdiction. While, pursuant to CWA section 402(c), EPA 

typically is required to suspend permit issuance in authorized states, EPA may issue NPDES 

permits in authorized states for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, because 

402(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act prohibits EPA from issuing permits in authorized states only 

for “those discharges subject to [the state’s authorized] program.” Discharges excluded under 40 

CFR 122.3 are not “subject to” authorized state programs. The vessel discharges that will be 

covered by the proposed permit are discharges that, until expiration of the permit moratorium, 

are excluded from NPDES permitting programs under 40 CFR 122.3. Therefore, the discharges 

at issue are not considered a part of any currently authorized state NPDES program. See 40 CFR 

123.1(i)(2) (where state programs have a greater scope of coverage than “required” under the 

federal program, that additional coverage is not part of the authorized program) and 40 CFR 

123.1(g)(1) (authorized state programs are not required to prohibit point source discharges 

exempted under 40 CFR122.3). 

3.5 OBTAINING COVERAGE UNDER THIS PERMIT

Part 1.3 of the permit explains that all vessels eligible for coverage under this permit will 

receive coverage at the time and date of the expiration of the moratorium―December 18, 2013. 

For the reasons discussed below, the permit does not require vessel owners/operators to file a 

notice of intent to obtain coverage under this permit. 

If an owner/operator of a vessel wishes EPA to consider alternative permit requirements 

for the vessel other than sVGP or VGP, he or she must apply to EPA for a substitute permit 

applicable to his or her vessel as required by Part 4.2 of the permit (Alternative Permits). 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

14 

As a requirement of this permit, vessel owner/operators must complete the sVGP Permit 

Authorization and Record of Inspection (PARI) Form contained in Appendix A of the permit. 

The PARI form must be signed and maintained onboard the vessel for the entire permit term. 

Additionally, the permittee must conduct quarterly visual self-inspections and certify that he or 

she has done so by signing the form each year.

A certification statement is included in the sVGP Permit Authorization and Record of 

Inspection Form that is required under this permit. This form and certification must be printed, 

signed, and kept on the vessel while under permit coverage. The form can be found in the sVGP. 

3.5.1 No Requirement to Submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) 

Under 40 CFR § 122.28 (b)(2)(v), some dischargers may, at the discretion of the Director, 

“be authorized to discharge under a general permit without submitting a notice of intent where 

the Director finds that a notice of intent requirement would be inappropriate.” In making such a 

determination, the Director must consider: the type of discharge; the expected nature of the 

discharge; the potential for toxic and conventional pollutants in the discharges; the expected 

volume of the discharges; other means of identifying discharges covered by the permit; and the 

estimated number of discharges to be covered by the permit. Based on consideration of these 

regulatory factors, EPA is exercising its discretion and not requiring operators of vessels covered 

under this permit to submit NOIs. The reasons for this approach are explained below: 

EPA estimates that there are between 118,000-140,000 vessels that may be covered by the 

permit. The size of the permitted universe means that this permit will cover one of the highest 

numbers of dischargers among any of the general NPDES permits issued by either EPA or any 

state. To require all these vessels to submit an NOI would be an extremely large administrative 

burden. In general, the use of NOIs for most point sources provides permitting authorities with 

useful information to assist in oversight and enforcement of permittees, such as the specific 

location of the facility and its discharge. However, because vessels are mobile point sources that 

do not operate from a fixed location and may discharge to multiple receiving waters, the 

usefulness of requiring the entire universe of point sources covered by this general permit to 

submit NOIs is questionable. 

In order to determine whether vessels eligible for coverage under the sVGP should be 

required to submit NOIs, EPA looked at the universe of vessels that would be covered by this 

permit and found that, based on the types of discharges from these vessels, the variety of 

discharges containing conventional and toxic pollutants, and the volume and nature of those 

discharges, vessels subject to this permit should not be required to submit NOIs. The volume of 

the discharges incidental to the normal operation of the vessel is expected to vary proportionately 

to the size of the vessel. EPA expects that smaller vessels will have a smaller range of discharge 

types than the larger vessels, which must submit NOIs under the VGP. Some of the typical 

discharges eligible for coverage under the permit are nearly ubiquitous for most vessels, 

including deck runoff, bilge water, and leachate from anti-foulant hull coatings. However, larger 

commercial vessels have a greater range of discharges that will be of greater volume. Thus, the 

limited range of discharge types from smaller vessels and the reduced likelihood for the 

introduction of significant quantities of toxic and conventional pollutants make requiring an NOI 

for these vessels to be of little value at this time. In addition, EPA has access to other sources of 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

15 

data available for identifying discharges from vessels covered by the permit, including state 

registration information and the MISLE database, discussed above in Section 3.2 of this fact 

sheet. From these sources, EPA can obtain information from which we can deduce the nature of 

ship and boat discharges from these smaller vessels. 

Based on the analysis outlined above, EPA has determined that it would be inappropriate 

to require vessels eligible for coverage under the sVGP to provide information about their 

discharges through submission of an NOI. However, these owners/operators would still be 

subject to all applicable requirements contained within the permit, including signing the sVGP 

Permit Authorization and Inspection Form and maintaining that form onboard at all times. EPA 

has imposed the PARI Form requirement (under 40 CFR 122.43) because it is an efficient way 

for the owner/operator to certify that they have read and agreed to comply with the terms of the 

permit, and to demonstrate basic understanding of the permit’s terms and conditions. In 

addition, the form will provide EPA (or its authorized representative) with a standardized 

foundation for conducting inspections. 

3.5.2 Terminating Coverage 

Vessel permit coverage is automatically terminated if: (1) a new owner or operator has 

assumed responsibility for the vessel; (2) operation of the vessel has permanently ceased in 

waters subject to this permit and there are no longer vessel discharges; or (3) permit coverage has 

been obtained under an individual or alternative general permit for all discharges requiring 

NPDES permit coverage. 

3.6 VESSEL DISCHARGES ELIGIBLE FOR COVERAGE

Part 1.4 of the permit discusses that all discharges incidental to the normal operation of a 

vessel, when that vessel is operating in capacity as a means of transportation, are eligible for 

coverage under this permit. These discharges may include bilgewater, deck washdown and 

runoff, and graywater. To make compliance easier for small boat owners and operators, in this 

permit, requirements are organized by management group rather than specific to each discharge 

stream. This organizational structure should be easier to follow for the types of vessels covered 

under this permit. 

3.7 VESSEL DISCHARGES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR COVERAGE

Discharges that are not incidental to the normal operation of a vessel are not covered under 

this general permit. Any discharge that results from a practice that is not consistent with good 

marine practice is not considered incidental to the normal operation of the vessel. This includes 

the addition of pollutants or constituents of concern to discharge streams; disposing of prohibited 

materials, such as oil, overboard; and discharging material resulting from improper maintenance 

of the vessel, motor, or onboard machinery. For example, intentionally adding used motor oil to 

the bilge or graywater will result in a discharge that is not incidental to the normal operation of a 

vessel. If two covered discharge streams are combined into one, the resulting commingled 

discharge stream must meet the requirements applicable to both streams. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

16 

EPA has identified several discharge types that would not be authorized by this permit 

because, among other things, the discharge is not within the scope of the current 40 CFR 

122.3(a) exclusion or not within the scope of EPA’s NPDES permitting authority. 

3.7.1 Discharges not Subject to Former NPDES Permit Exclusion including Vessels 

Being Operated in a Capacity other than as a Means of Transportation 

This permit covers discharges subject to the vacatur of the NPDES permit exclusion set out 

in 40 CFR 122.3(a)6 and the moratorium on NPDES permitting enacted by Congress in P.L.110-

299 and extended under P.L. 111-215. Any discharge that was not subject to that exclusion as of 

December 18, 2008 would not be authorized under the permit. December 18, 2013 is the day the 

moratorium expires and these vessel discharges require coverage. 

For example, the permit does not apply when the vessel is operating in a capacity other 

than as a means of transportation. Vessels that are not being operated in the capacity of a means 

of transportation include vessels being used as energy or mining facilities, storage facilities, or 

seafood processing facilities, or vessels that are secured to a storage facility or a seafood 

processing facility, or when secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone, or water of the 

United States for the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or development. Similarly, vessels, 

when in drydock, also do not operate in a capacity as a means of transportation. Vessels that 

operate in a capacity other than as a means of transportation generally have not been excluded 

from NPDES permitting under 40 CFR Part 122.3(a). 

“Floating” craft that are permanently moored to their piers, such as “floating” casinos, 

hotels, restaurants, bars, etc. are not covered by the current vessel exclusion and thus would not 

be covered by the vessel permit. These structures are outside the scope of the 40 CFR Part 

122.3(a) exclusion because they operate "in a capacity other than as a means of transportation." 

They are best characterized as casinos, hotels, restaurants, bars, etc. that happen to be located on 

water instead of land, much like, for example, the water-based storage facilities mentioned in 

122.3(a) as being outside the scope of the exclusion. 

With respect to vessels under construction, when the vessel is engaged in sea trials that

result in operational discharges, because testing is a critical part of vessel operation, such 

discharges would be incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, and thus eligible for coverage 

under this sVGP. However, any discharges resulting from construction activities are not covered 

by the sVGP, as they are incidental to vessel construction, not vessel operation. With respect to 

vessels engaged in dredging operations, the resulting discharges of dredged or fill material 

generated by their dredging activity is covered by a CWA § 404 permit or Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) ocean dumping permit, and such discharges are 

 

6 40 CFR 122.3(a) states that the following discharges do not require NPDES permits:

(a) Any discharge of sewage from vessels, effluent from properly functioning marine engines, laundry, shower, 

and galley sink wastes, or any other discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. This exclusion 

does not apply to rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard, nor to other 

discharges when the vessel is operating in a capacity other than as a means of transportation, such as when 

used as an energy or mining facility, a storage facility or seafood processing facility, or when secured to a 

storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone, 

or waters of the United States for the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or development.
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

17 

excluded from CWA § 402 permitting. The incidental discharges (e.g., graywater, bilgewater) 

coming from the dredging vessels themselves are eligible for coverage under this permit 

(because they move as they dredge and thus, are still operating as a means of transportation), but 

the industrial-like activity from these vessels is by statute not subject to the requirement for a § 

402 permit, and they are covered by a CWA § 404 permit or MRPSA ocean dumping permit. 

Furthermore, the discharges of noxious liquid substance (NLS) residues subject to 46 CFR 

153.1102 are not eligible for coverage under the permit. Under 46 CFR 153.1102, discharges of 

NLS residues are either prohibited or, if allowable, may only take place at sea at least 12 nautical 

miles from the nearest shore. In light of this, the permit does not authorize such discharges 

within waters subject to the permit (i.e., inland waters and the waters of the 3-mile territorial 

sea). The relevant Coast Guard definition of the term "noxious liquid substance" (see 46 CFR 

151) is set out in the definition section of the permit. 

3.7.2 Sewage from Vessels 

The definition of “pollutant” in the Clean Water Act 502(6)(A) specifically excludes 

“sewage from vessels,” so such discharges are not subject to NPDES permitting.7 See CWA 

section 301. 

3.7.3 Used or Spent Oil 

The discharge of used or spent oil no longer being used for its intended purpose is not 

eligible for coverage under the permit. This also prohibits the discharge of used or spent oil by 

adding it to a discharge stream that is otherwise eligible for coverage under the permit. 

Discharges of small amounts of oil incidental to the normal operation of a vessel are 

permissible, provided that all appropriate effluent limits are met, including that oil is not 

discharged in quantities that are harmful, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 110.3. See the discussion of 

limitations for specific waste streams in Section 4 of this fact sheet below. 

3.7.4 Garbage or Trash

Rubbish, trash, garbage, or other materials discharged overboard are not eligible for 

coverage under the permit because such materials are not subject to the 40 CFR 122.3(a) 

exclusion. 

3.7.5 Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene) Degreasers and Other Products

Any degreasers or other products containing tetrachloroethylene (TCE) are not authorized 

for discharge into waters subject to this permit. TCE is a highly toxic substance that is a 

probable human carcinogen and is known to negatively affect human health and the 

environment. 

 

7 40 CFR 122.2 defines “sewage from vessels” as follows: “Sewage from vessels means human body wastes and the 

wastes from toilets and other receptacles intended to receive or retain body wastes that are discharged from vessels 

and regulated under section 312 of CWA, except that with respect to commercial vessels on the Great Lakes this 

term includes graywater. For the purposes of this definition, ‘graywater’ means galley, bath and shower water.”
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

18 

For the 2008 VGP, EPA compared the costs of products containing TCE to products not 

containing TCE and found that alternative products are available, and their use is economically 

practicable and achievable. See the 2008 VGP economic analysis in the docket for today’s 

permit (Abt, 2008). EPA believes the same conclusion is applicable to today’s proposed permit. 

3.7.6 Discharges Currently or Previously Covered by Another NPDES Permit

Any vessel discharge that is currently or has previously been covered by either an 

individual NPDES permit or another general NPDES permit is not eligible for coverage under 

the permit, unless those discharges are covered by the 2008 VGP, EPA specifically allows 

coverage under Part 4.2 of the permit, or unless EPA provides written authorization for coverage 

to be obtained for such discharges under this permit. The sVGP is not intended to supplant or 

replace any current or previous NPDES permit. 

3.8 CONSTITUENTS CONTROLLED BY THIS PERMIT

In today’s permit, EPA is establishing effluent limitations to control a variety of materials, 

which, for the purposes of this fact sheet, have been classified into seven major groups: aquatic 

nuisance species (ANS); nutrients; pathogens (including E. coli & fecal coliform); oil and grease; 

metals; toxic and non-conventional pollutants with toxic effects; and other non-conventional and 

conventional pollutants. EPA is establishing effluent limitations to control these materials 

because such materials are, depending on the particular vessel, constituents in the industrial 

waste, chemical waste, and/or garbage “pollutant” discharge resulting from the activities of these 

vessels. The discharge from vessels addressed in today’s permit falls within these broad pollutant 

categories. 

Short summaries of each of the constituent types regulated in today’s permit follow. 

3.8.1 Aquatic Nuisance Species

Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS), also known as invasive species, are a persistent problem 

in U.S. coastal and inland waters. ANS may be introduced through a variety of vectors, including 

vessel hull maintenance and fish hold effluent. Though no reliable and comprehensive estimates 

of total ANS introductions nationwide exist, case studies of several major bodies of water across 

the country, as summarized in Table 2, provide a sense of the extent of the problem. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

19 

Table 2: Estimates of Invasive Species in Several Major Water Systems 

Region

Estimated Rate of 

Invasion

1

Estimated Total Invasions 

to Date

Great Lakes Once every 28 weeks

2

1822

Mississippi River System Unknown 1003

San Francisco Bay Once every 14 weeks

4

2344

Lower Columbia River Basin Once every 22 weeks

5

815

Gulf of Mexico Unknown 7046

1 

Ruiz and Reid (2007) suggest that these figures may not reliably represent the true rate of introduction, as they are 

based on discovery data, which may not always track with the underlying rate of introduction. 

2 

Ricciardi 2006.

3 

USCG 2009.

4 

Cohen and Carlton 1998. 5 

Sytsma et al. 2004.

6 Battelle 2000.

ANS pose several dangers to aquatic ecosystems, including outcompeting native species, 

threatening endangered species, damaging habitat, changing food webs, and altering the 

chemical and physical aquatic environment. Furthermore, ANS have been documented to 

damage recreational and commercial fisheries, infrastructure, and water-based recreation and 

tourism.

One of the most well-known examples of ANS is the Zebra Mussel. Zebra Mussels are 

native to Eurasia, near the Black and Caspian Seas, and were first discovered in U.S. waters in 

1988. Populations of Zebra Mussels were established in the Great Lakes and are now found 

throughout most of the eastern United States and in some western states. Zebra Mussels are filter 

feeders and can remove algae from the water column that other native species depend on as a 

food source; therefore, Zebra Mussels outcompete native (and sometimes endangered) mollusks 

and other filter feeders. Zebra Mussels also damage public infrastructure and have been 

estimated to cause tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses per year to the Great Lakes 

alone.

3.8.2 Nutrients

Nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and numerous micronutrients, are constituents 

of vessel discharges. Though traditionally associated with discharges from sewage treatment 

facilities and runoff from agricultural and urban stormwater sources, nutrients resulting from 

vessels are also thought to be discharged from deck runoff, vessel graywater, and vessel 

bilgewater, among other sources. Increased nutrient discharges from human sources are a major 

source of water quality degradation throughout the United States (USGS, 1999). 

Nutrients are associated with a variety of negative environmental impacts, the most notable 

of which is eutrophication, which can lead to reduced levels of dissolved oxygen due to 

increased oxygen demand (sometimes to the extremes of hypoxia), reduced levels of light 

penetration and increased turbidity, and changes in the composition of aquatic flora and fauna, 

and helps to fuel harmful algal blooms (HABs), which can have devastating impacts on both 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

20 

aquatic life and human health (National Research Council, 2000; WHOI, 2007). The National 

Research Council (2000) found that: 

• Nutrient over-enrichment of coastal ecosystems generally triggers ecological changes 

that decrease the biological diversity of bays and estuaries.

• While moderate nitrogen enrichment of some coastal waters may increase fish 

production, over-enrichment generally degrades the marine food web that supports 

commercially valuable fish.

• The marked increase in nutrient pollution of coastal waters has been accompanied by 

an increase in harmful algal blooms, and in at least some cases, pollution has 

triggered these blooms. 

• High nutrient levels and the changes they cause in water quality and the makeup of 

the algal community are detrimental to the health of coral reefs and the diversity of 

animal life supported by seagrass and kelp communities. 

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

eutrophication of freshwater lakes. 

• Human conversion of atmospheric nitrogen into biologically useable forms, 

principally synthetic inorganic fertilizers, now matches the natural rate of biological 

nitrogen fixation from all the land surfaces of the earth. 

EPA’s study of discharges incidental to normal operation of commercial fishing vessels 

and other non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet found that nutrient levels were elevated in 

some samples for some discharges from these vessels (EPA, 2010). The sVGP is designed to 

reduce nutrient loadings into waters subject to this permit. For instance, by requiring the use of 

phosphate-free soaps, keeping food waste out of discharges, and potentially reducing the 

discharge of graywater, the permit will result in the reduction of external nutrient loading to 

aquatic ecosystems. Phosphate-free soaps are commonly available at retailers nationwide. The 

discharge of food waste into waters covered by this permit is currently prohibited by the Act to 

Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS), 33 U.S.C.1901 et seq. This permit requires that food waste 

be prevented from entering any waste stream. Minimizing graywater can easily be accomplished 

by reducing shower or sink use when traversing select waters. Though easily accomplished, 

these requirements could result in significant environmental improvement for waters that have 

too much phosphorus or in waters where there are large numbers of boaters.

3.8.3 Pathogens 

Pathogens are another important constituent of discharges from vessels, particularly in 

graywater and potentially from ballast water discharges. Though fecal coliform is considered a 

conventional pollutant, it is discussed here because it shares characteristics with many other 

pathogens potentially discharged from vessels. 

EPA’s study of discharges incidental to normal operation of commercial fishing vessels 

and other non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet found elevated concentrations of pathogen 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

21 

indicators (E. coli, enterococci, and fecal coliforms) in some samples of bilgewater and deck 

washdown (fishing vessels only), fish hold effluent, and graywater discharges. These three types 

of bacteria are all found in animal digestive tracts. Epidemiological studies suggest a link 

between high concentrations of E. coli and enterococci in ambient waters and incidents of 

gastrointestinal illnesses associated with swimming. Accordingly, they are used as indicators of 

the possible presence of intestinal pathogens. The highest concentrations by far of all three 

pathogen indicators were found in graywater for all three bacteria. The estimated discharge 

volume of graywater from study vessels (i.e., vessels that are subject to the permit), however, is 

relatively small. Fish hold effluent contained the second highest concentrations of these pathogen 

indicators and may pose a potential level of risk considering the relatively high volume of this 

discharge and possible discharge by multiple vessels in the same location. However, EPA noted 

that most of the pathogen concentrations in fish hold effluent were well below or similar to 

ambient water concentrations, and the study was inconclusive as to whether fish hold effluent results 

in additional contribution of pathogen indicators.

Elevated levels of these pathogens have increasingly resulted in beach closures in recent 

years, primarily from on-shore sources such as urban stormwater runoff and sewage overflows, 

which in turn has reduced the recreational value of impacted beaches. Additional pathogens have 

been associated with ballast water discharges, including E. coli, enterococci, Vibrio cholerae, 

Clostridium perfingens, Salmonella spp. Cryptosporidium spp., and Giardia spp., as well as a 

variety of viruses (Knight et al., 1999; Reynolds et al., 1999; Zo et al., 1999). 

Though it is difficult to determine the contribution of vessel discharges to infections by 

these organisms, it is likely that they are not a primary source. Epidemiologists have attempted to 

quantify the proportion of total infections that are waterborne. For example, waterborne infection 

may account for as many as 60 % of Giardia infections and 75 % of pathogenic E. coli infections 

(National Research Council 1993). Graywater discharges may be a significant source of 

pathogenic microorganisms within some regulated waters, and reducing graywater discharges 

may provide some human health benefits. 

3.8.4 Oil and Grease

Oil and grease are another known component of vessel discharges with potentially harmful 

impacts to humans and to aquatic life. Vessels discharge oil in every day operation, including 

lubricating oils, hydraulic oils, and vegetable or organic oils. These discharges may contain 

enough oil to do ecological damage in confined areas or where vessels are concentrated, or 

where there are accidental spills or discharges of “oil in quantities that may be harmful8

” Oils 

are highly toxic and carcinogenic and can also taint organisms that are consumed by humans, 

which is a potential source of adverse health impacts. Such a discharge could decrease natural 

oxygen transfer, resulting in depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations. Also, oils might contain 

heavy metals and semivolatile organic compounds, which can bioaccumulate in fish, birds, 

marine mammals, and ultimately humans. Bilgewater, fish hold effluent (fish oils), and 

graywater (galley wastewater) are the vessel discharges most likely to contain oil and grease. 

 

8 “Oil in quantities that may be harmful” is a term of art which means any discharge of oil having the effects 

identified in 40 CFR 110.3. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

22 

The permit requirements apply to discharges of oil, fuel, other petrochemicals and oily 

mixtures and attempt to further minimize oil discharges in U.S. waters. The effluent limits under 

fuel management, engine and oil control, and the general requirements should all minimize the 

discharge of oil and oily materials by specifying techniques and behaviors that, when followed, 

will reduce the discharge of these materials. For example, knowing the capacity of fuel tanks 

will reduce the chance of vessel owners or operators accidentally overfilling their vessel fuel 

tank, contaminating discharges from the vessel and potentially harming the aquatic environment. 

When fueling in the water, using oil absorbent materials or other appropriate devices to catch 

drops from vent overflows and fuel tanks will perform the same function. The discharge of used 

or spent oil no longer being used for its intended purpose is not eligible for coverage under this 

permit. The permit also prohibits the discharge of used or spent oil by adding it to a discharge 

stream that is otherwise eligible for coverage under the permit. 

3.8.5 Metals

Metals are a diverse group of pollutants, many of which are toxic to aquatic life and 

humans. While some metals, including copper, nickel, and zinc, are known to be essential to 

organism function, many others, including thallium and arsenic, are nonessential and known to 

have only adverse impacts. Even essential metals can do serious damage to organism function in 

sufficiently elevated concentrations. Adverse impacts can include impaired organ function, 

impaired reproduction, birth defects, and at extreme concentrations, acute mortality. For 

example, Katranitsasa et al. (2003) noted that copper released from copper anti-fouling paints are 

toxic to non-targeted aquatic organisms. Additionally, through a process known as 

bioaccumulation, metals may not be fully eliminated from blood and tissues by natural processes 

and may accumulate in predator organisms further up the food chain, including commercially 

harvested fish species (EPA, 2007e). 

The toxic potential of a metal depends on its bioavailability in a given aquatic 

environment. A metal’s bioavailability is determined by the characteristics of the surrounding 

environment (e.g., temperature, pH, salinity, TOC) and the species of the affected organism. The 

environmental conditions determine a metal’s tendency to either adsorb suspended organic 

matter and clay minerals or to precipitate out of solution and settle to the sediments. Benthic 

organisms can bioaccumulate metals by consuming metal-enriched sediments and suspended 

particles or by uptaking ambient water containing the dissolved form of the metal.

EPA’s study of discharges incidental to normal operation of commercial fishing vessels 

and other non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet found dissolved copper detected in vessel 

discharges at concentrations that consistently posed the greatest potential risk for local impacts 

and for contributing to exceedances of water quality standards in larger water bodies (EPA, 

2010). Dissolved copper was detected at the highest concentrations in the deck washdown, 

graywater, fish hold, and bilgewater discharges from most vessel classes, particularly utility 

vessels (e.g., towboats, supply boats). Copper is released (leached) from anti-fouling hull 

coatings used on certain vessels to prevent buildup of organisms such as barnacles and algae. 

Copper can also be released via underwater hull cleaning, hull coating removal operations, and 

paint application. Although copper anti-fouling discharges were not measured, previous studies 

have shown it can be a major contributor to copper concentrations in harbors, especially marinas 

with large vessel populations (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2005; 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

23 

Singhasemanon et al., 2009). Other metals of concern found in discharges from vessels subject to 

the moratorium include total arsenic, particularly in bilgewater, and total aluminum in virtually 

all sampled discharges. 

3.8.6 Toxic and Non-Conventional Pollutants with Toxic Effects 

The term “toxic and non-conventional pollutants with toxic effects,” as it applies to 

constituents of vessel discharges, encompasses a variety of chemical compounds known to have 

a broad array of adverse impacts on aquatic species and human health. For example, EPA’s study 

of discharges incidental to normal operation of commercial fishing vessels and other nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet found the semivolatile organic compound bis(2-ethylhexyl) 

phthalate in elevated concentrations in some samples of bilgewater, stern tube packing gland, 

deck washdown, firemain, and inboard engine and engine generator discharges (EPA, 2010). The 

highest concentration for bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found in a bilgewater discharge 

sample. This compound is a plasticizer that is added to an ever-increasing variety of plastics to 

provide flexibility and is the most common phthalate in the environment. Phthalates are known 

to interfere with reproductive health, liver, and kidney function in both animals and humans 

(Sekizawa et al., 2003; DiGangi et al., 2002). 

Benzene was the only volatile organic compound found with any frequency at 

concentrations above water quality standards. Benzene is a known carcinogen that is a common 

constituent of fuel. Benzene can also be formed as a product of incomplete combustion of fuel. 

Elevated concentrations of benzene were detected in a bilgewater sample and in samples from 

both outboard engine and generator engine discharges. 

Long- or short-chain nonylphenol and octylphenol ethoxylates (two distinct subsets of 

alkylphenol ethoxylates) were detected in some samples of bilgewater, stern tube/packing gland, 

deck washdown, and graywater discharges, and total nonylphenol was detected in one sample 

from bilgewater. Nonylphenols (a term used generally here to identify a specific group of 

alkylphenols of potential human and environmental concern which also includes the 

octylphenols) are manmade organic compounds that are used in a wide variety of applications, 

such as the manufacturing of detergents, because of their surfactant properties. Nonylphenols are 

synthetic estrogens, which means they can mimic the natural vertebrate hormone estrogen and 

evoke an estrogen-like response. An example of such a response is the disruption of male sexual 

development, causing female characteristics to emerge. 

3.8.7 Other Non-Conventional and Conventional Pollutants (Except Fecal 

Coliform) 

The category “other non-conventional and conventional pollutants,” as applied to vessel 

discharges, also consists of multiple pollutants with disparate impacts. Discharges of graywater, 

bilgewater, fish hold effluent, and other vessel waste streams or effluent can include pollutants 

that affect pH, add heat, and/or increase turbidity or discharge suspended sediment. 

Some vessel discharges are more acidic or basic than the receiving waters, which can have 

a localized effect on pH (ADEC, 2007). Though no research has been done linking vessel 

pollution specifically to pH impacts on aquatic ecosystems, extensive literature on the impacts of 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

24 

pH changes in the contexts of aquaculture and acid rain does exist. For nearly all fish 

populations, pH more acidic than 5 or more basic than 10 will cause rapid mortality. In addition, 

many individual species are sensitive to more moderate changes in pH (Wurts and Durborrow, 

1992). 

Some vessel discharges may also affect temperature locally (Battelle, 2007). Thermal 

impacts of vessel discharges are generally much smaller than those from better known sources, 

such as dams, power plant cooling water, and runoff. However, even small temperature changes 

can impact some sensitive organisms’ growth, reproduction, and even survival, which implies 

that some vessel discharges may have localized adverse impacts on aquatic organisms 

(Abbaspour et al., 2005; Cairns, 1972; Govorushko, 2007). 

Some vessel discharges, such as those from bilgewater, can contain suspended sediments 

and have elevated turbidity. Loadings of sediment from vessel discharges are likely much 

smaller than from other sources such as construction, urban stormwater, and agriculture. The 

most significant sources of sediment from vessel discharges likely come from areas in the vessel 

where water is held, allowing sediment to settle out of suspension and accumulate over time. 

Sediment can then be resuspended before discharge. 

Designated uses, such as navigation, drinking water, recreation, and agriculture, are 

impaired by excess suspended sediments (EPA, 2003). When sediments diminish water quality 

to support aquatic life, other human uses of the same water bodies, such as recreational or 

commercial fishing, may also be diminished. Furthermore, there is evidence that aquatic life uses 

are one of the most sensitive endpoints to alterations in sediment loading. Direct effects on 

invertebrates and fish are complex, ranging from behavioral to physiological to toxicological

impacts. Suspended sediments have been documented to have a negative effect on the survival of 

fish, freshwater mussels, and other benthic organisms. In a frequently cited review paper 

prepared by Newcombe and Jensen (1996), sublethal effects (e.g., increased respiration rate) 

were observed in eggs and larvae of salmonids and nonsalmonids, as well as in adult estuarine 

and freshwater nonsalmonids, when exposed to TSS concentrations as low as 55 mg/L for one 

hour. Mussels compensate for increased levels of suspended sediment by increasing filtration 

rates, increasing the proportion of filtered material that is rejected, and increasing the selection 

efficiency for organic matter. Excess sediment smothers benthic organisms, and the surface layer 

of the benthos can be heavily impacted and altered. Increased turbidity associated with 

suspended sediments can reduce primary productivity of algae as well as growth and 

reproduction of submerged vegetation (Jha, 2003). In addition, once in the system, resuspension 

and deposition can “recycle” sediments so that they exert water column and benthic effects 

repeatedly over time and in multiple locations. 

4. THE SVGP EFFLUENT LIMITS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS 

The CWA requires that all point source discharges must meet technology-based effluent 

limitations representing the applicable levels of technology-based control. Water quality-based 

effluent limitations (WQBELs) are required, as necessary, where the technology-based 

limitations are not sufficient to meet applicable water quality standards (WQS). See P.U.D. No. 

1 of Jefferson County et al v. Washington Dept of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 704 (1994). Water 

quality-based requirements are discussed in greater depth in Section 6.5 of this fact sheet. Both 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

25 

technology-based and water quality-based effluent limitations are implemented through NPDES 

permits containing such limitations issued to point sources. CWA sections 301(a) and (b). See 

Section 6.7 of this fact sheet for discussion about water quality-based effluent limits. 

Today’s permit contains both technology-based effluent limits and water quality-based 

effluent limits. The rationale behind specific requirements contained with this permit are 

explained in greater detail below. Please see Section 4.12 of this fact sheet for additional 

explanation of how technology-based effluent limits are derived and the factors EPA used in 

deriving them. 

4.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 

Part 2.1 of the permit sets forth requirements for all discharges to which they are 

applicable. For example, the sVGP requires that all cleaners must be non-toxic, biodegradable 

and phosphate free. These products are widely available and comparable in cost to products that

contain phosphorus, are not biodegradable, and exhibit toxicity (EPA, 2011a). Product 

substitution of a more environmentally friendly cleaner will result in improving the quality of the 

vessel discharges with little to no cost to the vessel owner/operator. A second example of a 

general requirement requires that vessel owner/operators minimize the discharge of any 

antifreeze into waters subject to the permit and prohibits the discharge of antifreeze with toxic or 

known carcinogenic additives. Some antifreezes and their additives, including ethylene glycol 

and methanol, are known to negatively impact human health and potentially impact the natural 

environment. This requirement is designed to eliminate the discharge of known toxic 

compounds, while reducing the discharge of other antifreeze compounds, which, in addition to 

the antifreeze itself (e.g., propylene glycol), might contain other pollutants in elevated 

concentrations such as metals or BOD5 (see EPA, 2010 for further discussion). 

4.2 FUEL MANAGEMENT

Fueling operations are conducted on a routine basis on vessels. Fuel tanks are vented to 

allow gasses to escape during tank filling, to allow air to be drawn into the tank as fuel is being 

consumed, and to allow for the natural expansion or contraction of fuel with changes in 

temperature. Some vessels have fuel/air separators installed on fuel tank vent lines that prevent 

fuel from escaping through the vents. Fuel can be discharged directly to surface water or to the 

bilge from accidental spills during tank filling due to vessel movement, overfilling and 

backsplash. Excess fuel can also drain from transfer hoses following vessel fueling. Fuel tanks 

can discharge fuel through tank vents due to fuel expansion, especially if they are full and are not 

equipped with fuel/air separators on vent lines. Two-stroke engines require a small amount of oil 

be added to the fuel prior to combustion to provide lubrication. Spills of gasoline and diesel fuel 

during fueling can cause an oil slick or sheen to form on surface waters, contaminating the 

ambient water with volatile and semivolatile organic compounds. 

The required best management practices for fuel management in Part 2.2 of the permit are 

designed to minimize the amount of fuel released to receiving waters by requiring preventive 

maintenance that minimizes the occurrence of leaks and spills and by preventing any spills and 

leaks from entering receiving waters. Specifically, filling portable fuel tanks on shore, away from 

water, will eliminate discharges from these activities. Regular inspection and prompt 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

26 

maintenance and repair of fuel and hydraulic systems will reduce or eliminate incidences of 

spills and leaks. Capturing any spills and leaks that do occur during fueling is a simple and 

inexpensive way to prevent their release to receiving waters.

The sVGP also includes a requirement for any new motorized vessels (constructed on or 

after December 19, 2013) to have a functioning fuel-air separator or a fuel tank vent to prevent a 

fuel spill. EPA has included this requirement for new vessels because the Agency found it 

economically practicable and achievable for these vessels. Please see the sVGP economic 

analysis for discussion of costs for installation of fuel tank vents or fuel-air separators.

4.3 ENGINE AND OIL CONTROL

Routine maintenance of engines and generators includes periodic inspection of the engine 

for leaks or other damage; repair and replacement of engine parts; changing the oil in the engine, 

generators, and gear boxes; lubricating bearings on the steering components; and flushing the 

cooling systems. It also includes inspection and maintenance of bilge pumps, oily water 

separators, and any areas of segregated bilge on board a vessel. 

As engines and generators are generally contained within a below-deck engine 

compartment, leaked and spilled oil from this equipment and machinery typically lands in the 

vessel bilge. Bilgewater is the water and any comingled wastes, such as oils, that accumulate in 

the bilge. Sources of bilgewater are typically leaks and condensates from interior machinery, 

engine cooling and hydraulic systems, and the stern tube system. Depending on vessel 

configuration, bilgewater may also include drainage from the decks above, such as deck runoff 

and deck washdown and equipment cleaning wastewater. Some vessels have watertight 

bulkheads (compartments) that separate the engine area from other areas of the bilge. In this 

way, motor oil, along with hydraulic line leaks, fuel spills, and engine cooling system leaks, are 

contained within the engine compartment, which prevents bilgewater in other compartments 

from becoming contaminated with engine wastes. Some vessels also segregate ambient water 

that drips from the stern tube packing gland or stuffing box from the engine area of the bilge.

The constituents in the bilgewater discharge include oil and grease, and volatile and semivolatile 

organic compounds, as well as metals from engine wear. 

The water that collects in the bilge must be pumped out periodically. Some vessels have 

fixed bilge pumps that automatically discharge bilgewater as it accumulates; these vessels might 

discharge bilgewater at any time and in any location. Some vessels may transfer bilgewater to an 

oily waste holding tank, where it is stored for shore disposal or treated in an oily water separator 

to remove oil before being discharged overboard. Some vessels also have an oil content meter 

installed downstream of the oily water separator to monitor bilgewater oil content prior to 

discharge. Larger vessels with oil content meters have the capability to return bilgewater not 

meeting a preset oil concentration to the oily water separator for reprocessing until the set point 

is met. Oil collected from the oily water separations is held in a waste oil tank until transferred to 

shore facilities for disposal. 

Some external surfaces on vessels are lubricated and submerged in, partially submerged in, 

or directly exposed to water. The lubricants on these machinery and equipment come into contact 

with water by design and can contaminate ambient water. Examples include stern tube seals and 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

27 

bearings; a wire cable that has been lubricated with grease (if that cable is expected to come into 

contact with water); and two-stroke engines, which require a small amount of oil be added to the 

fuel prior to combustion to provide lubrication. Lubricants used include oil, grease, heavy 

petroleum compounds, and solvents. 

The required best management practices for engine and oil content in Part 2.3 of the permit 

are designed to minimize the amount spills, leaks, or overflows of oil and other engine fluids 

released to receiving waters using practices that are simple and inexpensive to implement. 

Specifically, preventive maintenance of engines, machinery, and their fueling systems will

reduce or eliminate the incidences of spills and leaks into the bilge or directly into receiving 

waters. Capturing and containing for shore disposal any leaks or spills that do occur using oil 

absorbent materials, oily water separators, or other means will prevent their release into

bilgewater discharges. Suspending discharge if a visible sheen is observed until the problem is 

corrected, and the prohibition of dispersants, detergents, emulsifiers, chemicals, or other 

substances to remove the appearance of a visible sheen, will reduce or eliminate the discharge of 

uncontrolled or partially controlled discharges. Finally, substituting environmentally acceptable

lubricants will lessen the environmental impact of any lubricants that are released. These 

products are widely available and affordable (see EPA 2011a for more discussion). 

4.4 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Solid and liquid wastes such as trash or garbage; fishing waste; loose items on the deck; 

and toxic materials such as used antifreeze, paint, and out-of-date flares can enter receiving 

waters by intentional disposal or by accidental disposal due to vessel movement, wind, or rain. 

Such wastes may contain oil and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, surfactants, detergents, 

glycols, solvents, and general debris. The required best management practices for solid and 

liquid waste management in Part 2.4 of the permit, including the requirement that waste be 

physically secured or otherwise prevented from entering receiving waters, will eliminate the 

release of these materials by preventing their entry into any permitted wastestream. These 

requirements are common-sense approaches to preventing these wastes from entering any waste 

stream and are consistent with the existing prohibitions for many of these wastes being 

discharged into waters of the United States and, as demonstrated by the economic analysis 

conducted for this permit, are practicable and economically achievable. 

4.5 DECK WASHDOWN AND RUNOFF AND ABOVE THE WATER LINE HULL CLEANING

Deck and above the water line hull cleaning are conducted on a routine basis on vessels. 

Typically, decks and superstructures are cleaned by wetting the surface with ambient or potable 

water, cleaning and scrubbing the surface with a brush or sponge and a cleaning solution, and 

rinsing the surface with water. Potable water is generally supplied by a shore-side garden hose, 

or ambient water can be supplied by the vessel firemain system, if so equipped. A restrictor or a 

high-pressure hose system can also be used to pressure-wash the decks; these systems generally 

use less water and require less physical scrubbing but are more abrasive to the surfaces being 

cleaned. Spot cleaning may be performed by applying a cleaning solution using a spray bottle 

and wiping away dirt and solution using a sponge and water. Cleaning wastewater typically 

discharges through scuppers (located along the perimeter of the deck) directly to the water body. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

28 

Vessels that are actively used and well maintained may be cleaned daily. In contrast, vessels that 

are used infrequently or are not well maintained may only be cleaned on rare instances. 

Deck runoff may consist of precipitation or surface water that sprays or washes over the 

decks and flows to the scuppers where it is discharged overboard. Accordingly, deck runoff 

discharges can contain anything dropped, spilled, dripped, or scattered onto the deck surface as a 

result of vessel maintenance or commercial use.

Deck washdown and deck runoff have the potential to contain a variety of pollutants, 

including oil and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, surfactants, soaps and detergents, glycols, 

solvents, and metals. Some or all of these pollutants could be introduced to the deck from 

shipboard activities, storage of material on the deck, maintenance activities, and the decking 

material itself. The amount of contaminants and debris in deck washdown and runoff is related to 

the quality of housekeeping practices. 

The required best management practices for deck washdown, deck runoff and above the 

water line hull cleaning in Part 2.5 of the permit are designed to minimize the amounts of soaps 

and cleaners, garbage, debris, spills, residue, and paint chips released to receiving waters. 

Requiring the collection and shore disposal of paint chips and residues prior to cleaning, 

maintenance, and paint application and reapplication will reduce or eliminate the discharge of 

these materials during deck washdown, deck runoff, and above the water line hull cleaning. 

Substituting non-toxic, biodegradable, and phosphate-free soaps and cleaners is an available and 

economically achievable way to lessen the environmental impact of deck washdown and above 

the water line hull cleaning wastewater discharges.

4.6 VESSEL HULL MAINTENANCE

Vessel hull maintenance is when the underwater portions of the vessel hull are repaired, 

inspected, cleaned, or otherwise maintained. Vessel hull maintenance is usually performed in 

response to marine biofouling of the underwater hull and hull appendages of boats and ships, 

including propellers, rudders, through-hull fittings, and corrosion control equipment. While some 

hull maintenance activities, including inspection, cleaning, and application of anti-fouling 

coatings (AFCs), take place out of the water (in dry dock, slipway, or haul-out facilities), others 

are carried out while the vessel is afloat. These include underwater hull cleaning and propeller 

polishing to control biofouling. Vessel hull maintenance also includes marine growth protection 

systems (MGPSs), which control biofouling in sea chests and seawater circulation systems. 

Vessel hulls are often coated with anti-fouling compounds to prohibit the attachment and growth 

of aquatic life. Coatings are formulated for different conditions and purposes and many contain 

biocides. Those that contain biocides are toxic to aquatic life. A variety of different ingredients 

may be used in these compounds; the most commonly used is copper. While vessel hull 

maintenance of anti-fouling coating is necessary to prevent the spread or dispersal of potentially 

invasive species, it unavoidably results in a release of toxic biocides from anti-fouling coatings.

The required best management practices for vessel hull maintenance in Part 2.6 of the 

permit are designed to reduce or eliminate discharges from anti-fouling coatings and to prevent 

the spread or dispersal or potentially invasive species. In addition, there is a zero-discharge 

standard for Tributyltin (TBT) in order to eliminate that specific discharge. EPA expects that 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

29 

few, if any, vessels have exposed TBT coatings on their hulls. EPA believes that a zero discharge 

standard for all organotin compounds, including TBT, is technologically available based on the 

availability of other antifoulant coating options (e.g., copper and silicon) and feasible and 

economically achievable because few, if any, vessels still utilize TBT as an antifoulant. 

Prohibition of performing vessel hull maintenance within the first 90 days of application of 

antifoulant paint that releases biocides will minimize the discharge of biocides during the period 

of time when biocide releases are most concentrated. EPA also encourages vessel 

owners/operators to avoid using copper-based anti-fouling systems or to clean and maintain antifouling systems in a way that prevents releases to receiving waters (for example, by performing 

maintenance activities away from water). Other practices, such as frequent gentle cleaning of 

anti-fouling coating, will minimize the release of biocides during vessel hull maintenance and 

will reduce the need for stronger cleaners or more rigorous cleaning. Requiring routine 

inspection and cleaning of vessel hulls will also minimize the spread or dispersal of potentially 

invasive species. As demonstrated in the Economic Analysis for this permit, these practices are 

practicable and economically achievable.

4.7 GRAYWATER

Graywater is water from showers, baths, sinks, and laundry facilities. The primary sources 

of graywater on vessels are sinks. Larger vessels may have additional graywater sources, such as 

clothes washers, dishwashing machines, water fountains, showers, and tubs. The largest vessels 

may have wastewater from additional sources, such as floor drains, ice machines, food garbage 

grinders, interior deck drains, hot tubs, and pools. Graywater discharges may contain soaps and 

detergents; oil and grease from foods and personal products; food waste solids; nutrients from 

food wastes and detergents; hair; bleach and other cleaners and disinfectants; pathogens; and a 

variety of additional personal care products such as hand moisturizer, deodorant, perfume, and 

cosmetics. Soaps and detergents can cause foam. Detergents can also form precipitates with 

minerals, creating scale and scum. Phosphates in detergents add to the nutrient loading of the 

graywater discharges. 

The required best management practices for graywater in Part 2.7 of the permit are 

designed to reduce the amount of graywater generated, reduce the amount of graywater 

discharged into sensitive water bodies, and lessen the environmental impacts of any graywater 

that is discharged. Requiring the storage of graywater by vessels that have storage capacity will 

eliminate the discharge of graywater in waters subject to this permit, or will allow for graywater 

discharge only when the vessel is underway to reduce the environmental impact of graywater 

discharges. Minimizing graywater discharges into areas of heavy vessel traffic, sensitive water 

bodies, and confined waters will reduce the amount of graywater discharged into these particular 

areas of concern. Using biodegradable, phosphate-free, and nontoxic cleaning products and 

prohibiting the addition of cooking oils to graywater systems will further lessen the 

environmental impacts of graywater discharges. As discussed in the Economic Analysis 

conducted for this permit, use of these products does not result in an increase in costs for vessel 

owners/operators. Furthermore, these products are readily available in numerous retail outlets, 

including outlets specifically tailored to meet the needs of small vessel owners/operators.
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

30 

4.8 FISH HOLD EFFLUENT 

Commercial fishing vessels use different methods to keep seafood fresh after it is caught. 

Most seafood is either dead when brought onboard or is killed shortly thereafter, before being 

stored in a refrigerated seawater holding tank, with the exception of certain shellfish (e.g., crab, 

lobster), which must be kept alive. The two most common methods of cooling seawater are by 

mechanical refrigeration or by adding ice. Mechanical refrigeration is common on tenders, purse 

seiners, and trawlers, while chipped and slurry ice tanks are more common on trollers, longliners, 

gillnetters, and some trawlers. 

For vessels with refrigerated seawater tanks, fish are typically extracted using a vacuum 

system that removes both the fish and refrigerated seawater simultaneously. Any excess 

refrigerated seawater that is not required to assist in fish extraction is pumped overboard 

pierside. Vessels that use chipped or slurry ice generally remove the seafood and then discharge 

the spent ice overboard pier side. Occasionally, vessels that store their catch in ice slurry also use 

vacuum filtration systems (e.g., some shrimping boats in the Gulf of Mexico). These discharges 

often contain pollutants generated by the catch, such as biological wastes. 

Tanks used to keep lobster and crab catch alive pump surrounding water into the tank 

constantly to maintain the highest water quality possible. The flow rate through these systems 

results in a nearly continuous discharge of fish hold effluent. Because the majority of the seafood 

product remains alive, there is little biological decay or degradation in the tank. Furthermore, 

because these tanks have reasonably rapid flushing times and a continuous discharge, there is 

little accumulation of pollutants. 

Fish holds are also often cleaned or disinfected by vessel crews between catches. To rinse 

the tank, vessel crews use either municipal water from the pier or dock or they pump water from 

the surrounding ambient water. Cleaning may simply involve rinsing the tanks with this water, or 

crews sometimes add detergents or disinfectants. Crews also often use scrub brushes to clean the 

walls and floor of the fish hold to maximize the removal of organic material. Fish hold cleaning 

effluent is a combination of residual fish hold water and ambient or municipal water and often 

contains soaps or detergents. 

Fish hold effluent may contain waste fish parts or other materials generated by fish 

cleaning, unused bait, solids, oils, nutrients, bacteria, and viruses. Fish hold effluent can create 

scum and foam, produce a visible slick or sheen on surface waters, generate odors, and exert 

oxygen demand in receiving waters. This discharge also has the potential to introduce ANS into 

receiving waters. 

The required best management practices for fish hold effluent in Part 2.8 of the sVGP are

common practices that are easily implemented by vessel owner/operators and are designed to 

reduce the amount of fish hold effluent discharged into sensitive water bodies and to lessen the 

environmental impact fish hold effluent that is discharged. The requirement to physically 

separate excess fish waste from fish hold effluent prior to discharge will reduce the amount and 

concentration of the discharge. Requiring the discharge of fish hold effluent to shore facilities, 

where available, will reduce fish hold effluent discharges at piers. Prohibiting the discard of 

unused bait, unless the bait was caught in that water body or watershed, will prevent the spread 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

31 

or dispersal of potentially invasive species if the bait are invasive species or are contaminated 

with invasive pathogens. Minimizing fish hold effluent discharges when in port will reduce the 

amount of fish hold effluent discharged into these nearshore waters. 

4.9 BALLAST WATER

EPA believes that it is not practicable and economically achievable for vessels with less 

than 8 cubic meters of ballast water capacity that discharge ballast water to install a ballast water 

treatment system, and therefore, those vessels are more appropriately controlled by the 

technology-based requirements in today’s permit.

Vessels with less than 8 cubic meters of ballast water capacity must implement the 

management practices outlined in Part 2.9 of the sVGP. EPA believes that no existing ballast 

water treatment systems have been developed for vessels with less than 8 cubic meters (2113 

gallons) of ballast water. For vessels with these small volumes of ballast water, EPA has 

included these best management practices for their ballast water discharges as technology-based 

effluent limits because EPA believes that they are feasible and economically practicable and 

achievable. These requirements are common sense measures that reduce the risk of vessels 

transporting potentially harmful pollution and aquatic nuisance species from one water body to 

another. 

These best management practices include avoiding or minimizing ballast water uptake in 

areas with a high potential to contain harmful organisms and only discharging the minimal 

amounts of ballast water necessary in coastal and internal waters. When achievable, vessel 

operators should not take up any ballast water in any waters with a known outbreak of harmful 

organisms and/or invasive species such as Pfisteria blooms (or other harmful algal blooms) and 

viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS). In these areas, it may be achievable for vessel 

owners/operators to minimize or avoid the uptake of water. When the uptake of ballast water is 

required in these waters, the vessel owner/operator must take on ballast in those waters that have 

the lowest known risk factors for these harmful organisms. 

For additional explanation regarding the ballast water provisions proposed today, including 

best management practices , please see Part 4.4.3 of EPA’s Proposed Vessel General Permit Fact 

Sheet (EPA, 2011b), available in the docket for this draft permit.

Today’s proposed permit would not authorize the discharge of ballast water from vessels 

less than 79 feet with a ballast water capacity of 8 or more cubic meters. EPA believes that it is 

practicable and economically achievable for these vessels that discharge ballast water to install a 

ballast water treatment system, and therefore, those vessels are more appropriately controlled by 

the technology-based requirements in the VGP. EPA has allowed vessels that have 8 or more 

cubic meters of ballast water capacity, but that do not discharge ballast water, to maintain 

coverage under today’s permit. EPA incorporated this requirement because vessels may use 

permanent ballast water or may use other methods to avoid any discharge into waters subject to 

this permit.

EPA is specifically requesting comment on this approach and whether larger or smaller 

volumes of ballast water discharge should be regulated under the sVGP. EPA is also requesting 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

32 

comment on whether additional best management practices should be required for these small 

volumes of ballast water from sVGP vessels. Please submit any supporting information, data 

sources, and rationale with your comments.

4.10 SEAWATER COOLING OVERBOARD DISCHARGE (INCLUDING NON-CONTACT ENGINE 

COOLING WATER; HYDRAULIC SYSTEM COOLING WATER, REFRIGERATION 

COOLING WATER) 

EPA included the seawater cooling overboard provisions at the request of NOAA fisheries. 

NOAA fisheries identified that the inclusion of these requirements would better protect essential 

fish habitat. These provisions in the sVGP are common-sense management approaches that 

when used, will reduce the discharge of overboard cooling water. The potential constituents of 

seawater cooling overboard discharge include entrained or dissolved materials from the system 

itself, including copper, iron, aluminum, zinc, nickel, tin, titanium, arsenic, manganese, 

chromium, lead, and oil and grease. Cooling water also can reach high temperatures, with the 

thermal difference between seawater intake and discharge typically ranging from 5°C to 25°C, 

with maximum temperatures reaching 140°C. EPA has not prohibited the discharge of the heated 

seawater because it is infeasible with existing vessel design to prohibit their discharge. However, 

the Agency believes if vessel operators institute the best management practice of reducing 

discharges to ports or enclosed water bodies, impacts from the heated waters will be reduced. 

Discharges of seawater can be reduced by using shore-based power when electrical systems 

onboard vessels are compatible with the available shore power. 

4.11 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

These effluent limits contain the requirement to comply with other applicable statutes and 

regulations dealing with vessel discharges. Reliance on other statutes and regulations to develop 

the permit requirements is a reasonable exercise of BPJ because these statutes and regulations 

have gone through an extensive process of evaluation and analysis by federal agencies and 

international organizations that have considerable expertise in vessel management. Furthermore, 

many of the best management practices considered by EPA were covered by these other 

authorities. These statutes and regulations are currently being implemented and therefore are 

technologically and economically practicable (BPT) and achievable (BAT) in light of best 

marine practice. Rather than reiterate the provisions of these statutes and regulations in their 

entirety for the permit’s general effluent limits, EPA has determined, based on BPJ, that 

incorporation of these statutes and regulations by reference is reasonable. 

EPA has clarified in the permit "general provisions" section (Part 4.12 of the sVGP) that 

the permit is intended to refer to those provisions as they were in effect on the date of issuance of 

the final VGP. Although EPA is not required to respond to late comments on this draft permit 

(see Section 1.2.3 above), EPA does intend to consider and respond to any comments submitted 

to the Agency regarding the incorporation into this permit of requirements imposed after the 

close of the comment period but before final permit issuance, as long as the commenter submits 

them to the Agency promptly after the adoption of the requirement and clearly indicates that the 

comments address the incorporation by reference issue. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

33 

EPA requests comment on this approach to incorporation by reference of other applicable 

requirements. EPA's proposed approach deviates from the 2008 VGP approach of incorporating 

requirements as they were in effect on the date of VGP proposal; EPA proposes this approach for 

the sVGP to ensure that the requirements ultimately adopted in the permit are as current as 

possible. EPA also requests comment on the approach of making the referenced provisions 

applicable as they are in effect at the time of discharge (i.e., an approach where the permit would 

automatically incorporate future changes to referenced provisions). EPA seeks comment on the 

pros and cons of such an approach. 

The statutes and regulations that were examined to inform the Agency’s BPJ decision and 

which are incorporated by reference into the provisions of the permit follow. These summaries 

are not meant to be legally binding or comprehensive reiterations; rather, they are short 

summaries designed to inform owners/operators of the existence of these authorities. The actual 

statutes and regulations implementing these authorities are the legally binding conditions of the 

permit.

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

Clean Water Act section 311 states that it is the United States’ policy that there should be 

no discharges of oil or hazardous substances into waters of the United States, adjoining 

shorelines, and certain specified areas, except where permitted under federal regulations (e.g., 

the NPDES program). As such, the Act prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances 

into these areas in such quantities as may be harmful. Further, the Act states that the President 

shall, by regulation, determine those quantities of oil and any hazardous substances that may be 

harmful if discharged. 

EPA has defined oil quantities that “may be harmful” as those that violate applicable water 

quality standards or “cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or 

adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the 

water or upon adjoining shorelines.” 40 CFR 110.3. Sheen is clarified to mean an iridescent 

appearance on the surface of the water. 40 CFR 110.1. 

In the permit, oil, including oily mixtures, may not be discharged in quantities that may be 

harmful. This goal has proven to be achievable using available treatment technologies such as 

oil-water separators or oil-absorbent materials. For other discharges that can potentially be 

contaminated by oils, but may not easily be collected and treated, the Agency requires the 

operator to observe the surface of the receiving water to determine whether a sheen is visible. 

This would indicate that oils are present at concentrations that may be harmful and discharge 

must cease. 

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/lawsregs/opprover.htm 

4.11.2 National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. Section 1431 et seq. and 

implementing regulations found at 15 CFR Part 922 and 50 CFR Part 404 

[NMSA]) 

NMSA authorizes the designation and management of National Marine Sanctuaries to 

protect marine resources with conservation, education, historical, scientific, and other special 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

34 

qualities. Additional restrictions and requirements may be imposed on vessel owners/operators 

who boat in and around National Marine Sanctuaries. For more information, please see the 

NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries Program website at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/. 

4.11.3 USDA Federal Noxious Weed Act, 7 CFR Part 360 

The Federal Noxious Weed Act makes it unlawful to import or move any listed noxious 

weed. This may impact small vessel owners/operators who may unknowingly transfer listed 

noxious weeds on their trailer, propeller, and other related areas. Additional information, as well 

as the list of noxious weeds, may be found on the USDA website at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/index.shtml. 

4.11.4 Act to Prevent Pollution From Ships (APPS), 33 U.S.C. 1901 

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) 

is an international treaty that regulates certain discharges from vessels. It is primarily 

implemented in the United States by the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS), 33 

U.S.C.1901 et seq. The U.S. Coast Guard is the lead agency for APPS implementation and has 

issued implementing regulations, primarily found at 33 CFR Part 151. Those requirements 

already apply to many of the vessels covered by the permit. APPS regulates the discharge of oil 

and oily mixtures, noxious liquid substances, and garbage, including food wastes and plastic. 

With respect to oil and oily mixtures, Coast Guard regulations at 33 CFR 151.10 prohibit 

“any discharge of oil or oily mixtures into the sea from a ship” except when certain conditions 

are met, including a discharge oil content of less than 15 parts per million (ppm), and that the 

ship has in operation oily-water separating equipment, an oil content monitor, a bilge alarm, or a 

combination thereof. These requirements have been in place for a significant length of time, and 

the equipment necessary to meet these standards is widely available and already in use on ships 

subject to these regulations. Note that these requirements generally apply to vessels greater than 

150 gross tons or 400 gross tons, depending upon vessel class; therefore, the requirements likely 

only apply to a few, if any, vessels eligible for coverage under the sVGP.

Substances regulated as “noxious liquid substances” (NLS) under APPS are divided into 

four categories based on their potential to harm marine resources and human health. See 33 CFR 

151.47 and 151.49; 46 CFR Part 153, Table 1. Under 46 CFR 153.1128, discharges of NLS 

residues at sea may only take place at least 12 nautical miles from the nearest land. In light of 

this, the permit does not authorize such discharges within waters subject to the permit (i.e., 

inland waters and the waters of the 3-mile territorial sea). 

Annex III to MARPOL addresses harmful substances in packaged form and is 

implemented in the United States by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act 

of 1994, as amended ( 49 U.S.C. 5901 et seq.), and regulations appearing at 46 CFR Part 148 and 

49 CFR Part 176. That regulatory scheme establishes labeling, packaging, and stowage 

requirements for such materials so as to help avoid their accidental loss or spillage during 

transport. 40 CFR 122.44(p) provides that when an NPDES permit is issued to a vessel operating 

as a means of transportation, the permit is to require compliance with any applicable Coast 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

35 

Guard regulations that establish specifications for safe transportation, handling, carriage, and 

storage of pollutants. The permit incorporates this requirement in Part 2.1. 

Available at http://epw.senate.gov/atppfs.pdf 

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

136 et seq.) 

FIFRA regulates the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. One of the primary 

components of FIFRA requires the registration and labeling of all pesticides sold or distributed in 

the United States, ensuring that if pesticides are used in accordance with the specifications on the 

label, they will not cause adverse effects on humans or the environment. It is a requirement of 

the permit that any registered pesticide must be used in accordance with its FIFRA label. This is 

included as a binding permit requirement, because FIFRA label requirements are established 

after research, approved by the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, and 

ensure that the pesticide, when used according to the label, can be used so that it will not cause 

unreasonable adverse effects on humans or the environment. 

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

Additional requirements also affect vessel discharges―in particular, the Oil Pollution Act 

of 1990 and the associated U.S. Coast Guard implementing regulations at 33 CFR Parts 155 and 

157. These regulations establish and reinforce the APPS 15 ppm discharge standard for oil and 

oily mixtures for oceangoing ships and require most vessels to have an oily-water separator. 

Oceangoing vessels less than 400 gross tons must either have an approved oily-water separator 

or retain oily-water mixtures onboard for disposal to an approved reception facility onshore. 

Oceangoing vessels more than 400 gross tons, except vessels that carry ballast water in 

their fuel oil tanks, must be fitted with “approved 15 parts per million (ppm) oily-water 

separating equipment for the processing of oily mixtures from bilges or fuel oil tank ballast.” 33 

CFR 155.360. The maximum oily discharge standard is included as a binding requirement in this 

permit because it is the most appropriate standard for oil and oily discharges and maintains 

current national and international standards. 33 CFR Part 155 was also referenced for oil 

containment and cleanup equipment and procedures. This section provides information on both 

equipment and procedures that are required for preventing and reacting to oil spills and 

discharges. 

4.12 EPA ESTABLISHMENT OF TECHNOLOGY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS IN THE SVGP

4.12.1 Background 

The CWA requires that all point source discharges must meet technology-based effluent 

limitations representing the applicable levels of technology-based control. Water quality-based 

effluent limitations (WQBELs) are required, as necessary, where the technology-based 

limitations are not sufficient to meet applicable water quality standards (WQS). See P.U.D. No. 1 

of Jefferson County et al. v. Washington Dept. of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 704 (1994). Water 

quality-based requirements will be discussed in greater depth in Section 6.5. Both technology-
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

36 

based and water quality-based effluent limitations are implemented through NPDES permits 

containing such limitations issued to point sources. CWA sections 301(a) and (b). 

4.12.2 The Clean Water Act Requires EPA to Develop Effluent Limitations that

Represent the Following:

4.12.2.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) 

The CWA requires BPT effluent limitations for conventional, toxic, and non-conventional 

pollutants. Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional pollutants: BOD5, TSS, 

fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. 

The Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 

1979. 40 CFR 401.16. EPA has identified 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants as toxic 

pollutants, of which 126 specific substances have been designated priority toxic pollutants. 40 

CFR 401.15 and 40 CFR Part 423 Appendix A. All other pollutants are considered to be nonconventional. 

In specifying BPT, under CWA section 301(b)(1)(A); 304(b)(1)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(d)(1), 

EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers the total cost of applying the control 

technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age of 

the equipment and facilities; the processes employed; and any required process changes, 

engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts 

(including energy requirements), and such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems 

appropriate. Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the 

best performance of facilities within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes, or other 

common characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BPT may reflect 

higher levels of control than currently in place in an industrial category if the Agency determines 

that the technology can be practically applied.

4.12.2.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) 

The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent reduction levels for 

conventional pollutants associated with BCT for discharges from existing industrial point 

sources. CWA section 301(b)(2)(E); 304(b)(4)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(d)(2). In addition to 

considering the other factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B) to establish BCT limitations, EPA 

also considers a two-part “cost-reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the 

development of BCT limitations in 1986. 51 FR 24974 (July 9, 1986). 

4.12.2.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) 

For toxic pollutants and non-conventional pollutants, EPA promulgates effluent limitations 

based on BAT. CWA section 301(b)(2)(A); 304(b)(2)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(d)(3). In establishing 

BAT, the technology must be technologically “available” and “economically achievable.” The 

factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions; the 

age of equipment and facilities involved; the process employed; potential process changes; nonwater quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements; and other such factors as 

the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in 

assigning the weight accorded to these factors. BAT limitations may be based on effluent 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

37 

reductions attainable through changes in a facility's processes and operations. Where existing 

performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher level of performance than is 

currently being achieved within a particular subcategory based on technology transferred from a 

different subcategory or category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal controls, 

even when these technologies are not common industry practice.

This permit contains effluent limits that correspond to required levels of technology-based 

control (BPT, BCT, BAT) for various discharges under the CWA. Some effluent limits have 

been established by examining other existing laws and requirements. Where these laws already 

exist, it was deemed feasible for the operators to implement these practices as effluent limits in 

this permit. Because these are demonstrated practices, EPA has found that they are 

technologically available and economically practicable (BPT) or achievable (BAT). In some 

cases, such as with the no (zero) discharge of TBT standard, numeric effluent limits have been 

established. 

4.12.3 Numeric Limitations are Infeasible

Because of the nature of the vessel discharges authorized by this permit, it is infeasible to 

derive numeric effluent limits to achieve these levels of control for all discharge types until 

greater information is available. Constituents in properly controlled discharges may vary based 

upon vessel type, age, size, and activities occurring onboard the vessel. In such situations, the 

CWA authorizes EPA to include non-numeric effluent limits in NPDES permits. 40 CFR 

122.44(k)(3). The sVGP includes such non-numeric effluent limits developed for discharges for 

which developing numeric effluent limits are infeasible at this time. Many of these non-numeric 

effluent limits require permittees to engage in specific behaviors or best management practices.

The non-numeric effluent limits are all intended to minimize or reduce pollutants or 

constituents of concern in the vessel discharges authorized by this permit. These effluent limits 

include, but are not limited to, requirements to use phosphate-free and non-toxic soaps (reduce 

the discharge of nutrients and toxic constituents in vessel cleaning discharges) and exercising 

extra precautions when fueling the vessel (to reduce the discharges of fuel or oil, including oily 

mixtures, into waters subject to this permit). The limits are expected to be effective in reducing 

harmful constituents in effluent streams reaching receiving waters. The non-numeric effluent 

limits are discussed in greater detail in Part 2.1 of the permit. 

For purposes of this permit, and consistent with the technology-based requirements of the 

CWA, EPA is clarifying that the term “minimize” means to reduce and/or eliminate to the extent 

achievable using control measures (including best management practices) that are 

technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best marine 

practice. This permit defines the term “minimize” in order to provide a reasonable approach by 

which EPA, permittees, and the public can determine/evaluate appropriate control measures for 

vessels to control discharges. EPA believes that for most small vessel discharges, minimization 

of pollutants in those discharges can be achieved without using highly engineered, complex 

treatment systems. The specific limits included in Part 2 emphasize effective pollution 

prevention controls, such as requiring phosphorus-free soap and minimizing production of 

graywater in port. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

38 

4.12.4 Technology-Based Effluent Limits

EPA has determined that the technology-based numeric and non-numeric effluent limits in 

this permit, taken as a whole, constitute the first level of control (BPT for all pollutants) and the 

second level of control (BAT for toxic and non-conventional pollutants and/or BCT for 

conventional pollutants) for discharges from vessels. For all of the discharges in this permit, the 

technology-based limits are based on best professional judgment, as authorized under CWA 

section 402(a)(1) and 40 CFR 125.3. 

4.12.4.1 Types of Technology-Based Effluent Limits

As stated above, the CWA establishes two levels of technology-based controls. The first 

level of control, “best practicable control technology currently available,” or BPT, applies to all 

pollutants. CWA section 304(b)(1)(B); 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(1)(B). BPT represents the initial 

stage of pollutant discharge reduction, designed to bring all sources in an industrial category up 

to the level of the average of the best source in that category. See EPA v. National Crushed 

Stone Ass’n, 449 U.S. 64, 75-76 (1980). In the second level of control, all point sources are 

required to meet effluent limitations based on “best conventional pollutant control technology,” 

or “BCT” CWA section 304(b)(4)(B); 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(4)(B) or “best available technology 

economically achievable,” or “BAT” CWA section 301(b)(2)(A); 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A), 

depending on the types of pollutants discharged. BCT applies to conventional pollutants, listed 

at 40 CFR § 401.16 BOD5, pH, TSS, fecal coliform, and oil and grease). BAT applies to toxic 

and non-conventional pollutants. Technology-based limits are to be applied throughout industry 

without regard to receiving water quality. Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 671 F.2d 801 (4th 

Cir. 1982). The following sections describe these limits in greater detail.

4.12.4.2 Inclusion of Non-Numeric Technology-Based Limits in NPDES Permits

NPDES permits are required to contain technology-based limitations. CWA sections 

301(b)(1)(A)(BPT); 301(b)(2)(A)(BAT); 301(b)(2)(E) (BCT); 40 CFR 122.44(a)(1). 

Technology-based limits in the permit represent the BPT (for conventional, toxic, and nonconventional pollutants), BCT (for conventional pollutants), and BAT (for toxic and nonconventional pollutants) level of control for the applicable pollutants. Where EPA has not 

promulgated effluent limitations guidelines and standards for an industry, or if an operator is 

discharging a pollutant not covered by the effluent guideline, permit limitations may be based on 

the best professional judgment (BPJ, sometimes also referred to as best engineering judgment) of 

the permit writer. 33 U.S.C. 1342(a)(1); 40 CFR 125.3. See Student Public Interest Group v. 

Fritzsche, Dodge & Olcott, 759 F.2d 1131, 1134 (3d Cir. 1985); American Petroleum Inst. v. 

EPA, 787 F.2d 965, 971 (5th Cir. 1986). For this general permit, all of the technology-based 

limits are based on BPJ decision-making because no ELGs apply. 

Most of the BPJ limits in this permit are in the form of non-numeric control measures, 

commonly referred to as best management practices. Best management practices are considered 

“effluent limitations” within the meaning of the CWA. See Citizens Coal Council v. EPA, 447 

F.3d 879, 895-96 (6th Cir. 2006); Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486, 502 (2d Cir. 

2005) (holding that site-specific best management practices at issue constitute effluent 

limitations within the meaning of the CWA); Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 673 F.2d 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

39 

400, 403 (D.C. Cir.1982) (“section 502(11) defines ‘effluent limitation’ as ‘any restriction’ on 

the amounts of pollutants discharged, not just a numerical restriction.”).

Through the Agency’s NPDES permit regulations, EPA interpreted the CWA to allow best 

management practices to take the place of numeric effluent limitations under certain 

circumstances. 40 CFR §122.44(k), entitled “Establishing limitations, standards, and other 

permit conditions (applicable to State NPDES programs ...),” provides that permits may include 

best management practices to control or abate the discharge of pollutants when: (1) “[a]uthorized 

under section 304(e) of the CWA for the control of toxic pollutants and hazardous substances 

from ancillary industrial activities”; (2) “[a]uthorized under section 402(p) of the CWA for the 

control of stormwater discharges”; (3) “[n]umeric effluent limitations are infeasible”; or (4) 

“[t]he practices are reasonably necessary to achieve effluent limitations and standards or to carry 

out the purposes and intent of the CWA.” 40 CFR 122.44(k). 

Various courts have held that the CWA does not require the EPA to set numeric limits 

where such limits are infeasible. See, e.g., Natural Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 568 

F.3d at 1380 (“when numerical effluent limitations are infeasible, EPA may issue permits with 

conditions designed to reduce the level of effluent discharges to acceptable levels”; Citizens Coal 

Council v. EPA, 447 F.3d 879, 895-96 (6th Cir. 2006). The Sixth Circuit cited to Waterkeeper 

Alliance, Inc. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486, 502 (2d Cir. 2005), stating “site-specific best management 

practices are effluent limitations under the CWA” (agreeing with EPA that the CWA does not 

require numeric effluent limits “where such limits are infeasible” because “a baseline pollutant 

loading cannot be calculated.”). 

4.12.4.3 EPA’s Decision to Include Non-Numeric Technology-Based Effluent 

Limits in This Permit and Rationale for Why the Limits Represent the 

Appropriate (BPT, BCT, or BAT) Level of Control 

4.12.4.3.1 Non-Numeric Technology-Based Effluent Limits in This Permit 

With the exception of the zero-discharge standard for TBT, numeric effluent limitations 

are not feasible to calculate for vessel discharges in this permit iteration. EPA may develop 

numeric effluent limits for certain discharge types for the next permit iteration, if applicable. 

Vessels vary widely by type and/or class, size, and activity and can discharge a wide variety of 

waste streams, whose volume will vary dependent upon seas, cargo carried, and age of the 

vessel. Additionally, vessel operators cannot install equipment onboard their vessels until that 

equipment has been approved by the Coast Guard and, in some cases, their class societies. 

Hence, EPA cannot require use of equipment or technologies that would conflict with the 

requirements of these organizations without fully understanding the implications of such 

requirements.

These factors create a situation where, at this time, it is generally not feasible for EPA to 

calculate numeric effluent limitations to effectively regulate vessel discharges, with the 

exception noted above (EPA is able to calculate a numeric effluent limit for that discharge 

category because extensive research has been conducted and effective pollution control 

technologies are widely or will be widely commercially available). Non-numeric effluent limits, 

such as use of phosphate-free, non-toxic, biodegradable soaps and detergents, will reduce the 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

40 

discharge of known pollutants into waters subject to this permit. However, when considering 

factors such as precipitation and the variability of volumes of water used in deck washdowns, the 

number of individual discharge points that may exist onboard, and the range of quantities of 

soaps and detergents used, it is not feasible for EPA to calculate end-of-pipe discharge limits. 

Therefore, in light of these considerations, EPA has determined that it is not feasible for the 

Agency to calculate numeric, technology-based limits for many of the discharges covered under 

this permit, and, based on the authority of 40 CFR 122.44(k)(3), has chosen to adopt nonnumeric effluent limits.

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

• Specific pollution prevention practices for minimizing or eliminating the pollutants or 

constituents of concern in the discharge. 

• Specific behavioral practices for minimizing or eliminating the pollutants or constituents 

of concern in the discharge. 

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

the discharges themselves.9

• Limiting or eliminating discharges at certain times for discharge types that can be limited 

or eliminated for short periods due to technology available onboard the vessel and the 

vessel design (i.e., if the vessel can hold the discharge type for limited periods or reduce 

production of the effluent or use an onshore disposal option).

In the context of this general permit, EPA has determined these non-numeric effluent 

limits represent the BPT for all pollutants, BCT for conventional pollutants, and BAT

economically achievable for toxic and non-conventional pollutants.

4.12.4.3.2 Requirements are Technologically Available and Meet the BPT 

and BAT Economic Tests Set Forth in the CWA

EPA has found that the requirements of this permit represent the appropriate (BPT, BCT, 

and BAT) level of control representing performance of commercial fishing vessels and other nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet, taking into account the various ages of equipment and types 

of vessels involved; the process employed; the engineering aspects of various types of control 

techniques; process changes; and non-water quality environmental impacts, including energy 

impacts, of the controls required under this permit. With respect to the non-water quality 

environmental impacts, including energy impacts, EPA finds that they are negligible. 

Additionally, EPA finds that the limits in this permit meet the BPT and BAT economic tests. 

Because of the type of controls under consideration here minimize toxic, nonconventional, and 

conventional pollutants, conventional pollutants are controlled by the same practices that control 

toxic and nonconventional pollutants. Hence, EPA is evaluating effluent limits using a BPT and 

a BAT standard, but because conventional pollutants will also be adequately controlled by these 

same effluent limits for which EPA applied the BPT and BAT tests, EPA has determined that it 

is not necessary to conduct BCT economic tests. 

 

9 These types of effluent limits allow owners/operators to use any control measures appropriate for their vessels to 

meet those limits.
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

41 

5. MONITORING AND RECORDKEEPING

Pursuant to CWA section 308 and 402(a)(2), 40 § CFR 122.43(a), and other applicable 

implementing regulations, the following requirements have been included in the permit, as 

discussed below. 

5.1 RECORDKEEPING

Records are useful tools for both the vessel owner or operator and EPA. They allow an 

owner or operator to assess their own permit compliance by providing an easy way to reference 

permit requirements that have been met, as well as a way to identify troublesome areas of the 

vessel that cause more pollution-related issues. They also allow EPA to assess permit 

compliance. 

Vessel owners/operators must maintain a signed paper copy of the Permit Authorization 

and Record of Inspection Form (PARI) onboard the vessel. EPA, or EPA’s authorized 

representative, may use this form to determine basic compliance with the permit, including 

whether the owner/operator has read the terms of the permit and whether the owner/operator has 

conducted quarterly visual inspections as required by the permit. You must produce this form for 

EPA or EPA’s authorized representative upon request (see Part 4.5 of the sVGP). 

5.2 ROUTINE QUARTERLY VISUAL INSPECTION

The routine quarterly visual inspection requirements include a detailed, thorough 

inspection of areas of the vessel that are difficult to inspect on a more regular basis, such as the 

vessel hull. It also requires that vessel owner/operators conduct an inspection of areas, which if 

not properly maintained or if damaged, are more likely to result in environmental degradation

(e.g., protective seals, machinery). However, the routine quarterly visual inspection does not 

require the vessel be placed out of the water or into a drydock. 

The routine quarterly visual inspection of the vessel highlights problem areas of the vessel 

that may need additional attention. This allows the Master, owner, or operator to establish and 

implement additional procedures applicable to problem areas to reduce future problems. To this 

end, the routine quarterly visual inspection requires that all pollution control equipment be 

inspected to ensure it is functioning properly. This requirement provides a reminder and 

opportunity to complete maintenance activities on onboard equipment. The owner/operator is 

responsible for conducting a thorough inspection and taking corrective actions based on that 

inspection. If the owner/operator is unsure of the quality of inspections that will be included as 

part of their routine quarterly visual inspection, EPA strongly recommends they use their own 

personnel to conduct the full inspection. The owner/operator is ultimately responsible for 

completion of this requirement. 

To aid in determining permit compliance, each quarterly visual inspection must be 

recorded on the PARI Form. The form must be signed by the person conducting the inspection 

and must include basic information relating to the inspection and any corrective actions taken as 

a result of inspection findings. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

42 

6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

6.1 CONTINUATION OF THE PERMIT 

If the permit is not reissued or replaced prior to its expiration date, existing dischargers 

will continue to be covered under an administrative continuance, in accordance with section 

558(c) of the APA and 40 CFR 122.6. The current permit will remain in effect for discharges 

that were covered prior to expiration until EPA acts on a permit renewal. If coverage is provided 

to a permittee prior to the expiration date of the permit, the permittee would automatically be 

covered by the permit until the earliest of: (1) the authorization for coverage under a reissuance 

or replacement of the permit; (2) the issuance of a new general permit which covers the vessel 

discharges or vessel type and provides coverage without requiring to submit a notice of intent to 

obtain coverage; (3) the issuance or denial of an individual permit for the permittee’s discharges; 

or (4) the formal permit decision by EPA not to reissue the general permit, at which time EPA 

will identify a reasonable time period for covered dischargers to seek coverage under an 

alternative general permit or an individual permit. 

EPA has followed this approach in order to extend coverage for these permittees under a 

permit vehicle until reissuance of the permit or coverage under some other permit. For more 

information, see 40 CFR 122.6. EPA does not have the authority to provide coverage to “new” 

vessels seeking coverage under an expired permit (i.e., vessels that were not covered under the 

permit prior to expiration). 

6.2 ALTERNATIVE PERMITS

6.2.1 EPA Requiring Coverage under an Alternative Permit 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3), EPA may require a discharger to apply for and obtain an 

individual permit instead of obtaining coverage under the general permit. These regulations also 

provide that any interested party may petition EPA to take such an action. The issuance of an 

individual permit will be in accordance with 40 CFR Part 124 and provide for public comment 

and appeal of any final permit decision. The circumstances in which such an action would be 

taken are set forth at 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3). 

6.2.2 Permittee Requesting Coverage under an Alternative Permit 

After issuance of the permit, the permittee may request to be excluded from such coverage 

by applying for an individual permit. In such a case, the permittee must submit an individual 

permit application, in accordance with 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3)(iii), along with a statement of 

reasons supporting the request, to the applicable EPA regional office listed in Part 7 of this 

permit. The request may be granted by issuance of an individual permit or authorization of 

coverage under an alternative general permit if the reasons are adequate to support the request. 

Under this scenario, if an individual permit is issued, or authorization to discharge under an 

alternative NPDES permit is granted, your authorization to discharge under this permit is 

automatically terminated under 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3)(iv) on the effective date of the individual 

permit or the date of authorization of coverage under the alternative general permit. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

43 

6.3 PERMIT COMPLIANCE

Part 4.3 of the permit is intended to inform the permittee of the potential consequences of 

failure to comply with the conditions of the permit. Part 4.3 explains that any failure to comply 

with the conditions of the permit constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act. In addition, the 

standard NPDES permit condition for the “duty to comply” (see 40 CFR 122.41(a)) is applicable 

to all permittees. 

6.4 OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS (PARTS 4.4-4.10 OF THE SVGP) 

Today’s sVGP clearly states that no property rights are conveyed to any permittee, among 

other things. Furthermore, the permit states that if a portion of this permit is invalidated, it does 

not render the whole sVGP invalid. 

This permit also contains savings clauses which state that nothing in the permit shall be 

construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any 

responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any applicable state law or 

regulation under authority preserved by section 510 of the Clean Water Act or applicable 

requirements or prohibitions under other provisions of federal law or regulations. In addition, 

federal regulations require that the standard permit conditions provided at 40 CFR 122.41 be 

applied to all NPDES permits. As provided by the introductory text of 40 CFR 122.41 and the 

regulation at 40 CFR 122.43(c), all of the standard permit conditions published in federal 

regulations at 40 CFR 122.41 are incorporated into the permit by reference. The permit requires 

permittees to comply with all applicable standard conditions. 

6.5 WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

The sVGP includes water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) to control discharges as 

stringently as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. The provisions of Part 4.11 

of the permit constitute the WQBELs for this permit, and supplement the permit’s technologybased effluent limits in Part 2. Where the implementation of the technology-based requirements 

in this permit is not sufficient to meet the applicable receiving water’s water quality standards, 

the permittee may be subject to further WQBELs. Prior to or after permit issuance and 

authorization to discharge, EPA may require additional WQBELs on a site-specific basis, or 

require the permittee to obtain coverage under an individual permit, if information in the NOI, 

required reports, or from other sources indicates that, after meeting the technology-based limits 

in Part 2 and the WQBELs in Part 4.11, the facility is causing or contributing to an excursion 

above water quality standards10. 

Part 4.11 includes the permit limits that are as stringent as necessary to achieve water 

quality standards, consistent with CWA section 301(b)(1)(C) and 122.44(d)(1). EPA generally 

expects that vessels that achieve the permit’s technology-based limits through the careful 

implementation of effective pollution control measures and best management practices are likely 

 

10 In using the phrase “excursion above,” the permit tracks the language in 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1). There are some 

instances, however, where pollutants would cause nonattainment of the applicable criterion by lowering the water 

quality below the criterion, as with dissolved oxygen. In such situations, such lowering would be considered an 

“excursion above” within the meaning of the proposed permit condition.
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

44 

to already be controlling their vessel discharges to a degree that would make additional water 

quality-based controls unnecessary. However, to ensure that this is the case, the permit contains 

additional conditions, which, in combination with the BAT/BPT/BCT limits in this permit, EPA 

expects to be as stringent as necessary to achieve water quality standards. EPA notes that the 

WQBELs included in this permit are non-numeric. EPA relies on a narrative expression of the 

need to control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards, and to 

employ additional controls where necessary to be consistent with applicable waste load 

allocations (WLAs) in an approved or established TMDL or to comply with a state or tribe’s 

antidegradation policies. This is a reasonable approach for this permit because EPA has 

determined that it is infeasible to calculate numeric water quality-based effluent limits for vessels 

at this time. EPA reached this determination primarily based on the mobile nature of vessels used 

in a capacity of transportation. With thousands of water bodies across the country, and the 

potential for any vessel to discharge into almost any water, it is infeasible for EPA to calculate 

numeric limits for each vessel for each water body at this time. Furthermore, as explained in 

Section 4.12 of this fact sheet, establishing numeric water quality-based limits poses many of 

the same challenges that EPA faced in setting technology-based discharge limits. 

As mentioned, this permit requires that each permittee must control its discharge as 

necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. EPA generally expects that compliance 

with the other conditions in this permit (e.g., the technology-based limits, corrective actions, etc.) 

will result in discharges that are controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality 

standards. If the permittee becomes aware, or EPA determines, that the discharge causes or 

contributes to a standards exceedance, corrective actions and EPA notification are required. In 

addition, at any time EPA may impose additional, more stringent WQBELs on a site-specific 

basis, or require an individual permit, if information suggests that the discharge is not controlled 

as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. The language in Part 4.11 affirms the 

permittee’s requirement to control its discharges as stringently as necessary to meet applicable 

water quality standards. EPA reserves the authority to require more stringent requirements where 

necessary to meet applicable standards, or, alternatively, to require the permittee to apply for an 

individual permit.

The purpose of Part 4.11.1 of the sVGP is to include a definition for “impaired waters” so 

that the scope of the requirements in 4.11.1 can be more readily understood by permittees. Part 

4.11.1 defines “impaired waters” as those which have been identified by a state or EPA pursuant 

to section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as not meeting applicable state water quality standards. 

This may include both waters with approved or established TMDLs, and those for which a 

TMDL has not yet been approved or established. The permit contains additional provisions for 

vessels discharging pollutants that have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an 

impairment of those specified waters. 

Part 4.11.1 reiterates that if a vessel discharges to an impaired water without an EPAapproved or established TMDL, EPA can provide the permittee with additional requirements 

with which to comply. EPA can also impose additional requirements on discharges that are not 

directly discharged to an impaired water if they cause or contribute to an exceedance in another 

water body affected by the discharge. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

45 

Part 4.11.1 outlines the process for imposing additional requirements on permittees when 

they discharge into waters that have a WLA assigned to vessels. During the term of the permit, 

EPA may inform the owner/operator if such a WLA has been established that applies to their 

vessel discharges. In addition to requiring permittees to comply with the conditions of the WLA, 

EPA will also assess whether any more stringent requirements are necessary to comply with the 

WLA, whether compliance with the permit’s existing requirements is sufficient to comply with 

the WLA, or whether the owner/operator must apply for individual permit coverage (see part 

1.8.1). 

EPA believes that the permit’s provisions are consistent with EPA’s antidegradation 

policy. EPA does not believe that a vessel covered under this permit should be considered a new 

or increased point source discharge that would foreseeably lower water quality under EPA's 

antidegradation regulation, located at 40 CFR 131.12, the typical trigger for antidegradation 

review (see EPA Water Quality Standards Handbook, p. 4-10, available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/handbook/); see also EPA’s Response to Comments 

for Oregon Water Quality Standards 2004 approval, page 31). Generally speaking, the vessels 

covered under this permit and their discharges existed before EPA’s issuance of the sVGP. Such 

existing discharges do not constitute “new or increased point source discharges” that would 

foreseeably lower water quality within the meaning of 40 CFR § 131.12, and thus do not trigger 

antidegradation review. As stated in EPA’s Water Quality Standards Handbook, antidegradation 

review requirements “are triggered by any action that would result in the lowering of water 

quality in a high-quality water. Such activities as new discharges or expansion of existing 

facilities would presumably lower water quality and would not be permissible unless the state 

conducts a review consistent with” the State’s antidegradation requirements. EPA Water Quality 

Standards Handbook, p. 4-7, available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/handbook/. 

EPA’s issuance of the sVGP and vessels’ applications for coverage under the VGP will not 

foreseeably result in the lowering of water quality because those vessels and their discharges 

existed before the permit was issued and coverage was granted. If anything, EPA’s issuance of 

the sVGP will improve water quality as vessels carry out the permit’s technology-based 

requirements. Further, as stated by EPA in its July 7, 1998 Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, antidegradation “specifies the framework to be used in making decisions regarding 

changes in water quality.” See 63 Fed. Reg. 36779-80. Again, in the context of the sVGP, there 

are no expected “changes in water quality,” at least no negative changes. Finally, as stated in 

EPA’s Response to Comments for Oregon Water Quality Standards 2004 approval, 

antidegradation “would require the permit authority and applicant to undergo an antidegradation 

review if the discharge would lower water quality as compared to the prior discharge.” Again, 

vessels covered under the sVGP will not typically “lower water quality as compared to the prior 

discharge” since the very same vessels that are being permitted under the sVGP constituted the 

prior unregulated discharges that existed before issuance of the permit. The sVGP merely 

authorizes point source discharges that previously existed but were unregulated by EPA’s 

NPDES regulations. Such existing discharges are not what EPA’s antidegradation regulation 

intends to cover, as evidenced by the statements cited above. As a result, EPA does not consider 

vessels covered by this permit to be new or increased point source discharges that would 

foreseeably lower water quality for antidegradation purposes, and thus antidegradation review is 

not triggered. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

46 

6.6 OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

6.6.1 Ocean Discharge Criteria

The Ocean Discharge Criteria (40 CFR Part 125, Subpart M) establish regulations for 

issuance of NPDES permits for discharges into the territorial seas, the contiguous zone, and the 

ocean as these terms are defined in the CWA. The permit would cover commercial fishing 

vessels and non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet operating as a means of transportation 

when within the territorial seas. It thus is subject to the Ocean Discharge Criteria regulation with 

respect to discharges incidental to the normal operation of such vessels into the territorial seas. 

For purposes of this evaluation, the territorial seas means the belt of the seas measured from the 

line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast that is in direct contact with the open 

sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters, and extending seaward a distance of 

three miles (33 U.S.C. 1362(8)). 

Under 40 CFR 125.123(a), if EPA, on the basis of available information determines prior 

to permit issuance that the discharges authorized will not cause unreasonable degradation of the 

marine environment, EPA may issue an NPDES permit, which may be conditioned as necessary 

to assure that the discharge will not cause unreasonable degradation. The regulations (40 CFR 

125.121(e)) define unreasonable degradation of the marine environment as meaning: 

• Significant adverse changes in ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability of the 

biological community within the area of discharge and surrounding biological 

communities, 

• Threat to human health through direct exposure to pollutants or through consumption of 

exposed aquatic organisms, or 

• Loss of aesthetic, recreational, scientific or economic values that is unreasonable in 

relation to the benefit derived from the discharge. 

The Ocean Discharge Criteria require that EPA consider a number of factors in the 

determination of the degree of degradation to the marine environment. These factors include the 

amount and nature of the pollutants, the potential transport of the pollutants, the character and 

uses of the receiving water and its biological communities, the existence of special aquatic sites 

(including parks, refuges, etc.), any applicable requirements of an approved Coastal Zone 

Management plan, and potential impacts on water quality, ecological health and human health 

and any other factors the Administrator deems appropriate. 40 CFR 125.122(a). In addition, the 

Ocean Discharge Criteria establish a presumption that discharges in compliance with state water 

quality standards will not cause unreasonable degradation with respect to the pollutants subject 

to those standards. 40 CFR 125.122(b). After consideration of the Ocean Discharge Criteria, 

EPA has determined that the discharges authorized by the NPDES permit into the territorial seas 

in accordance with permit requirements will not cause unreasonable degradation of the receiving 

waters. 

The discharges that would be authorized by the permit are limited to those discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of commercial fishing vessels and vessels less than 79 feet, 

and will be of limited volumes. Additionally, smaller vessels tend to have fewer discharge types 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

47 

than larger vessels. For example, many small vessels have limited, if any, sources of graywater 

on board their vessels. In addition, because many vessels in the territorial seas are likely to be 

underway as part of their voyage, any discharges incidental to their normal operation would be 

expected to receive significant dilution due to movement of the vessel and mixing by vessel 

propellers, followed by further dispersal and transport beyond the area of the vessel’s operation. 

In developing the permit, the Agency has taken into consideration that discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of vessels are subject to the permit and have the potential to be 

contaminated with oil or other potentially persistent or bioaccumulative pollutants. The permit 

therefore contains a number of best management practices intended to avoid or reduce the 

potential for such contamination. In addition, the permit requires compliance with all federal 

environmental laws that establish controls on oily or hazardous discharges, including among 

others, CWA section 311 (33 U.S.C. 1321), the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 

190-1915), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), and 

the Oil Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 2701-2761). EPA believes that these controls will 

prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine environment. 

The Agency also has taken into account the biological communities and receiving waters 

that would be exposed to the discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels that will be 

authorized by the permit. This consideration has necessarily been complicated by the fact that 

vessels have the potential to traverse vast distances in the territorial sea while discharging. The 

Agency has taken an approach of identifying potentially sensitive areas in which vessels may 

operate and providing for additional controls when discharges occur in such areas. In addition to 

requiring compliance with other applicable federal laws, the permit includes other conditions to 

impose additional controls and requirements on covered discharges in sensitive receiving waters 

(Part 4.11.1 of the permit). The Agency will also undertake consultation with respect to Essential 

Fish Habitat in accordance with 50 CFR Part 600 and endangered species and their critical 

habitat in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and will also request 

consistency review for the permit in accordance with section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act. Any final permit may include additional terms and conditions as are 

considered necessary following completion of such consultations and review. 

Finally, this permit applies to discharges to the outer limit of the three mile territorial sea. 

State water quality standards also apply within these waters and the permit thus contains effluent 

limitations as necessary to meet those applicable water quality standards (Part 4.11). In addition, 

because the permit would be issued by EPA, it is subject to state certification as to compliance 

with such standards under section 401 of the CWA Water Act, and EPA will be initiating that 

certification process with the states in the near future. Under 40 CFR 125.122(b), EPA presumes 

that discharges in compliance with state water quality standards will not to cause unreasonable 

degradation of the marine environment with respect to specific pollutants or conditions specified 

in such standards. 

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

• Significant adverse changes in ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability of the 

biological community within the area of discharge and surrounding biological 

communities, 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

48 

• Threat to human health through direct exposure to pollutants or through consumption of 

exposed aquatic organisms, or 

• Loss of aesthetic, recreational, scientific or economic values that is unreasonable in 

relation to the benefit derived from the discharge. 

Accordingly, in accordance with 40 CFR 125.123(a), the Agency has determined that 

issuance of the permit with the controls included will not cause unreasonable degradation of the 

marine environment. 

6.6.2 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and its implementing regulations (15 CFR 

Part 930) require that any federal licensed activity directly affecting the coastal zone of a state 

with an approved Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) be consistent with the 

enforceable policies of that approved program to the maximum extent practicable. Agency 

general permits that do not involve case-by-case or individualized determinations by the Agency 

are federal activities for the purposes of CZMA section 307(c)(1). For the final sVGP, EPA will 

make a national consistency determination regarding the enforceable policies in each approved 

state CZM program for the coastal zones including state waters where the sVGP would authorize 

discharges. 15 CFR 930.31(d). 

6.6.3 Endangered Species Consultation

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires each federal agency, in 

consultation with and with the assistance of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), collectively “the Services,” to ensure that the actions 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

endangered or threatened species (referred to as “listed species”) or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of their designated critical habitats. 

The Services have published regulations implementing ESA section 7 at 50 CFR Part 402. 

The regulations provide that a federal agency (such as EPA) must consult with FWS, NMFS, or 

both if the agency determines that an activity authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency 

may affect listed species or critical habitat. The kinds of effects that trigger the consultation 

obligation could include, among other things, beneficial, detrimental, direct, and indirect effects. 

EPA plans to commence consultation with the Services in the near term. 

6.6.4 Tribal Consultation 

Consistent with Executive Order 13175, EPA is engaged in consultation and collaboration 

with tribal officials in the development of the sVGP. As part of these consultations, EPA has 

provided overviews of the NPDES vessel program to the National Tribal Council, and provided 

additional information and sought feedback from tribal representatives. EPA will consider any 

potential concerns of tribes with respect to how this permit might affect Indian Country or other 

tribal interests.
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

49 

6.6.5 Essential Fish Habitat Consultations

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the 

Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), established procedures to identify, 

conserve, and enhance essential fish habitat (EFH); that is, essential habitat for species regulated 

under a federal fisheries management plan (FMP). The Act requires federal agencies to consult 

with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NOAA NMFS) on all actions, or proposed actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the 

agency that might adversely affect EFH. Upon review, EPA has determined that issuance of this 

final permit will have no adverse effect on EFH because the sVGP will impose, for the first time, 

CWA effluent limitations on discharges incidental to the normal operation of the vessel universe 

subject to this permit. 

7. STATE OR TRIBAL REQUIREMENTS RESULTING FROM 401 

CERTIFICATION

Part 5 of the final sVGP identifies provisions provided to EPA by states and tribes in their 

CWA § 401 certifications that the states and tribes deem necessary to assure compliance with 

applicable provisions of the CWA and any other appropriate requirements of state and tribal law. 

See 33 U.S.C. 1341(d); 40 CFR § 124.53(e)(1). Pursuant to CWA § 401(d), EPA will attach

those state and tribal provisions to the final sVGP; those that constitute effluent or other 

limitations or monitoring requirements are enforceable conditions of the federal permit. 

American Rivers, Inc. v. FERC, 129 F.3d 99, 107 (2nd Cir. 1997). These conditions are subject 

to review in state and tribal administrative and judicial tribunals with appropriate jurisdiction. 40 

CFR § 124.55(e); American Rivers, Inc. v. FERC, 129 F.3d 99, 102 (2nd Cir. 1997); Roosevelt 

Campobello Int’l Park Comm’n v. EPA, 684 F.2d 1041, 1056 (1st Cir. 1982). The sVGP will 

also include conditions provided by states as part of their concurrence with this permit for 

CZMA purposes if applicable (see Section 6.6.2 of this fact sheet). 

8. DEFINITIONS

Part 6 of the permit provides permit-specific definitions of statutory, regulatory, and other 

terms important for understanding this permit and its requirements. Any terms that are not listed 

in this definitions section have the meaning given to the terms by 40 CFR Section 122.2 (the 

definitions section of the NPDES regulations). To develop these definitions, EPA has, where 

possible, relied on existing definitions in other laws and regulations applicable to this universe of 

permittees in order to provide consistency with those laws and provide permittees with a familiar 

framework. For those definitions that were developed based on another source, the citation to 

that law or regulation is included in brackets after the definition. EPA seeks comment on the 

definitions section as a whole, and the specific definitions contained therein. 

9. REFERENCES

100th Meridian Initiative (2007). 100th Meridian Initiative. Retrieved from 

http://www.100thmeridian.org.
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

50 

Abbaspour, M., Javid, A.H., Moghimi, P., & Kayhan, K. (2005). Modeling of thermal pollution 

in coastal areas and its economical and environmental assessment. International Journal 

of Environmental Science and Technology, 2, 13-26. 

Abt Associates, Inc. (2008). Economic and Benefits Analysis of the Final Vessel General Permit 

(VGP). December 18, 2008. 

AEA Technology. (2009). Cost benefit analysis to support the impact assessment accompanying 

the revision of Directive 1999/32/EC on the sulfur content of certain liquid fuels (Report 

to European Commission). Retrieved from 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/transport/pdf/CBA_of_S.pdf. 

AFCAN. (2006). Oily waste management onboard of vessels: September 2006 update. Retrieved 

from http://www.afcan.org/dossiers_techniques/gestion_dech_huileux2_gb.html. 

Albert, R. (2010). Development of the Next VGP – Stakeholder Listening Session, Washington 

D.C. December 15, 2010. 

Aluyor, E.A., Obahiagbon, O.O., and Ori-jesu, M. (2009). Biodegradation of vegetable oils: A 

review. Scientific Research and Essay, 4(6), 543-548. 

AMOG Consulting. (2002). Hull fouling as a vector for the translocation of marine organisms – 

Phase 3: The significance of the prospective ban on tributyltin antifouling paints on the 

introduction and translocation of marine pests in Australia (Report No. 2). Australia:

Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Apte, S., Holland, B.S., Godwin, L.S., and Gardner, J.P.A. (2000). Jumping ship: A stepping 

stone event mediating transfer of a non-indigenous species via a potentially unsuitable 

environment. Biological Invasions, 2, 75-79. 

Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA). (2003). Effects of Oil on Wildlife. Retrieved 

from 

http://www.amsa.gov.au/Marine_Environment_Protection/Educational_resources_and_in

formation/Teachers/The_Effects_of_Oil_on_Wildlife.asp. 

Axiak, V., Sammut, M., Chircop, P., Vella, A., and Mintoff, B. (1995). Laboratory and field 

investigations on the effects of organotin (tributyltin) on the oyster, Ostrea edulis. 

Environmental Toxicology: Hazards to the Environment and Man in the Mediterranean 

Region, 171, 117-120. 

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

Battelle. (2000). An Initial Survey of Aquatic Invasive Species Issues in the Gulf of Mexico 

Region. (EPA-855-R-00-003). New Orleans, LA: Environmental Protection Agency. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

51 

Bax, N., Williamson, A., Aguero, M., Gonzalez, E., and Geeves, W. (2003). Marine invasive 

alien species: a threat to global biodiversity. Marine Policy, 27, 313-323. 

Bennett, G., and Peters, R.. (1988). The removal of oil from wastewater by air flotation: A 

review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 18(3), 189-253. 

Bentivegna, C.S. and Piatkowski, T. (1998). Effects of tributyltin on medaka (Oryzias latipes) 

embryos at different stages of development. Aquatic Toxicology, 44, 117-128. 

Betton, C.I. (2010). Lubricants and their Environmental Impact. In R. Mortimer, M. Fox, & S. 

Orszulik (Eds.), Chemistry and Technology of Lubricants, 3rd Edition (pp. 435-457). 

Springer Science + Business Media B.V.

Bay, S.M., Lapota, D., Anderson, J., Armstrong, J., Mikel, T., Jirik, A.W., and Asato, A. (2000). 

Southern California Bight 1998 Regional Monitoring Program: IV. Sediment Toxicity. 

Westminster, CA: Southern California Coastal Water Research Project.

BoatU.S. Foundation. BoatUS foundation for boating safety and clean water. Retrieved from 

http://www.boatus.com/foundation/cleanwater.

Brancato, M.S. and MacLellan, D. (1999). Impacts of Invasive Species Introduced through the 

Shipping Industry (abstract). Oceans 1999 MTS/IEEE: Riding the Crest into the 21st 

Century, 2, 676. 

Bremmer, B.J. and Plonsker, L. (2008). Bio-Based Lubricants: A Market Opportunity Study 

Update. Prepared for the United Soybean Board. Retrived from 

http://www.soynewuses.org/downloads/reports/BioBasedLubricantsMarketStudy.pdf . 

Brock, R., Bailey-Brock, J.H., and Goody, J. (1999). A case study of efficacy of freshwater 

immersion in controlling introduction of alien marine fouling communities: The USS 

Missouri. Pacific Science, 53, 223-231. 

Brown, W. (1997). Polyalkylene Glycols, In E. Richard Booser (Ed.), Tribology Data Handbook 

(pp. 49-59). United States of America: CRC Press.

Candries, M. (2009). Proposed criteria for safe in-water hull husbandry practices with respect to 

the risk of transferring non-indigenous species with particular attention to surface treated 

coatings. Subsea Industries Technical Report No. 2009.4 Revision 0. Retrieved from 

http://www.hydrex.be/sources/pdf/Subsea%20Industries%20TR%202009.4%20Rev.%20

0.pdf. 

Carlton, J.T. (1996). Pattern, process, and prediction in marine invasion ecology. Invasion 

Biology, 78, 97-106. 

Carlton, J.T. (2001). Introduced species in U.S. coastal waters: environmental impact and 

management priorities. Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission.
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

52 

Carson, R.T., Damon, M., Johnson, L.T., and Gonzalez, J.A. (2009). Conceptual Issues in 

Designing a Policy to Phase Out Metal-based Antifouling Paints on Recreational Boats in 

San Diego Bay. J. Environ. Manag. 90(8), 2460-2468. 

Carter, C.D. (2009). Elimination of a Ship Source Pollutant – STOP (Stern Tube Oil Pollution). 

Proceedings of the 2009 Propulsion & Emissions Conference. Retrieved from 

http://www.thordonbearings.com/system/documents/documents/116/original/WMTC200

9_Thordon_Bearings_ver_2.pdf?1283356147. 

Chambers, L.D., Stokes, K.R., Walsh, F.C., and Wood, R.J.K. (2006). Modern Approaches to 

Marine Antifouling Coatings. Surf. Coat. Technol. 201(6), 3642-3652. 

Cohen, A.N. and Carlton, J.T. (1995). Nonindigenous aquatic species in a United States estuary: 

a case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta (Rep. No. 

PB96-166525). 

Cohen, A.H., Carlton, J.T., and Fountain, M.C. (1995). Introduction, dispersal and potential 

impacts of the green crab Carcinus maenas in San Francisco Bay, California. Marine 

Biology, 122, 225-237. 

Cohen, A.N. and Carlton, J.T. (1998). Accelerating Invasion Rate in a Highly Invaded Estuary. 

Science, 279, 555-558. 

Coles, S.L., DeFelice, R.C., Eldredge, L.G., and Carlton, J.T. (1999). Historical and recent 

introductions of non-indigenous marine species into Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaiian 

Islands. Marine Biology, 135(1), 147-158. 

Convention on Biological Diversity. (2005). Invasive Alien Species Introduction. Retrieved from 

http://www.cbd.int/iyb/doc/prints/factsheets/iyb-cbd-factsheet-ias-en.pdf. 

Cordell, J., Sosik, E., Faulkner, M., and Scianni, C. (2009). Characterizing Risk Associated with 

Vessel Fouling and Nonindigenous Species in Prince William Sound. Prepared for the 

School of Aquatic and Fishery Science. Retrieved from 

http://www.pwsrcac.org/docs/d0081980.UWHullFouling.pdf. 

Correll, D.L. (1987). Nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay. In S.K. Majumdar, W. Hall Jr. & H.M. 

Austin (Eds.), Contaminant Problems and Management of Living Chesapeake Bay 

Resources (pp. 298-320). Easton, PA: The Pennsylvania Academy of Science.

Coutts, A.D.M. (1999). Hull fouling as a modern vector for marine biological invasions: 

Investigation of merchant vessels visiting northern Tasmania. MSc thesis. Australian 

Maritime College, Launceton, Australia. 

Coutts, A.D.M. and Dodgshun, T.J. (2007). The nature and extent of organisms in vessel seachests: A protected mechanism for marine bioinvasions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54, 

875-886. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

53 

Coutts, A and Forrest, B. (2005). Evaluation of eradication tools for the clubbed tunicate Styela 

clava (Cawthron Report No. 1110). Nelson, New Zealand: Cawthron Institute. 

Coutts, A and Forrest B. (2007). Development and application of tools for incursion response: 

Lessons learned from the management of the fouling pest Didemnum vexillum. Journal 

of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 342, 152–64. 

Coutts, A.D.M., Moore, K.M., and Hewitt, C.L. (2003). Ships’ sea-chests: an overlooked transfer 

mechanism for non-indigenous marine species? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46, 1504-

1515. 

Coutts, A.D.M. and Taylor, M.D. (2001). An Investigation of High Risk Areas on The Hulls of 

Merchant Vessels for the Translocation of Exotic Fouling Organisms. Proceedings of the 

Second International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions. New Orleans, LA: Cawthron 

Institute. 

Coutts, A.D.M. and Taylor, M.D. (2004). A preliminary investigation of biosecurity risks 

associated with biofouling on merchant vessels in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of 

Marine and Freshwater Research, 38, 215-229. 

CRWQCB. (2005). Total Maximum Daily Load for Dissolved Copper in Shelter Island Yacht 

Basin, San Diego Bay (Resolution No. R9-2005-0019 Basin Plan Amendment and 

Technical Report). 

Davidson, I. (2011). Assessing Hull Fouling as a Vector of Invasive Species: A Case Study in the 

Lower Columbia River. Retrieved from 

http://www.clr.pdx.edu/abrpi/projects/mechanisms/fouling.php. 

Davidson, I., Ruiz, G., Sytsma, M., and Fofonoff. (2006). Hull Fouling on the vessels Point 

Loma and Florence in the reserve fleet at Suisun Bay, CA: A pilot study with respect to 

potential transfer of non-native species. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime 

Administration.

Davidson, I.C., McCann, L.D., Sytsma, M.D., and Ruiz, G.M. (2008). Interrupting a multispecies bioinvasion vector: The efficacy of in-water cleaning for removing biofouling on 

obsolete vessels. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56(9), 1538–44. 

DeCola, E. (2000). International Oil Spill Statistics: 2000. Oil Spill Intelligence Report 

(OSIR).Arlington, MA: Cutter Information Corporation. 

DiGangi, J., Schettler, T., Cobbing, M., and Rossi, M. (2002). Aggregate exposures to phthalate 

in humans. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

54 

Dobbs, F., Doblin, M., and Drake, L. (2006). Pathogens in ships' ballast tanks. EOS, 

Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 87. 

Doblin, M., Coyne, K., Rinta-Kanto, J., Wilhelm, S., and Dobbs, F. (2007). Dynamics and shortterm survival of toxic cyanobacteria species in ballast water from NOBOB vessels 

transiting the Great Lakes-implications for HAB invasions. Harmful Algae, 6, 519-530. 

Dodgshun T. and Coutts, A. (2002). Ships’ sea chests: a “side door” for marine pests? 

Wellington, New Zealand: Cawthron Institute.

Drake, J.M. and Lodge, D.M. (2007). Rate of species introductions in the Great Lakes via ships' 

ballast water and sediments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 64, 

530-538. 

Drake, L., Doblin, M., and Dobbs, F. (2007). Potential microbial bioinvasions via ships' ballast 

water, sediment, and biofilm. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55, 333-341. 

Endresen, Ø., Behrens, H.L., Brynestad, S., Andersen, A.B., and Skjong, R. (2004). Challenges 

in global ballast water management. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48, 615-623. 

Environmental Law Institute. (2004). Filling the gaps: ten strategies to strengthen invasive 

species management in Florida. 

Environmental Law Institute. (2002). Halting the Invasion: State Tools for Invasive Species 

Management. 

Environmental Law Institute. (2004). Invasive Species control: A Comprehensive Model State 

Law. 

Environmental Law Institute. (2004). Making a List: Prevention Strategies for Invasive Plants in 

the Great Lakes States.

Erhan, S.Z., Sharma, B.K., and Perez, J.M. (2006). Oxidation and low temperature stability of 

vegetable oil-based lubricants. Industrial Crops and Products, 24, 292-299. 

Etkin, D.S. (2010). Worldwide analysis of in-port vessel operational lubricant discharges and 

leaks (pp. 529-554). Proceedings of the 33rd Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program 

Technical Seminar. 

European Commission. (2004). Commission Decision of Establishing the Ecological Criteria for 

the Award of the Community Eco-Label to Lubricants. 

Floerl, O., Inglis, G.J., and Marsh, H.M. (2005). Selectivity in vector management: An 

investigation of the effectiveness of measures used to prevent transport of non-indigenous 

species. Biological Invasions, 7(3), 459-75. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

55 

Floerl, O., Norton, N., Inglis, G., Hayden, B., Middleton, C., Smith, M., Alcock, N., and 

Fitridge, I. (2004). An investigation of hull cleaning and associated waste treatment 

options for preventing the spread of non-indigenous marine species. (Final research 

report for Ministry of Fisheries Project ZBS2002-04). 

GESAMP. (1993). Impact of oil and related chemicals and wastes on the marine environment.

(GESAMP Report 50). London, England: International Maritime Organization. 

GESAMP. (2007). Estimates of oil entering the marine environment from sea-based activities. 

London, England: International Maritime Organization. 

Ghidossi, R., Veyret, D., Scotto, J.L., Jalabert, T., and Moulin, P. (2009). Ferry oily wastewater 

treatment. Separation and Purification Technology, Vol. 64(3), p. 296-303. 

Gow, G. (2009). Lubricating Grease. In Mortimer, R., M. Fox, and Orszulik, S. (Eds.), 

Chemistry and Technology of Lubricants, 3rd Edition (pp. 411-432). Springer Science+ 

Business Media B.V. 

Great Lakes Commission. (1995). Interesting Facts About Oil Spills. Advisor, March/April 1995. 

Retrieved from http://www.glc.org/docs/advisor/95/oil/dyk.html. 

Hanninen, S. and Sassai, J. (2009). Estimated Nutrient Load from Wastewaters Originating 

From Ships in the Baltic Sea Area – Updated 2009, (Research Report VTT-R-07396-08).

Haynes, D. and Loong, D. (2002). Antifoulant (butyltin and copper) concentrations in sediments 

from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, Australia. Environmental Pollution, 

120(2), 391-396. 

Henriksson, T. (2007). SOx scrubbing of marine exhaust gases. WÄRTSILÄ Technical Journal. 

Hewitt, C. and Campbell, M. (2010). The relative contribution of vectors to the introduction and 

translocation of invasive marine species. Prepared for The Department of Agriculture, 

Fisheries and Forestry. Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from 

http://www.marinepests.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1804513/Relative_contributi

on_of_vectors_to_the_introduction_and_translocation_of_invasive_marine_species.pdf. 

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

International Maritime Organization. (2008). 2008 Revised guidelines for systems for handling 

oily wastes in machinery spaces of ships incorporating guidance notes for an integrated 

bilge water treatment system (IBTS). MEPC.1/Circ. 642. Retrieved from 

http://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/msnote/pdf/msin0833anx.pdf. 

Jha, M. and Swietlik, W. (2003). Developing water quality criteria for suspended and bedded 

sediments (SABS). Draft U.S. EPA Report. 

Johnson, L.E., Ricciardi, A., and Carlton, J.T. (2001). Overland dispersal of aquatic invasive 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

56 

species: a risk assessment of transient recreational boating. Ecological Applications, 11, 

1789-1799. 

Johnson, L.T. and Gonzales, J.A. (2006). Environmental Policy Conflicts on the Horizon: Vessel 

Antifouling Paints, Coastal Water Quality, and Invasive Species. University of 

California: California Policy Research Center.

Johnson, L., Gonzalez, J., Alvarez, C., Takada, M., and Himes, A. (2007). Managing hull-borne 

invasive species and coastal water quality for California and Baja California boats kept 

in saltwater (ANR Publication 8359 – California Sea Grant College Program Report 

Number T-061). San Diego, CA: Regents of the University of California. Retrieved from 

http://ucanr.org/freepubs/docs/8359.pdf. 

 

Johnson, H.D., Grovhoug, J.G., and Valkirs, A.O. (1998). Copper Loading to U.S. Navy 

Harbors: Norfolk, VA; Pearl Harbor, HI; and San Diego, CA (Technical Document 

3052). San Diego, CA: U.S. Navy. 

Johnson, A. (2009). Letter to Keith Johnson, Commercial Diving Services Pty. Ltd. Invasive 

Marine Species Program, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Canberra 

City dated January 29, 2009. Retrieved from 

http://www.commercialdiving.com.au/HST_Support.pdf. 

Kabir, M.A., Higgs III, C.F., and Lovell, M.R. (2008). A pin-on-disk experimental study on a 

green particulate-fluid lubricant. ASME Journal of Tribology, 130(4), 041801-1 – 

041801-6. 

Katranitsasa, A., Castritsi-Catharios, J., and Persoone, G. (2003). The effects of a copper-based 

antifouling paint on mortality and enzymatic activity of a non-target marine organism. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46, 1491-1494. 

Knight, I.T., Wells, C.S., Wiggins, B., Russell, H., Reynolds, K.A., and Huq., A. (1999). 

Detection and enumeration of fecal indicators and pathogens in the ballast water of 

transoceanic cargo vessels entering the Great Lakes. General Meeting of the American 

Society for Microbiology. Chicago, IL: American Society for Microbiology. 

Larson, M.R., Foreman, M.G.G., Levings, C.D., and Tarbotton, M.R. (2003). Dispersion of 

discharged ship ballast water in Vancouver Harbour, Juan De Fuca Strait, and offshore of 

the Washington Coast. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science, 2, 163-176. 

Lee II, H., Reusser, D.A., Frazier, M., and Ruiz, G. (2010). Density Matters: Review of 

Approaches to Setting Organism-Based Ballast Water Discharge Standards (EPA/600/R10/031). Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National 

Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division. 

Lewis, J. (2002). Hull Fouling as a Vector for the Translocation of Marine Organisms. Phase 1 

Study - Hull Fouling Research. Ballast Water Research Series (Report no. 14). Canberra, 

Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

57 

Lockwood, J.L., Cassey, P., and Blackburn, T. (2005). The role of propagule pressure in 

explaining species invasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20, 223–228. 

Lovell, S.J. and Stone, S.F. (2005). The Economic Impacts of Aquatic Invasive Species (Working 

Paper #05-02). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Lucas, Z. and MacGregor, C. (2006). Characterization and source of oil contamination on the 

beaches and seabird corpses, Sable Island, Nova Scotia, 1996-2005. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin, 52, 778-789. 

McPherson, T.N. and Peters, G.B. (1995). The Effects of Copper-Based Antifouling Paints on 

Water Quality in Recreational Boat Marinas in San Diego and Mission Bays. Inwater 

Hull Cleaning Study, Ambient Concentrations Study, and Tidal Influence Study. San 

Diego, CA: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. 

Miller, M. (2008). Additives for Bioderived and Biodegradable Lubricants. In L. R. Rudnick 

(Ed.), Lubricant Additive Chemistry and Applications, 2nd Edition (pp. 445-457). Boca 

Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Minchin, D. and S. Gollasch. (2003). Fouling and ships’ hulls: how changing circumstances and 

spawning events may result in the spread of exotic species. Biofouling, 19, 111–22. 

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. (2010). Managing and controlling the risk posed to the 

marine environment from biofouling on arriving vessels: MAF Biosecurity New Zealand 

consultation paper 10/04. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 

Retrieved from http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/biosec/consult/draft-bnz-std-biofoulconsult-paper.pdf. 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Invasive Species. Retrieved from 

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/index.html. 

National Research Council. (1993). Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas. United 

States of America: National Academy of Sciences.

National Research Council. (2000). Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and Reducing the 

Effects of Nutrient Pollution. United States of America: National Academy of Sciences.

National System. (2009). National biofouling management guidelines for commercial vessels.

Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.

N.C. Division of Coastal Management. (2004). A boater’s guide to protecting North Carolina’s 

coastal resources. Retrieved from 

http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Marinas/BoaterGuide2004.pdf. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

58 

Negri, A.P., Hales, L.T., Battershill, C., Wolff, C., and Webster, N.S. (2004). TBT 

contamination identified in Antarctic marine sediments. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48, 

1142-1144. 

Negri, A.P. and Heyward, A.J. (2001). Inhibition of coral fertilization and larval metamorphosis 

by tributyltin and copper. Marine Environmental Research, 51, 17-27. 

Nehring, S. (2001). After the TBT Era: Alternative anti-fouling paints and their ecological risks. 

Senckenbergiana Maritima, 31(2), 341–51. 

Newcombe, C.P. and Jensen, J.O.T. (1996). Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a 

synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management, 16, 693-727. 

NOAA. (1991). Contaminant Trends in the Southern California Bight: Inventory and Assessment 

(NOAA Technical Memorandom NOS ORCA 62). Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service.

NOAA. (1994). Inventory of Chemical Concentrations in Coastal and Estuarine Sediments

(NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 76). Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. 

Orange County Coastkeeper. (2007). Lower Newport Bay copper/metals marina study. 

Penny, R., and Suominen-Yeh, M. (2006). Biological bilge water treatment system. Naval 

Engineers Journal, 118(3), 45-50. 

Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. (2005). Update on the environmental and economic 

costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics. 

BioScience. 50, 53-65. 

PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (1997). Report of Copper Loading to San Diego Bay, 

California. Prepared for California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego 

Region and the San Diego Bay Interagency Water Quality Panel. 

Railkin, A.I. (2004). Marine Biofouling: Colonization Processes and Defenses. Washington D.C. 

CRC Press. 

Reynolds, K., Knight, I., Wells, C., Pepper, I., and Gerba, C. (1999). Detection of human 

pathogenic protozoa and viruses in ballast water using conventional and molecular 

methods. General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology,Chicago, IL.

Ricciardi, A. (2006). Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation to changes in 

vector activity. Diversity and Distributions, 12, 425-433. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

59 

Roman, J. (2006). Diluting the founder effect: cryptic invasions expand a marine invader's range. 

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 273, 2453-

2459. 

Ruiz, J.M., Bryan, G.W., and Gibbs, P.E. (1995). Effects of tributyltin (TBT) exposure on the 

veliger larvae development of the bivalve Scrobicularia plana (da Costa). Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 186, 53-63. 

Ruiz, G.M., Rawlings, T.K., Dobbs, F.C., Drake, L.A., Mullady, T., Huq, A., and Colwell, R.R. 

(2000). Global spread of microorganisms by ships. Nature, 408, 49-50. 

Rützler, K. and Sterrer, W. (1970). Oil pollution: Damage observed in tropical communities 

along the Atlantic seaboard of Panama. BioScience, 20, 222-224. 

Sada, H., Hawkins, D., Erikson, P., and Wisenbaker, Y. (2009). An environmentally preferable 

lubricant for tunnel and azimuth thrusters. Proceedings from the Dynamic-Positioning 

Conference. Houston, TX: Committee of the Marine Technology Society. 

Schiff, K., Diehl, D., and Valkirs, A. (2004). Copper emissions from antifouling paint on 

recreational vessels. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48, 371-377. 

Shaw, D.G., Hogan, T.E., and McIntosh, D.J. (1985). Hydrocarbons in the sediments of Port 

Valdez, Alaska: Consequences of five years' permitted discharge. Estuarine, Coastal and 

Shelf Science, 21, 131-144. 

Singhasemanon, N. (2008). Assessment of Antifouling Paint Use Indicators in California 

Marinas. CA Department of Pesticide Regulation. Proceedings at CAHMPC Annual 

Conference. Ventura, CA: CAHMPC. 

Singhasemanon, N., Pyatt, E., and Bacey, J. (2009). Monitoring for Indicators of Antifouling 

Paint Pollution in California Marinas (EH08-05). Sacramento, CA: California 

Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Branch, California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation.

Srinivasan, M. and Swain, G.W. (2007). Managing the use of copper-based antifouling paints. 

Environmental Management, 39, 423-441. 

Stekoll, M.S., Clement, L.E., and Shaw, D.G. (1980). Sublethal effects of chronic oil exposure 

on the intertidal clam Macoma balthica. Marine Biology, 57, 51-60. 

Suchanek, T.H. (1993). Oil impacts on marine invertebrate populations and communities. 

American Zoologist, 33, 510-533. 

Sun, C., Leiknesa,T., Weitzenböck, J., and Thorstensen, B. (2009). The effect of bilge water on a 

Biofilm-MBR process in an integrated shipboard wastewater treatment system. 

Desalination, 236(1-3), 56-64. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

60 

SWRCB. (1996). Chemistry, Toxicity and Benthic Community Conditions in Sediments of the 

San Diego Bay Region (Final Report). 

Sytsma, M.D., Cordell, J.R, Chapman, J.W., and Draheim, R.C. (2004). Lower Columbia River 

Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Survey 2001-2004: Final Technical Report. Prepared for 

the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from 

http://www.clr.pdx.edu/docs/LCRANSFinalReport.pdf. 

Takata, L., Dobrowski, N., Scianni, C., and Faulkner, M. (2011). 2011 Biennial report on the 

California marine invasive species program. Produced for the California State 

Legislature by the California State Lands Commission.

TDC Environmental. (2004). Copper Sources in Urban Runoff and Shoreline Activities; 

Information Update. Prepared for the Clean Estuary Partnership. 

Thomas, K., Raymond, K., Chadwick, J., and Waldock M. (1999). The Effects of Short-term 

Changes in Environmental Parameters on the Release of Biocides from Antifouling 

Coatings: Cuprous Oxide and Tributyltin. Appl. Organomet. Chem., 13, 453-460. 

Trocine, R.P. and Trefry, J.H. (1996). Metal concentrations in sediment, water and clams from 

the Indian River Lagoon, Florida. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 32, 754-759. 

USCG. (2009). U.S. Coast Guard Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Standards for Living Organisms in Ship’s Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters 

(DOT Document Number USCG-2001-10486). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Coast Guard. 

Retrieved from www.regulations.gov (Docket ID: USCG-2001-10486-0139.1). 

USEPA. (1986). Quality criteria for Water Washington D.C. Retrieved from 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/goldbook.pdf. 

USEPA. (1996). The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit 

Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007). Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

USEPA. (2001). National Management Measures Guidance to Control Nonpoint Source 

Pollution from Marinas and Recreational Boating (Rep. No. EPA 841-B-01-005). 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

USEPA. (2002a). National Water Quality Inventory (EPA-841-R-02-001). Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

USEPA. (2002b). Total Maximum Daily Loads for Toxic Pollutants, San Diego Creek and 

Newport Bay, California. San Francisco, CA: U.S. EPA Region IX. 

USEPA. (2005). National Coastal Condition Report II (EPA-620-R-03-002). Washington D.C.: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Fact Sheet

61 

USEPA. (2007). Draft cruise ship discharge assessment report (EPA-842-R-07-005). 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

USEPA. (2008). Disinfection byproduct health effects. Retrieved from 

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/icr/dbp_health.html. 

USEPA. (2010). Report to Congress: Study of Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of 

Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non Recreational Vessels less than 79 feet (EPA833-R-10-005). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

USEPA. (2011a). Economic and Benefits Analysis of the 2013 Small Vessel General Permit 

(sVGP). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

USEPA. (2011b). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel General 

Permit (VGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Draft Fact 

Sheet. Available at: www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels. 

USEPA. (2011c). Invasive Species. Retrieved from 

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/habitat/invasive_species_index.cfm. 

USGS. (2007). Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. Retrieved from http://nas.er.usgs.gov/. 

Valkirs, A.O., Davidson, B.M., Kear, L.L., Fransham, R.L., Zirino, A.R., and Grovhoug, J.G. 

(1994). Environmental Effects from In-Water Hull Cleaning of Ablative Copper 

Antifouling Coatings (Technical Document 2662). San Diego, CA: U.S. Navy.

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

Wiese, F.K. and Ryan, P.C. (2003). The extent of chronic marine oil pollution in southeastern 

Newfoundland waters assessed through beached bird surveys 1984-1999. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 46, 1090-1101. 

Wittenberg, R. and Cock, M.J.W. (Eds.). (2001). Invasive Alien Species: A Toolkit of 

BestPrevention and Management Practices. Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CAB International. 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI). (2007). Harmful Algae: What are Harmful Algal 

Blooms (HABS). Retrieved from http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/.