Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

2013 Final Issuance of

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Vessel General Permit (VGP) for 

Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of 

Vessels

Fact Sheet

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Action: Notice of NPDES General Permit

Page 1 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. General Information ...................................................................................................................9

1.1. Does this Action Apply to Me? ........................................................................................9

1.2. Further Information ...........................................................................................................9

2. Background ................................................................................................................................9

2.1. The Clean Water Act ........................................................................................................9

2.2. Legal Challenges .............................................................................................................10

2.3. Congressional Legislation ...............................................................................................11

2.4. General Permits ...............................................................................................................12

2.5. Public Comment on EPA’s Proposed VGP ....................................................................13

2.6. U.S. Coast Guard Ballast Water Rulemaking .................................................................13

2.7. Economic Impacts ...........................................................................................................14

3. The Permit ................................................................................................................................15

3.1. Geographic Scope of the Permit .....................................................................................15

3.2. Structure of the Permit (Part 1.1) ....................................................................................16

3.3. What is the Vessel Universe Affected by This Permit? ..................................................16

3.4. Regulation of Constituents in the Discharges Under the Permit ....................................17

3.4.1 Aquatic Nuisance Species ......................................................................................18

3.4.2 Nutrients .................................................................................................................19

3.4.3 Pathogens ...............................................................................................................20

3.4.4 Oil and Grease........................................................................................................21

3.4.5 Metals .....................................................................................................................21

3.4.6 Toxic and Non-Conventional Pollutants with Toxic Effects .................................22

3.4.7 Other Non-Conventional and Conventional Pollutants (Except Fecal 

Coliform)................................................................................................................23

3.5. Coverage Under the Permit .............................................................................................24

3.5.1 Eligibility (Part 1.2) ...............................................................................................24

3.5.1.1 Deck Washdown and Runoff and Above Water Line Hull Cleaning ............24

3.5.1.2 Bilgewater ......................................................................................................25

3.5.1.3 Ballast Water ..................................................................................................25

3.5.1.4 Anti-Fouling Leachate from Anti-Fouling Hull Coatings ..............................25

3.5.1.5 Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) ...........................................................26

3.5.1.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown .......................................................................26

3.5.1.7 Cathodic Protection ........................................................................................26

3.5.1.8 Chain Locker Effluent ....................................................................................26

3.5.1.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and other Oil 

to Sea Interfaces including Lubrication discharges from Paddle Wheel 

Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Thruster Bearings, Stabilizers, Rudder 

Bearings, Azimuth Thrusters, Propulsion Pod Lubrication, and Wire 

Rope and Mechanical Equipment Subject to Immersion ...............................26

3.5.1.10 Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine .........................................................27

3.5.1.11 Elevator Pit Effluent .......................................................................................27

3.5.1.12 Firemain Systems ...........................................................................................28

3.5.1.13 Freshwater Layup ...........................................................................................28

3.5.1.14 Gas Turbine Water Wash ...............................................................................28

Page 2 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

3.5.1.15 Graywater .......................................................................................................28

3.5.1.16 Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge ...............................................29

3.5.1.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater ..................................................................29

3.5.1.18 Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge .................................................29

3.5.1.19 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (Including Non-Contact 

Engine Cooling Water, Hydraulic System Cooling Water, Refrigeration 

Cooling Water) ...............................................................................................29

3.5.1.20 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention .........................................................29

3.5.1.21 Boat Engine Wet Exhaust ...............................................................................29

3.5.1.22 Sonar Dome Discharge ...................................................................................30

3.5.1.23 Underwater Ship Husbandry and Hull Fouling Discharges ...........................30

3.5.1.24 Welldeck Discharges ......................................................................................30

3.5.1.25 Graywater Mixed with Sewage from Vessels ................................................30

3.5.1.26 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge ................................................30

3.5.1.27 Fish Hold Effluent ..........................................................................................31

3.5.2 Discharge Types Specifically Not Authorized By This Permit .............................31

3.5.2.1 Discharges Not Subject to Former NPDES Permit Exclusion Including 

Vessels Being Operated in a Capacity Other than as a Means of 

Transportation ................................................................................................31

3.5.2.2 Sewage from Vessels ......................................................................................32

3.5.2.3 Used or Spent Oil ...........................................................................................32

3.5.2.4 Rubbish, Trash, Garbage or Other Materials Discharged Overboard ............32

3.5.2.5 Photo Processing Waste .................................................................................33

3.5.2.6 Effluent from Dry Cleaning Operations .........................................................33

3.5.2.7 Discharges of Medical Waste and Related Materials .....................................33

3.5.2.8 Discharges of Noxious Liquid Substance (NLS) Residues ............................33

3.5.2.9 Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene) and Trichloroethylene (TCE) 

Degreasers or Other Products Containing Tetrachloroethylene and 

Trichloroethylene ...........................................................................................33

3.5.2.10 Discharges Currently or Previously Covered by Another NPDES 

Permit .............................................................................................................34

3.6. Permit Compliance (Part 1.4) .........................................................................................34

3.7. Authorization Under the Permit (Part 1.5) ......................................................................34

3.7.1 No Requirement to Submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Certain Vessels .............34

3.7.2 How to Obtain Authorization (Part 1.5.1) .............................................................36

3.7.2.1 Owner/Operators Required to Submit NOIs (Part 1.5.1.1) ............................37

3.7.2.2 Owner/Operators Not Required to Submit NOIs (Part 1.5.1.2) .....................38

3.7.3 Continuation of the Permit (Part 1.5.2) ..................................................................39

3.8. Terminating Coverage (Part 1.6) ....................................................................................39

3.8.1 Submitting a Notice of Termination (NOT) (Part 1.6.1.1) ....................................39

3.8.2 When to Submit a Notice of Termination (Part 1.6.1.2 and Part 1.6.2) ................39

3.8.2.1 Terminating Coverage for Vessels Required to Submit an NOI ....................39

3.8.2.2 Terminating Coverage for Vessels Not Required to Submit an NOI .............40

3.9. Certification (Part 1.7) ....................................................................................................40

3.10. Alternative Permits (Part 1.8) .........................................................................................41

3.10.1 EPA Requiring Coverage Under an Alternative Permit (Part 1.8.1) .....................41

Page 3 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

3.10.2 Permittee Requesting Coverage Under an Alternative Permit (Part 1.8.2) ...........41

3.11. Permit Reopener Clause (Part 1.9)..................................................................................41

3.12. Ocean Discharge Criteria ................................................................................................43

3.13. Other Conditions (Parts 1.11, 1.12, and 1.13) ................................................................45

3.14. Electronic Reporting Requirement .................................................................................45

3.15. Additional Notes .............................................................................................................46

4. Effluent Limitations .................................................................................................................47

4.1. Background .....................................................................................................................47

4.1.1 The Clean Water Act Requires EPA to Develop Effluent Limitations that 

Represent the Following: .......................................................................................47

4.1.1.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) .................47

4.1.1.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) ..............................47

4.1.1.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) ......................48

4.1.2 Numeric Limitations Are Infeasible ......................................................................48

4.2. Technology-Based Effluent Limits .................................................................................49

4.2.1 Types of Technology-Based Effluent Limits .........................................................49

4.2.2 Inclusion of Non-Numeric Technology-Based Limits in NPDES Permits ...........49

4.2.3 EPA’s Decision to Include Non-Numeric Technology-Based Effluent Limits 

in This Permit and Rationale for Why the Limits Represent the Appropriate 

(BPT, BCT or BAT) Level of Control ...................................................................50

4.3. Technology-Based Effluent Limits and Related Requirements in the Permit ..............55

4.3.1 General Effluent Limits (Part 2.1) .........................................................................55

4.3.1.1 Material Storage (Part 2.1.1) ..........................................................................55

4.3.1.2 Toxic and Hazardous Materials (Part 2.1.2) ...................................................55

4.3.1.3 Fuel Spills/Overflows (Part 2.1.3) ..................................................................56

4.3.1.4 Discharges of Oil, Including Oily Mixtures (Part 2.1.4) ................................56

4.3.1.5 Compliance with Other Statutes and Regulations Applicable to Vessel 

Discharges (Part 2.1.5) ...................................................................................57

4.3.1.6 General Training .............................................................................................59

4.4. Effluent Limits and Related Requirements for Specific Discharge Categories (Part 

2.2) ..................................................................................................................................60

4.4.1 Deck Washdown and Runoff Including Above Water Line Hull Cleaning 

(Part 2.2.1) .............................................................................................................60

4.4.2 Bilgewater (Part 2.2.2) ...........................................................................................61

4.4.2.1 Bilgewater Requirements ...............................................................................62

4.4.2.2 EPA’s Exploration as to Whether to Include More Stringent Bilgewater 

Management Requirements for New Build Vessels and Whether to 

Provide Existing Vessels with Additional Bilgewater Management 

Options ...........................................................................................................64

4.4.2.2.3 Annual Bilgewater Monitoring for New Build Vessels...............................65

4.4.2.2.4 Why EPA included Annual Monitoring for New Build Vessels .................67

4.4.3 Ballast Water (Part 2.2.3) .......................................................................................67

4.4.3.1 Training ..........................................................................................................69

4.4.3.2 Ballast Water Management Plans ...................................................................69

4.4.3.3 Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices: Management 

Measures Required of all Vessel Owner/Operators .......................................70

Page 4 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

4.4.3.4 Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices for “Lakers” .....................72

4.4.3.5 Ballast Water Treatment Measures ................................................................73

4.4.3.5.1 Ballast Water Management Using a Ballast Water Treatment System .......73

4.4.3.5.1.1 Monitoring from Vessels Using a Ballast Water Treatment System ...... 80

4.4.3.5.1.1.1 Ballast Water System Functionality Monitoring .............................81

4.4.3.5.1.1.2 Ballast Water Monitoring Equipment Calibration ..........................82

4.4.3.5.1.1.3 Effluent Biological Organism Monitoring ......................................83

4.4.3.5.1.1.4 Authorization of Residual Biocides Associated with Ballast 

Water Treatment Systems ...............................................................85

4.4.3.5.1.1.5 Residual Biocide or Derivative Monitoring ....................................87

4.4.3.5.1.1.6 Use of Biocides not Specifically Addressed in Part 

2.2.3.5.1.1.1 of the Permit ...............................................................89

4.4.3.5.1.1.7 Ballast Water Treatment System Recordkeeping and 

Reporting .........................................................................................90

4.4.3.5.2 Onshore Treatment of Ballast Water ...........................................................91

4.4.3.5.3 Use of Public Water Supply Water ..............................................................93

4.4.3.5.4 No Discharge of Ballast Water ....................................................................93

4.4.3.5.5 Schedule for when Ballast Water Treatment Becomes BAT (and 

Therefore Required) ....................................................................................94

4.4.3.5.6 Vessels Not Required to Meet Part 2.2.3.5 Treatment Standards................99

4.4.3.5.6.1 Vessels Engaged in Short-Distance Voyages............................................. 99

4.4.3.5.6.2 Unmanned, Unpowered Barges ................................................................. 100

4.4.3.5.6.3 Vessels That Operate Exclusively on the Great Lakes (Commonly 

Known as Lakers) Built Before January 1, 2009 ..................................... 100

4.4.3.5.6.4 Inland and Seagoing Vessels less than 1600 Gross Registered Tons 

(3000 Gross Tons) ....................................................................................... 102

4.4.3.5.7 Data Sources used in generating today’s numeric ballast water limits......103

4.4.3.6 Interim Requirements for Vessels Not Required to Meet the Ballast 

Water Management Measures in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP ...........................104

4.4.3.6.1 Requirements for Oceangoing Voyages While Carrying Ballast Water ...104

4.4.3.6.2 Vessels Carrying Ballast Water Engaged in Pacific Nearshore 

Voyages .....................................................................................................105

4.4.3.6.3 Mandatory Saltwater Flushing ...................................................................106

4.4.3.6.4 Vessels that Complete Ballast Water Exchange Must Do So as Early 

as Practicable .............................................................................................108

4.4.3.6.5 Requirements for Tankers Engaged in the Coastwise Trade .....................108

4.4.3.7 Vessels Entering the Great Lakes .................................................................108

4.4.3.8 Vessels in the U.S. Coast Guard Shipboard Technology Evaluation 

Program (STEP) ...........................................................................................109

4.4.3.9 Narrative Water Quality Based Effluent Limit Applicable to Ballast 

Water Discharges .........................................................................................109

4.4.3.9.1 EPA’s Charge to the NAS .........................................................................110

4.4.3.9.2 Effectiveness of the TBEL at Addressing Water Quality Impacts ............111

4.4.3.9.3 Reasonable Potential Determination for Ballast Water Discharges ..........114

4.4.3.9.4 Ballast Water WQBELs .............................................................................115

Page 5 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

4.4.3.9.4.1 WQBELs are Infeasible to Calculate ........................................................ 115

4.4.3.9.4.2 WQBELs in Today’s Permit ...................................................................... 115

4.4.4 Antifouling Hull Coating Leachate (Part 2.2.4)...................................................118

4.4.5 Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) (Part 2.2.5) .............................................120

4.4.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown (Part 2.2.6) .........................................................122

4.4.7 Cathodic Protection (Part 2.2.7)...........................................................................122

4.4.8 Chain Locker Effluent (Part 2.2.8) ......................................................................123

4.4.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller (CPP) and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and other 

Oil to Sea Interfaces including Lubrication Discharges from Paddle Wheel 

Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Thruster Bearings, Stabilizers Rudder Bearings, 

Azimuth Thrusters, and Propulsion Pod Lubrication and Wire Rope and 

Mechanical Equipment Subject to Immersion (Part 2.2.9). .................................124

4.4.10 Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine (Part 2.2.10) .........................................128

4.4.11 Elevator Pit Effluent (Part 2.2.11) .......................................................................128

4.4.12 Firemain Systems (Part 2.2.12) ............................................................................128

4.4.13 Freshwater Layup (Part 2.2.13) ...........................................................................129

4.4.14 Gas Turbine Wash Water (Part 2.2.14) ................................................................129

4.4.15 Graywater (Part 2.2.15)........................................................................................129

4.4.15.1 Additional Graywater Requirements for Vessels Operating in the Great 

Lakes ............................................................................................................130

4.4.15.2 Graywater Monitoring ..................................................................................131

4.4.16 Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge (Part 2.2.16) ...............................132

4.4.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater (Part 2.2.17) ...................................................132

4.4.18 Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge (Part 2.2.18) .................................132

4.4.19 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (Including Non-Contact Engine 

Cooling Water; Hydraulic System Cooling Water, Refrigeration Cooling 

Water) (Part 2.2.19) .............................................................................................133

4.4.20 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention (Part 2.2.20) ..........................................133

4.4.21 Boat Wet Engine Exhaust (Part 2.2.21) ...............................................................134

4.4.22 Sonar Dome Discharge (Part 2.2.22) ...................................................................134

4.4.23 Underwater Ship Husbandry and Hull Fouling Discharges (Part 2.2.23)............135

4.4.24 Welldeck Discharges (Part 2.2.24) ......................................................................136

4.4.25 Graywater Mixed with Sewage from Vessels (Part 2.2.25).................................136

4.4.26 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge (Part 2.2.26) .................................137

4.4.27 Fish Hold Effluent................................................................................................141

4.5. Additional Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits (Part 2.3) .........................................144

5. Corrective Actions (Part 3) ....................................................................................................146

5.1. Purpose of Corrective Action Schedules ......................................................................146

6. Inspections, Monitoring, Reporting, Recordkeeping (Part 4) ................................................148

6.1. Self-Inspections and Monitoring (Part 4.1) ..................................................................148

6.2. Drydocking Inspection Reports (Part 4.1.4) .................................................................153

6.3. Recordkeeping Requirements (Parts 4.2 and 4.3) .........................................................153

6.3.1 Electronic Records ...............................................................................................154

6.4. Reporting (Part 4.4) ......................................................................................................156

6.4.1 Annual Report ......................................................................................................156

Page 6 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

6.4.2 Combined Annual Reports for Unmanned, Unpowered Barges or Vessels 

less than 300 Gross Tons .....................................................................................157

6.5. Applicability of Inspection and Recordkeeping Requirement for Vessels Leaving 

Waters Subject to This Permit ......................................................................................158

7. Additional technology based and related Permit Requirements Based on Class of Vessel 

(Vessel Class-Specific Requirements) (Part 5) ......................................................................159

7.1. Large Cruise Ships (Part 5.1) ........................................................................................159

7.1.1 Graywater Management .......................................................................................159

7.1.1.1 Pierside Limits ..............................................................................................162

7.1.1.2 Operational Limits ........................................................................................162

7.1.1.3 Limits Applicable to Operation in Nutrient Impaired Waters ......................163

7.1.1.4 Graywater Treatment Standards ...................................................................164

7.1.1.5 Sculleries and Galleys ..................................................................................164

7.1.1.6 Other Materials .............................................................................................164

7.1.1.7 Pool and Spa Discharges ..............................................................................165

7.1.2 Monitoring Requirements (Part 5.1.2) .................................................................165

7.1.2.1 Untreated Graywater ....................................................................................166

7.1.2.2 Treated Graywater ........................................................................................166

7.1.2.3 Initial Monitoring .........................................................................................166

7.1.2.4 Maintenance Monitoring ..............................................................................167

7.1.2.5 Treated Pool and Spa Discharges (5.1.2.3) ..................................................167

7.1.2.6 Monitoring Reporting ...................................................................................168

7.1.2.7 Reserved Authority .......................................................................................168

7.1.3 Education and Training Requirements (Part 5.1.3) .............................................168

7.2. Medium Cruise Ships (Part 5.2)....................................................................................169

7.2.1 Graywater Management .......................................................................................170

7.2.2 Differences Between the Requirements for Large Cruise Ships and Medium 

Cruise Ships .........................................................................................................171

7.2.2.1 Different Requirements in Nutrient Impaired Waters ..................................171

7.2.2.2 Differences for Existing Medium Cruise Ships Built Before December 

19, 2008 Unable to Voyage More than 1 nm from Shore ............................171

7.3. Large Ferries (Part 5.3) .................................................................................................172

7.4. Barges (Including Hopper Barges, Chemical Barges, Fuel Barges, Crane Barges, 

Dry Bulk Cargo Barges) (Part 5.4) ...............................................................................174

7.5. Oil and Petroleum Tankers (Part 5.5) ...........................................................................174

7.6. Research Vessels (Part 5.6) ...........................................................................................175

7.7. Emergency Vessels (Part 5.7) .......................................................................................175

8. State or Tribal Requirements (Part 6) ....................................................................................176

9. Definitions (Appendix A) ......................................................................................................176

10. Notice of Intent and Notice of Termination (Appendix E and F) .........................................176

11. Waters Federally Protected Wholly or in Part for Conservation Purposes (Appendix G) ...177

12. Other Legal Requirements ....................................................................................................177

12.1. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) .....................................................................177

12.2. Endangered Species Consultation .................................................................................178

12.3. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation ..............................................................................179

12.4. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act ........................................................179

Page 7 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

12.5. Oil Spill Requirements ..................................................................................................179

12.6. Paperwork Reduction Act .............................................................................................180

12.7. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations ....................................................180

13. References ..............................................................................................................................180

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Estimates of Invasive Species in Several Major Water Systems .................................... 18

Table 2: Ballast Water Sediment Disposal Methods by Vessel Types/Categories Based on NOI 

Data for the 2008 VGP (Data Current as of December 2010: Values are in Percent of 

Vessels for which a Response was Provided) ....................................................................... 71

Table 3: AWT Effluent Concentrations and Removals1 ............................................................. 160

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Installation Schedule of Ballast Water Treatment Systems Estimated by the 

Government of Japan (MEPC 61/2/17). ............................................................................... 97

Page 8 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. DOES THIS ACTION APPLY TO ME? 

This action is the reissuance of EPA’s Vessel General Permit (VGP). The first iteration of 

the VGP expires on December 19, 2013. This second issuance of the VGP will replace that 

permit. This action applies to vessels operating in a capacity as a means of transportation, that 

have discharges incidental to their normal operations into waters subject to this permit, except 

recreational vessels as defined in Clean Water Act §502(25), P.L. 110-288. Unless otherwise 

excluded from coverage by Part 6 of the permit, waters subject to this permit means waters of the 

U.S. as defined in 40 CFR§122.2. That provision defines “waters of the U.S.” as certain inland 

waters and the territorial sea, which extends three miles from the baseline (as used in this 

document, mile means nautical mile, i.e., 6076 feet).1 Note that the Clean Water Act (CWA) 

does not require NPDES permits for vessels or other floating craft operating as a means of 

transportation beyond the territorial seas, i.e., in the contiguous zone or ocean as defined by the 

CWA §§ 502(9), (10). See CWA §502(12) and 40 CFR §122.2 (definition of “discharge of a 

pollutant”). This permit, therefore, does not apply to discharges in such waters.

Non-recreational vessels greater than 79 feet, which are not vessels of the armed forces, 

operating in a capacity as a means of transportation needing NPDES coverage for their incidental 

discharges will generally be subject to the VGP. Similarly situated vessels less than 79 feet may 

be covered under the VGP, or may instead opt for coverage under the Small Vessel General 

Permit (sVGP). 

1.2. FURTHER INFORMATION

Supporting information and materials for this permit are included in Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OW-2011-0141-available at: www.regulations.gov. 

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

Ryan Albert at (202) 564-0763 or Juhi Saxena at (202) 564-0719. 

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 the 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). 

1 More specifically, CWA section 502(8) defines “territorial seas” as “the belt of the seas measured from the line of 

the ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line 

marking the seaward limit of inland waters, and extending seaward a distance of three miles.”

Page 9 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

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(6). 

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 

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

pollutants, notwithstanding section 1311(a)” upon certain conditions required by the Act. 

2.2. LEGAL CHALLENGES

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 (Northwest Envtl. Advocates et al. v. United 

States EPA, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5373 (N.D. Cal. 2005)). 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, and, in September 2006 issued a final order 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 which were excluded from NPDES permitting by 40 CFR 122.3(a), were subject to CWA 

section 301’s prohibition against discharging, unless covered under an NPDES permit. The 

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

for citizen suits against violators.

In response to the court decisions, EPA issued the VGP in December 2008.2

 In 2009, 

several environmental groups, industry groups, and the State of Michigan challenged EPA’s 

issuance of the 2008 VGP. On March 8, 2011, EPA reached settlement with the environmental 

groups and the State of Michigan. These settlement agreements are available in the docket for 

today’s permit or may be obtained at: 

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/settlement_agreement_mi_nrdc.pdf. 

2 Due to a subsequent extension of the vacatur date by the district court, NPDES permits were not required for VGP 

vessels until February 6, 2009. 

Page 10 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

EPA and the vessel industry groups challenging EPA’s issuance of the 2008 VGP did not 

reach settlement and the litigation therefore proceeded to briefing. Among other things, Lake 

Carriers argued that EPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not providing for notice 

and comment at the federal level of the 401 certification conditions included in Part 6 of the 

2008 VGP. EPA’s position was that notice and comment at the federal level is not required 

because, among other things, the CWA requires the Agency to include 401 certification 

conditions in the VGP without modification and CWA section 401 places the requirement to 

obtain public input on state CWA 401 certification conditions on the certifying state agencies, 

not EPA. On July 22, 2011, the Court denied the petition for review, concluding that “the 

petitioners have failed to establish that EPA can alter or reject state certification conditions, [and 

therefore] the additional agency procedures they demand would not have afforded them the relief 

they seek.” Lake Carriers' Ass'n v. EPA, 652 F.3d 1 at 12 (D.C. Cir. 2011). 

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 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 

vessels (as defined in 46 U.S.C. § 2101 and regardless of size) and (2) 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 studied the relevant discharges and submitted a report to 

Congress. This moratorium was subsequently extended to December 18, 2013, by P.L. 111-215. 

On December 20, 2012, President Obama signed the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 

Act of 2012 , which extends the expiration date of the moratorium from December 18, 2013 to 

December 18, 2014. § 703 of Pub. L. 112-213. That moratorium does not include ballast water 

discharges. Therefore, commercial fishing vessels that are greater than 79 feet and do not have 

ballast water discharges will (barring further legislative action) not be required to seek coverage 

under the VGP until the moratorium expires on December 18, 2014. That moratorium also does 

not extend to other discharges, which on a case-by-case basis, EPA or the State, as appropriate, 

Page 11 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

determines contribute to a violation of water quality standards or pose an unacceptable risk to 

human health or the environment. 

EPA finalized the 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. That report is available at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/reportcongress.cfm and in the docket for today’s permit. 

2.4. GENERAL PERMITS 

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

pollutants into receiving waters 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. Section 3.7 of 

this fact sheet discusses the NOI requirements of the permit in more detail.

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

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

permit for public comment for that particular 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 5 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 5 years), after which the permit 

expires. Like individual permits, general permits may be re-issued. Today’s reissuance of the 

VGP includes a 5-year permit term. EPA had proposed a four year permit term, but after careful 

consideration of the comments on the proposed permit, EPA has finalized a five year permit 

term, consistent with most EPA issued NPDES permits.

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. See e.g., Natural Res. Def. Council v. Costle, 568 

F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977); EDC v. US EPA, 344 F.3d 832, 853 (9th Cir. 2003). The general 

permit approach allows EPA to allocate resources in a more efficient manner and to provide 

more timely coverage, particularly in light of the time constraints imposed by the Court’s 

vacatur. 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. 

Page 12 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

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 3.10.2 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. PUBLIC COMMENT ON EPA’S PROPOSED VGP

EPA released the draft 2013 VGP on November 30, 2011 and allowed for a 75-day 

comment period after publication in the Federal Register. The public comment period closed on 

February 21, 2012. EPA received over 5,500 public comments on the draft permit. Comments 

were received from a variety of stakeholders, including industry groups, environmental 

stakeholders, private citizens, U.S. State governments, and international governments. These 

comments were used to inform decision making in finalizing this permit and EPA’s responses 

are reflected in the response-to-comment document available in EPA Docket ID No, EPA-HQOW-2011-0141 at www.regulations.gov along with supporting information and other related 

materials.

2.6. U.S. COAST GUARD BALLAST WATER RULEMAKING

At the time the draft VGP was made available for comment in December 2011 (76 FR 

76716), the USCG had proposed, but not finalized, its ballast water discharge standard and typeapproval rulemaking (74 FR 44632, August 28, 2009). Since publication of the 2011 draft VGP, 

the USCG finalized its ballast water discharge standard and type-approval rulemaking (77 FR 77 

17254, March 23, 2012). The final rule contains a number of changes from the August 2009 

proposal. Readers interested in the USCG rulemaking should refer to the USCG Federal Register 

notices identified above for details. For the reasons described later in this fact sheet, EPA 

adopted some of the same changes to the draft VGP as the USGC adopted in its final rule, in 

particular:

• Revision of the new vessel date for compliance with the VGP’s numeric technologybased ballast water discharge standards. See section 4.4.3.5.5 of this Fact Sheet for 

details;

• Revision of the VGP vessel applicability provisions with respect to ballast water 

discharge standards. See section 4.4.3.5.6 of this Fact Sheet for details; and 

• Clarification of monitoring requirements for ballast water treatment systems receiving a 

USCG “Type Approval” or “Alternative Management System” determination under the 

USCG final rule. See section 4.4.3.5.1 of this Fact Sheet for details.

Additional information on the U.S. Coast Guard Ballast Water Rulemaking can be found 

at: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg522/cg5224/bwm.asp. 

Page 13 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

2.7. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

As discussed in the Federal Register notice announcing today’s final permit, EPA 

performed an economic assessment of this general permit, including an examination of the 

economic impact this permit may have on small entities. This economic analysis is included in 

the docket for this permit (US EPA, 2012a). Based on this assessment, EPA concludes that 

despite a minimal economic impact on all entities, including small businesses, this permit will 

not, if issued have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

To estimate the effect of revised permit 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 revised Permit requirements. The baseline for this analysis is full 

industry compliance with existing federal and state regulations, including the recent USCG 

ballast water discharge standard rule (USCG, 2012) and the 2008 VGP in the case of vessels 

currently covered by the permit; and current industry practices or standards that exceed current 

regulations to the extent that they can be empirically observed. In addition, a number of laws and 

associated regulations (including the National Invasive Species Act; the Act to Prevent Pollution 

from Ships; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the 

Organotin Anti-fouling Paint Control Act; and others) already cover certain discharges that 

would be subject to the new permitting regime. The overlap between revised permit requirements 

and existing regulations and practices is discussed at greater length in the sections of the report 

that address each revised requirement. 

EPA estimated compliance costs to commercial vessels associated with each of the 

permit’s practices and discharge categories identified and the paperwork burden costs. 

Incremental costs are understood to result from the inclusion of all commercial fishing vessels 

79 feet or larger under the VGP,

3

 and from revised, more stringent requirements for certain 

discharge categories and practices. Changes in compliance costs also result from streamlining 

selected requirements, which is expected to reduce compliance costs for owners of certain 

vessels. Overall, EPA finds that revisions in the VGP requirements could result in aggregate 

annual incremental costs for domestic vessels ranging between $7.2 and $23.0 million (in 

2010$). This includes the paperwork burden costs and the sum of all practices for applicable 

discharge categories for all vessels estimated to be covered by the revised VGP. The average per 

vessel compliance costs range between $51 and $7, 004 per vessel. Tank ships have the highest 

average compliance costs; this is driven by potential incremental costs for oil tankers exclusively 

engaged in coastwise trade that may install and operate onboard ballast water treatment systems 

to meet the 2013 VGP requirements applicable to ballast water discharges. There is considerable 

uncertainty in the assumptions used for several practices and discharge categories and these 

estimates therefore provide illustrative ranges of the costs potentially associated with the 2013 

permit rather than incremental costs incurred by any given vessel owner.

3 As noted above, the moratorium on coverage for commercial fishing vessels and vessels less than 79 feet expires 

on December 18. 2013. Commercial fishing vessels 79 feet or larger will be covered by this permit, and most nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet, including commercial fishing vessels, are expected to be covered by the Small 

Vessel General Permit.

Page 14 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

To evaluate economic impacts of revised VGP requirements on the water transportation, 

fishing, and mining industries, EPA performed a firm-level analysis. The firm-level analysis 

examines the impact of any incremental cost per vessel to comply with the revised VGP 

requirements on model firms that represent the financial conditions of “typical” businesses in 

each of the examined industry sectors. More than ninety percent of the firms in the water 

transportation and fishing industries, and in the drilling oil and gas wells segment of the mining 

industry, are small, and EPA believes it is unlikely that firm-level impacts would be significant 

among large firms in this industry. Therefore, a firm-level analysis focuses on assessment of 

impacts on small businesses. To evaluate the potential impact of the VGP on small entities, EPA 

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

The total number of entities expected to exceed a 1% cost ratio ranges from 76 under low 

cost assumptions to 340 under high cost assumptions. Of this universe, the total number of 

entities expected to exceed a 3% cost ratio ranges from 5 under low cost assumptions to 30 under 

high cost assumptions. This is based out of 5,480 total small firms. Accordingly, EPA concludes 

that the VGP will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities or other businesses. 

3. THE PERMIT

Today’s permit is being issued pursuant to EPA’s authority to issue permits under Clean 

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

standards that govern EPA’s imposition of NPDES permit conditions. See e.g., 40 CFR Part 122 

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

The provisions of today’s permit are established under these authorities. 

3.1. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF THE PERMIT 

This permit is applicable to discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel 

identified in Part 1.2 of the permit and Part 3.5 of this fact sheet into waters subject to the permit, 

which means “waters of the U.S.” as defined in 40 CFR 122.2, except as otherwise excluded by 

Part 6 of the permit. This includes the territorial seas, defined in section 502(8) of the CWA, 

extending to 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). 

The general permit will cover vessel discharges into the waters of the U.S. in all states 

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

NPDES permit program within its jurisdiction, except as otherwise excluded by Part 6 of the 

permit. 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 formerly excluded under 40 CFR 122.3 are not “subject to” 

Page 15 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

authorized state programs. The vessel discharges covered by the permit are discharges that were 

formerly excluded from NPDES permitting programs under 40 CFR 122.3. (See discussion of 

the vacatur of this exclusion in section 2.2 of this fact sheet.) 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). 

3.2. STRUCTURE OF THE PERMIT (PART 1.1)4

This general permit addresses vessels operating in a capacity as a means of transportation 

that have discharges incidental to their normal operations into waters subject to this permit, 

except recreational vessels and vessels of the Armed Forces. Many characteristics of vessels and 

vessel discharges generally apply to all vessel classes. Hence, general requirements that apply to 

all eligible vessels are found in Parts 1 through 4 of the permit. Part 1 of the permit contains 

general conditions, authorized and ineligible discharges, and explains who must file a notice of 

intent to receive permit coverage. Part 2 of the permit discusses effluent limits applicable to 

vessels. Part 3 of the permit lists required corrective actions that permittees must take to remedy 

deficiencies and violations. Part 4 of the permit lists visual monitoring, self-inspection, and 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Due to specific concerns arising from certain types of 

vessels, in Part 5 of the permit, EPA has identified select categories of vessel types that have 

supplemental requirements. States, territories, and certain Tribes have the authority to require 

additional requirements under section 401 of the CWA. Part 6 of the permit includes these 

additional requirements (see also Part 12 of the Fact Sheet entitled “Other Legal Requirements”). 

The Appendices, listed in this permit as Parts 7 through 15, include definitions, the notice 

of intent form, the notice of termination form, and the annual report form. 

3.3. WHAT IS THE VESSEL UNIVERSE AFFECTED BY THIS PERMIT? 

Vessels operating in a capacity as a means of transportation are eligible for coverage 

under the VGP. The types of vessels covered under the VGP include commercial fishing vessels, 

cruise ships, ferries, barges, mobile offshore drilling units, oil tankers or petroleum tankers, bulk 

carriers, cargo ships, container ships, other cargo freighters, refrigerant ships, research vessels, 

emergency response vessels, including firefighting and police vessels, and any other vessels 

operating in a capacity as a means of transportation. Vessels of the Armed Forces of the United 

States are not eligible for coverage by this permit. While all non-recreational vessels, which are 

not vessels of the armed forces, may seek coverage under this permit, the permit requirements 

are generally targeted to vessels that are at least 79 feet in length. A separate, streamlined permit 

is available for vessels less than 79 feet (Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental 

to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less Than 79 Feet). 

4 Throughout this fact sheet, parenthetical citations in headings refer to parts of the proposed permit to serve as an 

aid to the reader.

Page 16 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

EPA estimates that the domestic vessel population subject to the VGP is approximately 

60,000 vessels. EPA used two existing databases (the Marine Information for Safety and Law 

Enforcement (MISLE) and Waterborne Transportation Lines of the United States (WTLUS) 

databases) to create a master database to estimate the population of domestically flagged vessels 

subject to the VGP. MISLE and WTLUS provided information on the number and type of 

domestic flag vessels subject to the Vessel General Permit. The combined database allows the 

Agency to obtain a comprehensive estimate of the vessel population and to minimize the number 

of missing data fields for any given vessel. Furthermore, EPA compared these estimates to the 

total number of NOIs submitted under the 2008 VGP to fact check the accuracy of these 

estimates. However, EPA could not use the NOI database alone to estimate the number of 

vessels covered by the permit as only vessels greater than 300 gross tons or with the capacity to 

carry more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water had to submit NOIs.

Using the Foreign Traffic Vessel Entrances and Clearances (FTVEC) database, EPA 

estimates approximately 12,400 foreign flagged vessels are subject to the VGP requirements. 

The FTVEC database provides information on foreign vessels entering or clearing U.S. Customs 

ports in calendar year 2008, the most recent year for which data are published (U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, 2010). 

See EPA’s economic analysis for the VGP for more information about the vessel 

universe affected (US EPA, 2011a).

3.4. REGULATION OF CONSTITUENTS IN THE DISCHARGES UNDER THE 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 7 major groups: 

Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS), nutrients, pathogens (including E. coli & fecal coliform), oil 

and grease, metals, most conventional pollutants (Biochemical Oxygen Demand, pH, Total 

Suspended Solids), and other toxic and non-conventional pollutants with toxic effects. EPA is 

establishing effluent limitations to control these materials, because, depending on the particular 

vessel, such materials are constituents in the industrial waste, chemical waste and/or garbage 

“pollutant” discharge resulting from the activities of these vessels. “Industrial waste,” “chemical 

waste” and “garbage” are expressly included in the CWA’s definition of “pollutant,” which 

governs, among other things, which discharges are properly subject to CWA permitting. See

CWA § 402(a) (allowing EPA to issue permits for a “discharge of any pollutant”); CWA § 

502(12) (defining “discharge of a pollutant” to include “any addition of any pollutant to 

navigable waters from any point source”); and CWA § 502(6) (defining “pollutant” as “dredged 

spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical 

wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, 

sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal and agricultural waste discharged into water” 

[emphasis added]). The discharge from vessels addressed in today’s permit – a worthless or 

useless flow discharged during a vessel’s normal operations – falls within those broad pollutant 

categories. See, e.g., Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary (1988) (defining “waste” 

as “a worthless or useless by-product” or “something, such as steam, that escapes without being 

used”; “industrial” as “of, relating to, or derived from industry” and “industry as “the 

Page 17 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

commercial production and sale of goods and services”; “chemical” as “of or relating to the 

action of chemicals”; and “garbage” as “worthless matter, trash”).5

EPA understands that a lot of attention has been paid to whether, under various 

circumstances, ANS are properly considered “pollutants” under CWA §502(6). Today’s permit 

controls ANS because such ANS are one constituent of concern in the waste stream that 

constitutes the “pollutant” subject to today’s permit. See CWA § 402(a)(1)(A) and 301(b)(1) 

(requiring permits to include “effluent limitations”) and CWA §502(11) (defining “effluent 

limitations” to include “restrictions established by . . . the Administrator on . . . chemical, 

physical, biological, and other constituents which are discharged from point sources . . .” 

[emphasis added]). Under these circumstances, there is no need to address the question of 

whether ANS in and of themselves may be considered “pollutants” under CWA section 502(6). 

In addition, EPA’s conclusion that ANS are properly controlled in today’s vessel permit does not 

speak as to how ANS are regulated by the CWA under any other circumstances. 

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

3.4.1 Aquatic Nuisance Species

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

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

including ballast water and sediment from ballast tanks, chain lockers, anchor chains, and vessel 

hulls. These vectors have been associated with introductions of highly damaging species in the 

past. Though no reliable and comprehensive estimates of total ANS introductions nationwide 

exist, case studies of several major bodies of water across the country, as summarized in Table 1, 

provide a sense of the extent of the problem. 

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

Region

Estimated Rate of 

Invasion

1

Estimated Total 

Invasions to Date

Great Lakes 

No new invasions detected 

since 2006, prior to 2006, 

documented at 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

5 The Agency’s view on what is considered “industrial waste,” “chemical waste” or “garbage” as discussed in this 

fact sheet is limited to use of those terms in the definition of “pollutant” in the Clean Water Act and should not be 

considered in interpreting those or similar terms in any other statute or regulation.

Page 18 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

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

Region

Estimated Rate of 

1

Invasion

Estimated Total 

Invasions to Date

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 and, 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.

Additional sources describing the presence and/or impacts of ANS and their potential 

invasion pathways include Barnes, 2002; Battelle, 2000; Bolch and de Salas, 2007; Brickman, 

2006; Brickman and Smith, 2007; Carlton, 1985; Carlton, 1996; Carlton and Geller, 1993; Cohen 

and Carlton, 1998; Cohen et al., 1995; Dobbs et al., 2006; Doblin et al., 2007; Drake and Lodge, 

2007; Drake et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2001; Larson et al., 2003; Lee et al., 2010; Lockwood et 

al., 2005; Lovell and Stone, 2005; Lovell and Drake, 2009; NAS, 2011; Phelps, 1994; Ricciardi, 

2006; Roman, 2006; Ruiz et al., 2000a; Ruiz et al., 2000b; Sakai et al., 2001; Smayda, 2007; 

USCG, 2009, US EPA, 2001a, and Van der Putten, 2002. 

3.4.2 Nutrients

Nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and numerous micro-nutrients, are constituents 

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

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

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

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

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

Page 19 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

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 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 significant adverse impacts on both aquatic 

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

Council (2000) found that: 

• Nutrient over-enrichment of coastal 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. 

Additional information discussing the sources or impacts of nutrients on aquatic 

ecosystems and/or their vessel based sources can be found in Copeland, 2008; Correll, 1987; 

Horne and Goldman, 1994; Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, 

2008; NAS, 1993; US EPA, 1999; US EPA, 2001b; US EPA 2005; US EPA, 2008; and US EPA, 

2010a. 

3.4.3 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 since it shares characteristics with many other 

pathogens potentially discharged from vessels. 

EPA’s study of graywater discharges from cruise ships found that levels of pathogen 

indicator bacteria exceeded enterococci standards for marine water bathing and fecal coliform 

standards for harvesting shellfish 66% and over 80% of the time, respectively (US EPA 2008). 

Specific pathogens of concern found in sewage include Salmonella spp., E. coli, enteroviruses, 

hepatitis and pathogenic protists (National Research Council 1993), but there are multiple 

Page 20 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

sources for such pathogens. Elevated levels of these pathogens have increasingly resulted in 

beach closures in recent years, primarily from on-shore sources such as urban stormwater runoff 

and sewage overflows, which in turn has reduced the recreational value of impacted beaches. 

Additional pathogens have been associated with ballast water 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). Johengen et al. (2005) show the potential for pathogens to be transported in ballast 

water tanks, even when they are not filled. The study found that virus-like particle (VLP) 

concentrations in sampled ballast tanks ranged from 107 to 109 per ml in residual unpumpable 

ballast water and from 107 to 1011 per ml in sediment porewater. Bacteria concentrations under 

the same conditions were 105 to 109 per ml and 104 to 108 per ml, respectively. 

Though it is difficult to determine the 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. 

Additional information discussing pathogens, their sources, and their impacts include 

Dobbs et al., 2006; Knight et al., 1999; NAS, 1993; US EPA, 1999; US EPA, 2008; and US EPA 

2010a. 

3.4.4 Oil and Grease

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

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

including lubricating oils, hydraulic oils, and vegetable or organic oils. A significant portion of 

the lubricants lost from a vessel directly enter the marine environment. 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. In recent years, significant research efforts have gone into the 

development of environmentally acceptable lubricants which would reduce environmental 

impact on the marine environment. Oil and grease measured by Method 1664A constitutes a 

conventional pollutant. Oil and grease that is commingled with other toxic pollutants may be 

controlled as a toxic pollutant under this permit. 

Additional papers and reports discussing the impact of oil discharges, vessel based 

sources of these pollutants, and/or environmentally acceptable alternatives to traditional 

lubricants include Aluyor et al., 2009; Betton, 2009; Decola, 2000; GESAMP, 1993; GESAMP, 

2007; Lucase and MacGregor, 2006; Rützler and Sterrer, 1970; Shaw et al, 1985; Suchanek, 

1993; US EPA, 1999; US EPA 2010a; and Wiese and Ryan, 2003. 

3.4.5 Metals

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

humans. Vessel discharges can contain a variety of metal constituents which can come from a 

Page 21 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

variety of on-board sources. For example, EPA’s study of cruise ship graywater found a total of 

13 different metals in at least 10% of samples, with copper, nickel and zinc detected in 100% of 

samples (US EPA, 2008). Bilgewater has also been shown to contain numerous metals, the exact 

constituents of which vary dependent upon on-board activities on the vessel and the materials 

used in the construction of the vessel. Other metals, such as copper, are known to leach from 

vessel hulls and can cause exceedances of water quality standards. For example, Srinivasan and 

Swain (2007) found significant leaching of copper from the hulls of sailboats, powerboats, and 

cruise ships. 

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

organism function, many others, including thallium and arsenic, are non-essential and/or are 

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

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

function, impaired reproduction and birth defects, and, at extreme concentrations, acute 

mortality. For example, Katranitsasa et al. (2003) noted that the copper released from copper 

anti-fouling paints are toxic to non-targeted aquatic organisms. Additionally, through a process 

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

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

commercially harvested fish species (US EPA, 2007e). 

Additional sources discussing the impacts of metals on the aquatic environment and/or 

their vessel-based sources include Axiak et al., 1995; Trocine and Trefry, 1996; US EPA, 1999; 

and US EPA, 2010a. 

3.4.6 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 cruise ship graywater found a total of 17 different volatile and semi-volatile organic 

compounds in at least 10% of samples, for which the most significant rates and levels of 

detection were phthalates, phenol, and tetrachloroethylene. Other notable toxics detected in 

incidental discharges from vessels include free residual chlorine and chlorides and 

perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) found in some firefighting 

foam (AFFF).

These compounds can cause a variety of adverse impacts on ecosystems and living 

marine resources, including fisheries. Phthalates are known to interfere with reproductive health, 

liver and kidney function in both animals and humans (Sekizawa et al., 2003; DiGangi et al., 

2002). Chlorine, though toxic to humans at high concentrations, is of much greater concern to 

aquatic species, which can experience respiratory problems, hemorrhaging, and acute mortality 

even at relatively low concentrations (US EPA, 2008). PFOS and PFOA, potentially found in 

AFFF discharges, are persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic and carcinogenic chemical compounds. 

The health impacts of PFOA and its telomeres are not entirely understood, particularly in aquatic 

environments, but EPA’s Science Advisory Board has concluded that PFOA “is likely to be 

carcinogenic in humans” (SAB, 2006). 

Page 22 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

3.4.7 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, seawater cooling overboard, 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 

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 ballast water and 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, sediment settles out of solution and accumulates over 

time, and then is later periodically resuspended before discharging. 

Designated uses such as navigation, drinking water, recreation, and agriculture are 

impaired by excess suspended sediments (US EPA, 2003). When sediments diminish water 

quality to support aquatic life, other human uses of the same waterbodies 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. 

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 Total Suspended Solids 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 

Page 23 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

and deposition can “recycle” sediments so that they exert water column and benthic effects 

repeatedly over time and in multiple locations. 

3.5. COVERAGE UNDER THE PERMIT

3.5.1 Eligibility (Part 1.2) 

Vessels Not Eligible for Coverage

Recreational vessels and vessels of the United States Armed Forces are not eligible for 

coverage under this permit. Non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length, which are not 

vessels of the armed forces, may obtain coverage under this permit, or they may obtain coverage 

under EPA’s small Vessel General Permit (sVGP). This flexibility may be useful for vessel 

owner/operators who manage vessels that are both larger and smaller than 79 feet, and would 

prefer to manage their fleet using the same permit. If auxiliary vessels or craft, such as lifeboats 

or rescue boats on-board larger vessels require permit coverage, they are eligible for coverage 

under this permit and are covered by submission of the Notice of Intent for the larger vessels. 

Vessel Discharges Eligible for Coverage 

The discharges eligible for coverage under the permit are those discharges incidental to 

the normal operation of a vessel covered by the exclusion in 40 CFR 122.3(a) prior to vacatur of 

that exclusion. Discharges incidental to normal operation include deck runoff, bilgewater, and 

ballast water. Some potential discharges are not incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. 

For example, intentionally adding used motor oil to the bilge tank will result in a discharge that 

is not incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. Furthermore, any discharge that results from 

a failure to properly maintain the vessel and equipment, even if the discharge is of a type that is 

otherwise covered by the permit, is not eligible for permit coverage. Discharges that are neither 

covered by this permit nor the sVGP, and are not exempt from section 402 of the Clean Water 

Act, must be covered under a separate individual or general permit. 

The discharges that were selected for coverage under the permit have been identified by 

EPA, in consultation with other Federal agencies, as discharges incidental to the normal 

operation of a vessel. EPA has relied on the most accurate and up-to-date information available. 

Sources used include those in the bibliography of this fact sheet and in the docket for this permit. 

The following list identifies and describes each effluent stream eligible for coverage 

under the permit. 

3.5.1.1 Deck Washdown and Runoff and Above Water Line Hull Cleaning 

Deck washdown and runoff occurs from all vessels as a result of precipitation or deck 

cleaning. Above water line hull cleaning discharges occur when areas of the hull or other exterior 

portions of the vessel undergo regular cleaning. The constituents can include detergent, soap, and 

residues from any on-deck or above water line hull cleaning activity. Constituents and volumes 

of deck runoff vary widely and are highly dependent on a vessel’s purpose, service, and 

practices. Deck runoff and above water line hull cleaning discharges eligible for coverage under 

Page 24 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

the permit include those from all deck and bulkhead areas, associated equipment, and areas of 

the hull and exterior of the vessel above the water line.

3.5.1.2 Bilgewater

Bilgewater consists of water and other residue that accumulates in a compartment of the 

vessel’s hull. The source of bilgewater is typically drainage from interior machinery, engine 

rooms, and from deck drainage. Constituents of bilgewater include seawater, oil, grease, volatile 

and semi-volatile organic compounds, inorganic salts, and metals. 

3.5.1.3 Ballast Water

Ballast water is water taken on-board into ballast water tanks, and assists with vessel 

draft, buoyancy, and stability. Ballast water tanks are typically found only on commercial 

vessels. Discharge volumes and rates vary by vessel type, ballast tank capacity, and type of 

deballasting equipment. Typical cruise ships have a ballast capacity of 1,000 cubic meters 

(approximately 264,000 gallons) of water and can discharge at 250-300 cubic meters per hour. 

Cargo ships carry anywhere from 2,900 cubic meters (approximately 766,000 gallons) to 93,000 

cubic meters (approximately 24,568,000 gallons) of water. Ballast water may contain rust 

inhibitors, flocculent compounds, epoxy coating materials, zinc or aluminum (from anodes), 

iron, nickel, copper, bronze, silver, and other material or sediment from inside the tank, pipes, or 

other machinery. Ballast water may also contain marine organisms that originate where the water 

is collected. When transported to non-native waters, these organisms may upset the environment 

or food web as “invasive species.” 

3.5.1.4 Anti-Fouling Leachate from Anti-Fouling Hull Coatings 

Vessel hulls are often coated with antifouling compounds to prevent or inhibit the 

attachment and growth of aquatic life. Coatings are formulated for different conditions and 

purposes and many contain biocides. Those that contain biocides prevent the attachment of 

aquatic organisms to the hull by continuously leaching substances that are toxic to aquatic life 

into the surrounding water. While a variety of different ingredients may be used in these 

compounds, the most commonly used is copper. Copper can inhibit photosynthesis in plants and 

interfere with enzyme function in both plants and animals in concentrations as low as 4 μg/l. 

Additional releases of these substances are caused by hull cleaning activities, particularly if hulls 

are cleaned within the first 90 days following application. 

A second metal-based biocide is organotin based, typically tributyltin (TBT), which was 

historically applied to vessel hulls. Due to its acute toxicity, there will be a zero discharge 

standard for TBT or any other organotin compound under this permit (EPA notes that the 

discharge of TBT is also prohibited by other domestic statutes and an international treaty, see 

additional discussion in section 4.4.4 for additional discussion). TBT and other organotins cause 

deformities in aquatic life, including deformities that disrupt or prevent reproduction. Numerous 

studies and several peer reviewed publications (Bentivegna & Piatkowski, 1998; Haynes & 

Loong, 2002; Negri et al., 2004; Negri & Heyward, 2001; Ruiz et al., 1995; V. Axiak et al., 

1995) examine the environmental impacts of anti-foulant paint leachate containing TBT. TBT 

and other organotins are also stable and persistent, resisting natural degradation in water bodies. 

Page 25 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

3.5.1.5 Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF)

AFFF is a synthetic firefighting agent consisting of fluorosurfactants and/or 

fluoroproteins. It serves as an effective firefighting agent by forming an oxygen-excluding 

barrier over an area. In order to produce AFFF, a concentrated solution of the foam forming 

agent is injected into the water stream of a fire hose. Vessels equipped with AFFF equipment 

must periodically (annually or semi-annually) test the equipment for maintenance, certification, 

or training purposes resulting in discharge overboard or onto the deck. 

3.5.1.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown 

Boiler blowdown occurs on vessels with steam propulsion or a steam generator to control 

anti-corrosion and anti-scaling treatment concentrations and to remove sludge from boiler 

systems. The blowdown involves releasing a volume of 1% – 10% of water from the boiler 

system, usually below the waterline.

3.5.1.7 Cathodic Protection 

Vessels use cathodic protection systems to prevent steel hull or metal structure corrosion. 

The two types of cathodic protection are sacrificial anodes and impressed current cathodic 

protection (ICCP). Using the first method, anodes of zinc or aluminum are “sacrificed” to the 

corrosive forces of the seawater, which creates a flow of electrons to the cathode, thereby 

preventing the cathode from corroding. These sacrificial metals are then released to the aquatic 

environment. Using ICCP, a DC electrical current is passed through the hull such that the 

electrochemical potential of the hull is sufficiently high enough to prevent corrosion. 

3.5.1.8 Chain Locker Effluent 

Chain locker effluent is water that collects in the below-deck storage area during anchor 

retrieval. A sump collects the liquids and materials that enter the chain locker and discharges it 

overboard or into the bilge. Chain locker effluent can contain marine organisms and residue such 

as rust, paint chips, grease, and zinc. When transported to non-native waters, these organisms 

may upset the environment or food web as “invasive species.” 

3.5.1.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and other Oil to Sea 

Interfaces including Lubrication discharges from Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern 

Tubes, Thruster Bearings, Stabilizers, Rudder Bearings, Azimuth Thrusters, Propulsion 

Pod Lubrication, and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment Subject to Immersion 

Oil-to-sea interfaces include any mechanical or other equipment where seals or surfaces 

may release small quantities of oil into the sea. Examples include controllable pitch propellers 

(CPPs). CPPs are variably-pitched propeller blades used to change the speed or direction of a 

vessel and are used in addition to the main propulsion system. Hydraulic oil can leak from the 

CPP if the protective seals are worn or defective and large amounts may be discharged into 

surrounding waters during maintenance and repair. Another example includes rudder bearings, 

which allow a vessel’s rudder to turn freely and can be either grease-, oil-, or water-lubricated. 

An additional example is the stern tube. The stern tube is the casing or hole through the hull of 

the vessel through which the propeller shaft connects the engine of the vessel to the propeller. 

Page 26 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

The propeller shaft and its supporting bearings require lubrication oil. Discharges can occur due 

to the design of the interface or if the protective seals or bearings are not maintained and develop 

leaks or if they are damaged. Yet another example would be wire ropes and cables that have 

lubricated surfaces which contact the sea.

The impact of lubricant discharges (not accidental spills) to the marine ecosystem is 

substantial. The majority of ocean-going ships operate with oil-lubricated stern tubes and use 

lubricating oils in a large number of applications in on-deck and underwater (submerged) 

machinery. The issue of oil leakage from stern tubes, once considered a part of normal 

“operational consumption” of oil, has become an issue of wide concern and is now being treated 

as oil pollution. Stern tube leakage is a significant source of lubricant oil inputs to the marine 

environment. A 2001 study commissioned by the European Commission DG Joint Research 

Centre (Pavlakis et al., 2001) concluded that routine unauthorized operational discharges of oil 

from ships into the Mediterranean Sea created more pollution than accidental spills. 

An analysis of data on oil consumption sourced from a lubricant supplier indicated a 

range of average daily stern tube lubricant consumption rates for different vessels (Etkin, 2010). 

The average rate across vessel types was 2.6 liters per day, but ranged from less than 1 liter per 

day to 20 liters per day. In addition to spills and stern tube leakage, there are “operational inputs” 

of lubricant oils that occur due to continuous low-level discharges and leakages that occur during 

normal vessel operations in port. The sources of operational discharges include deck machinery 

and in-water (submerged) machinery. There are a number of systems situated below the 

waterline which must be lubricated, such as the stern tube bearing, thruster gearboxes, and 

horizontal stabilizers. All of these have pressurized lubricating oil mechanisms that maintain a 

pressure higher than the surrounding sea. This ensures that no significant amount of seawater can 

enter the oil system, where it would compromise the unit’s reliability. Any leakage of lubricant 

oil which does take place will be into the surrounding waters. 

Etkin (2010) estimated the marine inputs of lubricant oils within the 4,708 ports and 

harbors of the world through stern tube leakage and operational discharges from marine 

shipping. Her results indicate that commercial vessels make over 1.7 million vessel port visits 

each year, and leak 4.6 to 28.6 million liters of lubricating oil from stern tubes. In addition, 

32.3 million liters of oil enters marine waters from other operational discharges and leaks. In 

total, operational discharges (including stern tube leakage) add between 36.9 million liters and 

61 million liters of lubricating oil into marine port waters annually.

3.5.1.10 Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine

Discharges of brine can occur from on-board plants that distill seawater or utilize reverse 

osmosis (RO) to generate fresh water. Distillation effluent may be at elevated temperatures and 

may contain anti-scaling treatment, acidic cleaning compounds, or metals. RO effluent is 

concentrated brine.

3.5.1.11 Elevator Pit Effluent

Large vessels with multiple decks are equipped with elevators to facilitate the 

transportation of maintenance equipment, people, and cargo between decks. A pit at the bottom 

Page 27 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

of the elevator shaft collects liquids and debris from elevator operations, and may include oil and 

hydraulic fluid. Pits can be emptied by gravity draining, discharged using the firemain, 

transferred to bilge, or containerized for onshore disposal. 

3.5.1.12 Firemain Systems

Firemain systems draw in water through the sea chest to supply water for fire hose 

stations, sprinkler systems, or AFFF distribution stations. Firemain stations can be pressurized or 

non-pressurized and are often used for secondary purposes onboard vessels (e.g., deck and 

equipment washdowns, machinery cooling water, ballast tank filling). However, when used for 

secondary purposes that result in other incidental discharges listed in the permit, that discharge is 

regulated by the relevant effluent limitation associated with that activity (e.g., rinsing off the 

anchor chain).

3.5.1.13 Freshwater Layup 

Seawater cooling systems condense low pressure steam from propulsion plant or 

generator turbines on some vessels. When a vessel is pierside or in port for more than a few days, 

the main steam plant is shut down and the condensers do not circulate. This can cause an 

accumulation of biological growth within the system; consequently, a freshwater layup is 

carried-out by replacing the seawater in the system with potable or surrounding freshwater (e.g., 

lake water). The freshwater remains stagnant for two hours before being blown overboard using 

pressurized air. After this, the condensers are considered flushed and are then refilled for the 

actual layup. After 21 days this fillwater is discharged and replaced and this is done on a 30-day 

cycle thereafter. Freshwater layup discharges residual saltwater, freshwater, tap water, and 

metals leached from the pipes or machinery into the environment. 

3.5.1.14 Gas Turbine Water Wash 

Gas turbines are used for propulsion and electricity generation. Occasionally, they must 

be cleaned to remove by-products that can accumulate and affect their operation. These byproducts include salts, lubricants, and combustion residuals. The wastewater from the cleaning 

process may include cleaning compounds as well. 

3.5.1.15 Graywater 

Graywater is water from showers, baths, sinks, and laundry facilities. Graywater can 

contain high levels of pathogens, nutrients, soaps and detergents, and organics. Untreated 

graywater is much more likely to cause environmental impact when it is generated in large 

volumes (e.g., from cruise ships). Some vessels have the capacity to collect and store graywater 

for later treatment and discharge. Those that do not have graywater holding capacity 

continuously discharge it to receiving waters. 

It is important to note that there is a small category of graywater discharges that are not 

subject to the CWA’s NPDES permitting requirement and thus are not covered by today’s 

permit. As discussed in section 3.5.2.2 below, discharges of sewage from vessels are not subject 

to the CWA’s NPDES permitting requirements, and are thus are not addressed by the VGP. 33 

U.S.C. 1322(a)(6); 33 U.S.C. 1362(6). Instead, these discharges are regulated under a separate 

Page 28 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

regulatory scheme: section 312 of the Clean Water Act. Under Clean Water Act section 312, the 

definition of “sewage” includes graywater discharges from “commercial vessels” (as defined at 

33 U.S.C. 1322(a)(10)) on the Great Lakes. Thus, graywater discharges from such vessels are 

regulated under section 312 of the Clean Water Act, not this permit. 33 U.S.C. 1322(a)(6). 

3.5.1.16 Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge 

Motor gasoline is transported on vessels to operate vehicles and other machinery. As the 

fuel is used, ambient water is added to the fuel tanks to replace the weight. This ambient water is 

discharged when the vessel refills the tanks with gasoline or when performing maintenance and 

can contain residual oils. Most vessels are designed not to have motor gasoline and 

compensating discharge. 

3.5.1.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater

Non-oily machinery wastewater systems are intended to keep wastewater from machinery 

that contains no oil separate from wastewater that has oil content. Vessels can have numerous 

sources of non-oily machinery wastewater, including distilling plants start-up discharge, chilled 

water condensate drains, fresh and saltwater pump drains, potable water tank overflows, and 

leaks from propulsion shaft seals. 

3.5.1.18 Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge 

Condensation from cold refrigeration or evaporator coils of air conditioning systems 

drips from the coils and collects in drip troughs which typically channel to a drainage system. 

Condensate discharge may contain detergents, seawater, food residue, and trace metals. 

3.5.1.19 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (Including Non-Contact Engine Cooling 

Water, Hydraulic System Cooling Water, Refrigeration Cooling Water) 

Seawater cooling systems use ambient water to absorb the heat from heat exchangers, 

propulsion systems, and mechanical auxiliary systems. The water is typically circulated through 

an enclosed system that does not come in direct contact with machinery, but still may contain 

sediment from water intake, traces of hydraulic or lubricating oils, and trace metals leached or 

eroded from the pipes within the system. Additionally, because it is used for cooling, the effluent 

will have an increased temperature.

3.5.1.20 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention 

Vessels that utilize seawater cooling systems introduce anti-fouling compounds (e.g., 

sodium hypochlorite) in their interior piping and component surfaces to inhibit the growth of 

fouling organisms. These anti-fouling compounds are then typically discharged overboard. 

3.5.1.21 Boat Engine Wet Exhaust 

Large vessels covered by the permit often have several small boats on-board. Small boat 

engines use ambient water that is injected into the exhaust for cooling and noise reduction 

purposes. This wet engine exhaust can contain numerous pollutants when discharged. 

Page 29 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

3.5.1.22 Sonar Dome Discharge 

Water is used to maintain the shape and pressure of domes that house sonar detection, 

navigation, and ranging equipment. Discharges occur when the water must be drained for 

maintenance or repair or from the exterior of the sonar dome. 

3.5.1.23 Underwater Ship Husbandry and Hull Fouling Discharges 

Underwater ship husbandry is grooming, maintenance, and repair activities of hulls or 

hull appendages completed while the vessel is located in the water, including hull cleaning (such 

as removal of fouling organisms), hull repair, fiberglass repair, welding, sonar dome repair, nondestructive testing, masker belt repairs, and painting operations. Underwater ship husbandry 

discharges are considered incidental to the normal operation of a vessel when ships are 

maintained in proper operating order and the cleaning is done on a reasonable schedule. For 

drydock and other large cleaning activities, once every few years may be considered a reasonable 

schedule.

3.5.1.24 Welldeck Discharges

The welldeck is a floodable platform used for launching or loading small satellite vessels, 

vehicles, and cargo. Welldeck discharges may include water from precipitation, welldeck and 

storage area washdowns, equipment and engine washdowns, and leaks and spills from stored 

machinery.

3.5.1.25 Graywater Mixed with Sewage from Vessels

Depending on how the vessel is designed, graywater and sewage may be combined into 

one effluent stream. Discharges of graywater that contain sewage are eligible for coverage under 

this permit (except for commercial vessels in the Great Lakes as discussed above) and must meet 

the discharge limitation requirements under Part 2, as well as any requirements applicable to 

sewage discharges (i.e., 33 U.S.C. §§ 1322(a)-(m) and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

Part 140 and 33 CFR Part 159), although these are not contained in this permit. 

3.5.1.26 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge 

Exhaust gas scrubber washwater discharge (EGS washwater discharge) occurs as a result 

of operating or cleaning the exhaust gas cleaning systems (e.g. scrubbers) for marine diesel 

engines. After the washing solution is returned from the scrubber, the washwater can be either 

treated and discharged overboard, or alternatively, it can be piped to a clean bilge water tank or 

other suitable holding tanks. While many of the captured contaminants (sludge) are transferred to 

the vessel’s sludge tank, the constituents of EGS washwater discharge can include residues of 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions captured by 

the scrubbers. EGS washwater discharge can also contain traces of oil, polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals and nitrogen. Depending on the geographic location of the 

EGS washwater discharge, the pH level and turbidity of the receiving water may be altered. 

Page 30 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

3.5.1.27 Fish Hold Effluent 

Fish hold effluent is composed of seawater, ice-melt, or ice slurry collected inside fish 

hold tanks. Fish hold effluent contains pollutants which result from seafood catch and other onboard vessel sources. These pollutants can include biological wastes, metals, nutrients, and 

wastewater resulting from fish hold cleaning activities. 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 typically pumped overboard. Vessels that use chipped or slurry ice 

generally remove the seafood and then discharge the spent ice overboard. 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. 

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 

a thorough scrub down with the addition of detergents or disinfectants to maximize the removal 

of organic material. As a result, the effluent from fish hold cleaning contains a combination of 

residual fish hold water and ambient or municipal water and often contains soaps or detergents. 

For more information discussing fish hold effluent, including information regarding specific 

constituents contained within that discharge, please see EPA’s 2010 vessels report to Congress 

available at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels (US EPA, 2010a) and in the docket for today’s permit. 

3.5.2 Discharge Types Specifically Not Authorized By This Permit

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

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

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

3.5.2.1 Discharges Not Subject to Former NPDES Permit Exclusion Including Vessels Being 

Operated in a Capacity Other than as a Means of Transportation 

Any discharge that was not subject to the former regulatory exclusion as of December 18, 

2008, would not be authorized under the current permit. The date of December 18, 2008 is the 

day before the date of the vacatur of the regulatory exclusion. 

The regulatory exclusion did not apply when the vessel is operating in a capacity other 

than as a means of transportation, and therefore, discharges from such vessels continue to be 

ineligible for coverage under this permit. 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, 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). 

Page 31 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

“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 which 

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

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

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

by the VGP 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 MPRSA ocean 

dumping permit, and such discharges are excluded from CWA § 402 permitting. The incidental 

discharges (e.g., graywater, bilgewater) coming from the dredging vessels themselves are 

eligible for coverage under this permit (because they move as they dredge and thus are still 

operating as a means of transportation). 

3.5.2.2 Sewage from Vessels

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

“‘sewage from vessels’ within the meaning of [Section 312 of the Clean Water Act].” These 

discharges are instead regulated under section 312 of the CWA. 

3.5.2.3 Used or Spent Oil 

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

eligible for coverage under the permit. Also prohibited is 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 appropriate effluent limits are met, including that oil is not discharged in 

quantities that may be harmful, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 110.3. See the discussion of limitations 

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

3.5.2.4 Rubbish, Trash, Garbage or Other Materials Discharged Overboard 

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

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

exclusion. As stated in VGP Part 1.2.3.4, “garbage” includes bulk dry cargo residues, as defined 

by USCG regulations (33 CFR Part 151, Subpart A (see 73 Fed. Reg. 56492 (September 29, 

2008)) and agricultural cargo residues (e.g., residue from agricultural cargo carried in bulk, such 

as corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, and grains (see H. Rept. 107-777 at pg 90 (November 13, 2002)), 

Thus discharges of such residues are outside the scope of this permit. 

Page 32 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

3.5.2.5 Photo Processing Waste 

Photo processing waste includes a wide variety of compounds, such as ammonia, sulfuric 

acid, and silver. It is not eligible for coverage under the permit; it is generated in small quantities 

and can be held for proper disposal onshore. 

3.5.2.6 Effluent from Dry Cleaning Operations 

Tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene, or PERC, is a highly toxic 

substance primarily used by the dry cleaning industry. When humans are exposed to 

tetrachloroethylene it can cause dizziness, headache, nausea, nervous system problems, 

unconsciousness, and death. It is a probable human carcinogen. Tetrachloroethylene is toxic at 

low levels and can contaminate soil and water. Tetrachloroethylene discharges associated with 

dry-cleaning activities on vessels are not eligible for coverage under the permit because they are 

not incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. 

3.5.2.7 Discharges of Medical Waste and Related Materials 

The discharge of medical waste as defined in 33 U.S.C. 1362(20), spent or unused 

pharmaceuticals, formaldehyde or other biohazards no longer being used for their intended 

purposes are not eligible for coverage under this permit. EPA considers these discharges as not 

being subject to the NPDES permit exclusion. For purposes of this permit, the liquid produced 

by dialysis treatment of humans is not deemed to be “medical waste,” and, like other human 

body waste (i.e., sewage), is exempt from NPDES permitting under 33 U.S.C. 1362(6). Like 

other sewage, this liquid is regulated, however, under VGP Part 2.2.25 if added to a blackwater 

system combined with a graywater system and is otherwise subject to the requirements of 33 

U.S.C 1322 and its implementing regulations. The direct overboard discharge of such liquid 

without treatment is not authorized by the VGP.

3.5.2.8 Discharges of Noxious Liquid Substance (NLS) Residues 

The permit does not authorize the discharges of noxious liquid substance (NLS) residues 

subject to 33 CFR Part 151, Subpart A, or 46 CFR 153.1102. Under 46 CFR 153.1102, 

discharges of NLS residues are either prohibited or, if allowable, may only take place at sea at 

least 12 nautical miles from the nearest shore. In light of this, the 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 153.2) is set out in the definition section of the permit. 

3.5.2.9 Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene) and Trichloroethylene (TCE) Degreasers or 

Other Products Containing Tetrachloroethylene and Trichloroethylene 

Any degreasers containing tetrachloroethylene or trichloroethylene (TCE) are not 

authorized for discharge into waters subject to this permit. Both tetrachloroethylene and 

trichloroethylene are considered probably carcinogenic to humans and both are priority 

pollutants. In developing the 2008 VGP, EPA compared the cost of tetrachloroethylene or TCE 

Page 33 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

degreasers to products not containing tetrachloroethylene or TCE and determined that other 

viable products are available and use of those products is economically practicable and 

achievable (ABT, 2008). Alternatives to trichloroethylene degreasing products include alkaline 

aqueous solutions and semi-aqueous solutions. 

3.5.2.10 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, without written permission from EPA. The vessel general permit is not intended to 

supplant or replace any current or previous NPDES permit. 

3.6. PERMIT COMPLIANCE (PART 1.4) 

Part 1.4 of the permit is intended to inform the permittee of the potential consequences of 

failure to comply with the conditions of the permit. Part 1.4 explains that any failure to comply 

with the conditions of the permit constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act. Also applicable 

to all permittees is the standard NPDES permit condition for the “duty to comply” (see 40 CFR 

122.41(a)). Where requirements and schedules for taking corrective actions are included, the 

time intervals are not grace periods, but are schedules considered reasonable for making repairs 

and improvements. For provisions specifying a time period to remedy noncompliance, the initial 

failure, such as a violation of a numeric or non-numeric effluent limit, constitutes a violation of 

the VGP and the Clean Water Act (unless specifically otherwise stipulated), and subsequent 

failure to remedy such deficiencies within the specified time periods constitutes an independent, 

additional violation of the permit and the CWA. 

EPA notes that the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. EPA signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) to better coordinate efforts to implement and enforce VGP requirements 

for vessels. Under the MOU, the two agencies will share information, expertise, and provide 

technical assistance on implementing and enforcing the VGP, which will help reduce 

government redundancy and enable each agency to accomplish its missions more effectively. 

Additionally, the USCG will assist with verifying compliance of the VGP for domestic and 

foreign vessels. To view a copy of the MOU, please visit 

http://epa.gov/compliance/resources/agreements/cwa/mou-coastguardvesselpermitrequirements.pdf. 

A copy of the February 11, 2011 Coast Guard policy letter entitled “Guidelines for Coast 

Guard Evaluations of Compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Vessel 

General Permit (VGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels” can be 

found in the docket for today’s permit. 

3.7. AUTHORIZATION UNDER THE PERMIT (PART 1.5) 

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

Under 40 CFR § 122.28 (b)(2)(v), some 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 

Page 34 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

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 certain vessels 

to submit NOIs: namely, those that are smaller than 300 gross tons, and do not have the capacity 

to carry more than 8 cubic meters (2113 gallons) of ballast water. The reasons for this approach 

are explained below:

EPA estimates that there are approximately 72,000 vessels that may be covered by the 

permit. To require all these vessels to submit an NOI would be a 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 which vessels would appropriately be required to submit NOIs, 

EPA looked at the universe of vessels that would be covered by this permit and found a logical 

break between larger and smaller vessels, based on the types of discharges from these vessels, 

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

of those discharges. The volume of the discharges incidental to the normal operation of the 

vessel is expected to vary proportionately to the size of the vessel. Larger vessels will each 

individually have a greater volume of discharge and are more likely to have greater volume of 

discharges of concern (i.e., graywater and anti-foulant leachate). The expected volume of 

discharges for large vessels is significant for each individual vessel. For instance, a container 

ship can discharge thousands of cubic meters (millions of gallons) of ballast water; pounds of 

anti-foulant leachate, and significant quantities of bilgewater. Cruise ships have the potential to 

discharge large volumes of graywater due to the sizeable on-board ship populations, in addition 

to other discharges typical of such large vessels (for example, ballast water, bilge water, etc.). 

Therefore, larger vessels are far more likely to discharge larger quantities of toxic and 

conventional pollutants than smaller vessels due to a number of factors including the range of 

constituents in the discharge. EPA expects that smaller commercial vessels will have a smaller 

range of discharge types than larger commercial vessels. Some of the typical discharges eligible 

for coverage under the permit are nearly ubiquitous for most vessels, including deck runoff, bilge 

water, and leachate from anti-foulant hull coatings. However, larger commercial vessels have a 

greater range of discharges which will be of greater volume. Thus, the limited range of discharge 

types from smaller vessels and the reduced likelihood for the 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 data available for 

identifying discharges from vessels covered by the permit, including state registration 

information, MARAD vessel calls, U.S. Coast Guard registration and customs records, and data 

from the National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse (NBIC). From these sources, EPA 

can obtain information from which we can deduce the nature of ship and boat discharges from 

these smaller vessels. 

Page 35 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

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

to require smaller commercial vessels to provide information about their discharges through 

submission of an NOI. The cutoff for submission of an NOI of 300 or more gross tons is 

consistent with U.S. Coast Guard requirements, including those for environmental pollution 

control (33 CFR 155.320), Automatic Identification System (AIS) carriage requirements (33 

CFR 164.46), port security requirements, fuel oil and bulk lubricating oil discharge containment 

requirements (33 CFR 155.320), and requirements for radar observers and chief engineers (33 

CFR 15.820 and 33 CFR 15.820). 

The criterion of vessels equipped to hold or discharge more than 8 cubic meters of ballast 

water was established for two reasons. First, as of this time, there is not a method by which EPA 

can predict invasions from any vessel source. However, the greater the number of viable 

organisms released into the receiving water, the greater the propagule pressure, which increases 

the risk for a successful invasion by an aquatic nuisance species. The volume of water discharged 

likely correlates to the number of organisms discharged; hence, lower volumes of water should 

contain fewer potential organisms which can successfully establish themselves. A vessel that 

carries and discharges 2,500 cubic meters of ballast water poses a greater risk to receiving waters 

than the vessel that carries 5 cubic meters. Therefore, the greater the volume of ballast water 

discharge, the greater the likelihood of creating enough propagule pressure to result in an 

enhanced risk of the spread of aquatic nuisance species. Secondly, the 8 cubic meter threshold is 

generally consistent with provisions in the recent International Convention for the Control and 

Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (2004) providing for “equivalent 

compliance” for certain vessels in lieu of compliance with all provisions of the treaty. Hence, 

this is a recognized standard among mariners.

Based on the analysis outlined above, EPA has determined that smaller vessels eligible 

for coverage under the VGP need not submit an NOI. However, these owner/operators must still 

complete the VGP Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection (PARI) form (discussed 

below) and maintain that form on board at all times. EPA is including the PARI form because we 

believe 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 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. Based upon EPA’s experience in 

implementing the 2008 VGP, EPA found that many smaller vessel owner/operators were 

confused about their obligations under the VGP because they were not required to submit the 

NOI form. Some of these vessel owner/operators erroneously believed that they were not subject 

to the VGP terms and conditions, and furthermore thought that they did not need to obtain 

alternative NPDES permit coverage. Hence, the purpose of this form is to reduce confusion 

within the industry and to confirm that these vessel owner/operators have read the terms of the 

VGP and understand their obligation to comply. 

3.7.2 How to Obtain Authorization (Part 1.5.1) 

To obtain authorization under the permit, operators must meet the Part 1.2 eligibility 

requirements and, if required by Part 1.5.1.1 of the permit, submit a complete and accurate NOI 

according to the requirements in Appendix E (Part 10 in the Permit), no later than the permit 

effective date.

Page 36 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Part 1.5.1.1 describes which operators of a vessel are required to submit an NOI, and 

Table 1 sets out the timeframes within which an NOI must be submitted. An operator is required 

to submit an NOI for its vessel if the vessel meets either of the following two criteria:

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

• The vessel has the capacity to hold or discharge more than 8 cubic meters (2113 

gallons) of ballast water. 

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

Owner/operators required to submit an NOI for their vessel must submit an NOI in 

accordance with Table 1 of the permit. When completing the NOI form, the owner/operator is 

asked to select which discharge types the vessel is likely to produce. All discharges covered by 

the permit will be covered for the vessel, even if the owner/operator does not select all 

discharges. The form will allow EPA to better understand which vessel types typically produce 

which discharges, but will not limit permit coverage for the vessel owner/operator as long as the 

vessel is in compliance with the permit requirements. Table 1 specifies applicable deadlines for 

different categories of operators to submit NOIs. All NOIs will be made available for public 

review through posting on the internet. EPA may request that the owner/operator seek coverage 

under Part 1.8 of the permit (Alternative Permits) if appropriate. 

When the ownership or operation of a vessel that is already covered under this permit is 

transferred, the new owner/operator must submit to EPA an NOI for the vessel by the date of 

transfer. The new NOI then becomes effective on the date the transfer takes place, or on the date 

EPA receives the NOI, whichever is later. 

For new vessels delivered to the owner/operator after December 19, 2013, the deadline 

for submission of an electronic NOI is no later than 7 days before the vessel will discharge into 

waters subject to this permit. The discharge authorization date for these vessels is 7 days after the 

complete electronic NOI is received by EPA. 

For existing vessels delivered to the owner/operator after December 19, 2013, that were 

not previously covered under this permit, the deadline for submission of an electronic NOI is no 

later than 7 days before the vessel will discharge into waters subject to this permit. Except as 

noted in the following paragraph, the discharge authorization date for these vessels is 7 days after 

the complete electronic NOI is received by EPA and 30 days after a complete paper NOI is 

received and processed by EPA. NOI processing means that a complete electronic NOI has been 

submitted and successfully certified by the permittee, or in the case of a Paper NOI, that EPA has 

received your NOI and input the information into its electronic system. Submitting paper NOIs 

may result in processing delays dependent upon volume received. Permittees will be able to 

know when their electronic and paper NOIs are processed by looking at EPA’s online NOI 

search tool accessible from EPA’s NPDES Vessels homepage at: 

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels. In addition, NOIs submitted for transfer of ownership and/or 

operation of a vessel whose discharge is previously authorized under the permit are authorized 

immediately upon commencement of transfer provided a complete and accurate NOI is 

submitted and processed prior to that transfer. 

Page 37 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Prior to EPA authorizing coverage, based on a review of an NOI or other information, 

EPA may delay the discharge authorization date for further review, or may deny coverage under 

the permit and require submission of an application for an individual NPDES permit, as detailed 

in Part 1.8 of the permit. In these instances, EPA will notify the NOI submitter in writing of the 

delay or the request for submission of an individual NPDES permit application. If EPA requires 

an individual permit for an existing vessel previously covered by this general permit, EPA will 

allow the permittee a reasonable amount of time to obtain individual permit coverage before their 

general permit coverage terminates.

Part 1.5 and 4.2 4 of the permit requires that all vessel owner/operators must keep records 

of their NOIs or PARIs on board their vessels. As with other records kept for purposes of the 

VGP, electronic records meeting the requirements under Part 4.2.1 of the permit meet this 

requirement. 

Based on a review of the NOI or other information, EPA may delay the authorization of 

the owner/operator’s discharge or may deny coverage under the permit and require submission of 

an application for an individual NPDES permit, as detailed in Part 3.10.1. EPA will notify the 

owner/operator in writing of any such delay or the request for submission of an individual 

NPDES permit application. For existing vessels covered under this general permit at the time it is 

issued, EPA will allow a reasonable time period to obtain alternate permit coverage before 

coverage under this permit is terminated. 

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

An operator of a vessel is not required to submit an NOI pursuant to Part 1.5.1.2 of the 

permit if the vessel is less than 300 tons and does not have the capacity to hold or discharge more 

than 8 cubic meters of ballast water. 

As a requirement of this permit, vessel owner/operators that are not required to submit 

NOIs must complete the VGP PARI Form contained in Appendix K of the permit. The PARI 

form must be signed and maintained on board the vessel for the entire permit term. EPA 

emphasizes that these owner/operators would still be subject to all applicable requirements 

contained within the permit even if they fail to complete and retain the form.

A certification statement is included in the VGP PARI that is required under this permit. 

This form and certification must be printed, signed and kept on the vessel while under permit 

coverage.

When implementing the 2008 VGP, EPA found that not requiring smaller vessels to 

submit an NOI created confusion for some smaller vessel owner/operators about their obligations 

under the 2008 VGP. The PARI form requires that a vessel owner operator state he or she has 

read the terms of the VGP and agrees to comply with the terms of the permit. Furthermore, the 

PARI serves as a record for any inspector that the smaller vessel owner/operator has read, and 

agreed to abide by the terms of the VGP. EPA specifically seeks comments on the inclusion of 

this new requirement. 

Page 38 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

If an owner/operator not required to submit an NOI wishes EPA to consider alternative 

permit requirements for the vessel, he or she must apply to EPA for a substitute permit 

applicable to his or her vessel as required by Part 1.8 of the permit within 90 days (Alternative 

Permits).

3.7.3 Continuation of the Permit (Part 1.5.2) 

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, following timely and appropriate submittal of a complete NOI, if 

required; (2) submittal of a Notice of Termination; (3) issuance of a new general permit that 

covers your vessel discharges or vessel type and provides you coverage without requiring you to 

submit an NOI to obtain coverage; (4) issuance or denial of an individual permit for the 

permittee’s discharges; or (5) 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 re-issuance 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). 

3.8. TERMINATING COVERAGE (PART 1.6) 

3.8.1 Submitting a Notice of Termination (NOT) (Part 1.6.1.1) 

Part 1.6.1 of the permit encourages those permittees that are required to submit NOIs to 

use the eNOI system to file NOTs. If a permittee who is required to submit an NOI wishes to 

terminate coverage under the permit, he/she must submit a NOT in accordance with Appendix F. 

The permittee’s authorization to discharge under the permit terminates at 11:59 pm on the day 

that a complete NOT is processed and posted on EPA’s website 

(www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/eNOI). However, the NOT is invalid and the permittee must 

continue to comply with the permit if none of the conditions identified in Part 1.6.1.2 are met. 

The permittee has a continuing responsibility for the discharges from its vessel until the NOT is 

submitted and processed by EPA. See below for a more detailed discussion of Part 1.6.2. 

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

3.8.2.1 Terminating Coverage for Vessels Required to Submit an NOI 

If a permittee was required to submit an NOI, and subsequently meets one of the 

conditions identified in Part 1.6.1.2, he/she must submit an NOT, preferably to the eNOI system. 

An NOT is required to be submitted within 30 days after one or more of the following conditions 

Page 39 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

has been met: (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, unless the 

permittee is directed by EPA to obtain this coverage. EPA uses the term ‘permanently ceased’ in 

this context to mean that the vessel owner/operator does not intend to resume operations in 

waters subject to this permit during the permit term. A vessel owner is not required to submit an 

NOT every time the vessel leaves waters subject to this permit if the vessel may return to waters 

subject to this permit during the permit term. This allows a vessel to maintain coverage under the 

permit, as long as the permit’s terms and conditions continue to be met when the vessel is 

operating in waters subject to this permit. 

The permittee’s authorization to discharge under the permit terminates at 11:59 pm on the 

day that a complete NOT is posted on EPA’s website (www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/enoi). The 

permittee has a continuing obligation to comply with all permit conditions until a compliant 

NOT is submitted to and processed by EPA and posted on EPA’s website. 

3.8.2.2 Terminating Coverage for Vessels Not Required to Submit an NOI 

If a vessel owner/operator is not required to submit an NOI, the vessel’s permit coverage 

is automatically terminated if: (1) a new owner or operator has assumed responsibility for the 

vessel; (2) operation of the vessel has permanently ceased in waters subject to this permit and 

there are no longer vessel discharges; or (3) permit coverage has been obtained under an 

individual or alternative general permit for all discharges requiring NPDES permit coverage. 

3.9. CERTIFICATION (PART 1.7) 

Today’s permit contains a requirement that any person signing the NOI, NOT, the VGP 

PARI Form, and any reports (including any monitoring data) submitted to EPA, in accordance 

with the permit must include the certification statement available in Part 1.7. This certification 

statement includes an additional sentence that, prior to the VGP issued in December 2008, had 

not been included in previous EPA issued NPDES general permits. The sentence reads: “I have 

no personal knowledge that the information submitted is other than true, accurate, and 

complete.” EPA believes this additional certification language is necessitated by the decision in 

U.S. v. Robison, 505 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2007). In Robison, the Court of Appeals struck down 

the defendant's conviction for a false statement on the grounds that the certification language did 

not require him to have personal knowledge regarding the truth or falsity of the information 

submitted to EPA. Rather, the court reasoned that EPA's certification required the defendant to 

certify, in part, that he made an inquiry of the persons who prepared and submitted the 

information and based on that inquiry, the information was accurate to the best of his knowledge. 

The court further reasoned that there is no requirement in the certification that the person attest to 

his personal knowledge regarding the information submitted. The government had argued at trial 

that the defendant had personal knowledge that the facility had committed violations. As a result, 

EPA feels it is necessary to include language which clarifies that the signatory is certifying that 

he or she has no personal knowledge that the information submitted is other than true, accurate, 

and complete. 

Page 40 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

3.10. ALTERNATIVE PERMITS (PART 1.8) 

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

Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3), EPA may require a discharger to apply for and obtain 

an individual permit instead of obtaining coverage under the general permit. These regulations 

also provide that any interested 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). 

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

After issuance of the permit, the permittee may request to be excluded from such 

coverage by applying for an individual permit. In such a case, the permittee must submit an 

individual permit application, no later than 90 days after the date of publication of final permit in 

the Federal Register, in accordance with 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3)(iii), along with a statement of 

reasons supporting the request, to the applicable EPA 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. 

3.11. PERMIT REOPENER CLAUSE (PART 1.9) 

This permit contains a reopener clause allowing the permit to be re-opened and modified 

during the term of the permit, consistent with the Federal regulations at 40 CFR sections 122.62, 

122.63, 122.64, and 124.5. Among other things, under 40 CFR 122.62 permit modification may 

be necessary if new information, not available at the time of permit issuance, is received that 

would have justified the application of different permit conditions at the time of issuance. While 

EPA believes that the VGP’s technology-based ballast water implementation schedule is 

appropriate, given the large number of vessels subject to the ballast water numeric effluent 

limits, it is possible that a situation may arise in which treatment technology for a certain vessel, 

or specified group of vessels, may not be available within the timeframe specified in part 

2.2.3.5.2, Table 6 of the VGP, such that this information (not available at the time of permit 

issuance) would have justified the imposition of a different implementation date had it been 

known at the time of permit issuance. As a result, it may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis 

to adjust the implementation schedule to reflect BAT, as it applies to a vessel or group of vessels. 

EPA recognizes that the U.S. Coast Guard may grant an extension to the implementation 

schedule contained in its final rule regulating ballast water discharges “in those cases where the 

master, owner, operator, agent, or person in charge of a vessel subject to this subpart can 

document that despite all efforts to meet the ballast water discharge standard requirements in 

151.2030 of this subpart, compliance is not possible.” 33 CFR 151.2036. Coast Guard’s 

regulations require that such extension requests be submitted no later than 12 months before the 

Page 41 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

scheduled implementation date listed in 151.2035(b). EPA believes that this time frame will be 

sufficient for EPA to evaluate and implement, as appropriate, any request for an alternate 

implementation date through a permit modification, including the required public notice and 

comment. EPA and the Coast Guard will work together to ensure the agencies are as consistent 

as possible under their respective authorities in making their determination to grant or deny a 

request for a change to an implementation date. To enhance that consistency, one of the stated 

factors EPA will consider is whether the Coast Guard has received a written extension request 

pursuant to 33 CFR 151.2036 and any supporting technical information in that request. An 

additional factor that EPA will consider, where appropriate, in its evaluation of any such request 

is the availability of a ballast water treatment system type-approved by the Coast Guard for the 

vessel class of the vessel for which an extension is requested. EPA advises that where the U.S. 

Coast Guard has granted or denied an extension request pursuant to 33 CFR 151.2036, that 

information will be considered by EPA, but is not binding on EPA. 

EPA notes that in addition to a permit modification to the VGP, an alternate mechanism 

for extending the implementation date applicable to a particular vessel is to issue an individual 

permit in accordance with Part 1.8 of the VGP. As provided in long-standing EPA enforcement 

policy, the “compliance history” of the regulated entity is to be taken into account when 

determining the appropriate response to a violation of an NPDES permit; accordingly, the 

Agency may consider any good faith efforts by vessels operators to meet applicable compliance 

deadlines under the VGP in any Agency response to noncompliance. 

The permit reopener clause may also be an appropriate vehicle to address other types of 

new information that would justify revised permit conditions. Such information could also allow 

EPA to determine whether reinitation of formal consultation could be required as provided in 50 

CFR §402.16. Specifically with respect to ballast water discharges, new information that will be 

considered in determining whether to modify this permit includes but is not limited to data or 

information from permittees, the general public, states, academia, scientific or technical articles 

or studies, and results of monitoring conducted under this permit indicating that: 

• Treatment technology has improved such that these improved technologies would 

have justified the application of significantly more stringent effluent limitations or 

other permit conditions had they been known at the time of permit issuance; 

• Treatment technologies known of at the time of permit issuance perform significantly 

better than understood at the time of permit issuance such that this improved 

performance would have justified the application of significantly more stringent 

effluent limitations or other permit conditions had this been understood at the time of 

permit issuance; 

• Scientific understanding of pollutant effects or of invasion biology has evolved such 

that this new information would have justified the application of significantly more 

stringent effluent limitations or other permit conditions had this been understood at 

the time of permit issuance; or 

• The cumulative effects of any discharge authorized by the VGP on the environment 

are unacceptable.

Page 42 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

In considering whether to reopen the permit to address such new information, EPA will 

consider several factors, including the remaining time before the expiration date of the 2013 

VGP, and the practicability of implementing new requirements before the end of the statutorilymandated five-year term of the VGP in 2018. 

3.12. 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 includes coverage of vessels operating 

as a means of transportation when within the territorial seas. EPA’s issuance of the permit thus is 

subject to evaluation under 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 which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line 

marking the seaward limit of inland waters, and extending seaward a distance of three miles (33 

U.S.C. 1362(8)). 

Under 40 CFR 125.123(a), if EPA, on the basis of available information determines prior 

to permit issuance that the discharges authorized will not cause unreasonable degradation of the 

marine environment, then EPA may issue an NPDES permit, which may include any conditions 

specified under 124.123(d) as necessary to assure that the discharge will not cause unreasonable 

degradation. The regulations at 40 CFR 125.121(e) define unreasonable degradation of the 

marine environment as meaning:

1. Significant adverse changes in ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability of the 

biological community within the area of discharge and surrounding biological 

communities,

2. Threat to human health through direct exposure to pollutants or through consumption 

of exposed aquatic organisms, or 

3. Loss of aesthetic, recreational, scientific or economic values which is unreasonable in 

relation to the benefit derived from the discharge. 

The Ocean Discharge Criteria require that EPA consider a number of factors in 

determining 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. 

Page 43 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

The discharges authorized by the permit are limited to those discharges incidental to the 

normal operation the vessel, and except for ballast water and graywater from cruise ships, 

typically will be of limited volumes. In addition, because vessels in the territorial seas are likely 

to be underway as part of their voyage, any discharges incidental to their normal operation would 

typically be well-mixed upon discharge before they are subject to further dispersal and transport 

beyond the area of the vessel’s operation. 

In the case of ballast water, the permit contains interim conditions (Part 2.2.3 of the 

permit) related to exchange of ballast water and saltwater flushing of empty ballast tanks beyond 

the outer limits of the territorial seas to reduce the risk of introduction of invasive species 

resulting from vessel discharges to waters of the United States within the territorial seas. EPA 

believes that these controls will prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine environment. In 

addition, the permit establishes numeric concentration-based limits for living organisms in 

ballast water and a schedule for meeting such limits, which will provide further protection for the 

marine environment. With respect to graywater from cruise ships, the permit also includes (Parts 

5.1 and 5.2 of the permit) additional conditions to reduce the impacts of graywater discharges to 

acceptable levels. EPA believes that these provisions are necessary to prevent unreasonable 

degradation of the marine environment. 

In developing the permit, the Agency has taken into consideration that discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of vessels that are subject to the permit 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 (e.g., section 2.1). In addition, the permit requires (section 

2.1.5) compliance with all federal environmental laws that establish controls on oily or 

hazardous discharges, including among others, CWA section 311 (33 U.S.C. 1321), the Act to 

Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 190-1915), the Federal 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 are necessary to 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 marine sanctuaries provisions of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) and implementing regulations found at 15 CFR Part 922 and 50 CFR

Part 404 (Part 2.1.5), the permit includes other conditions to impose additional controls and 

requirements on covered discharges in sensitive receiving waters (Part 2.3 of the permit). EPA 

has also determined that issuance of this permit will not adversely affect essential fish habitat 

(see 12.3 of this Fact Sheet). 

Finally, this permit applies to discharges to the outer limit of the three mile territorial sea. 

State water quality standards also apply within these waters and the permit thus contains effluent 

limitations as necessary to meet those applicable water quality standards (Parts 2.3 and 6 of the 

Page 44 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Permit). EPA has requested states’ certifications under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and 

requested concurrence on EPA’s consistency determination for this permit from state coastal 

management agencies, in accordance with section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA). Additional conditions are incorporated into Part 6 of the permit, pursuant to CWA 

section 401, CZMA section 307(c), and implementing regulations. Under 40 CFR 125.122(b), 

EPA presumes that discharges in compliance with state water quality standards will not 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: 

1. Significant adverse changes in ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability of the 

biological community within the area of discharge and surrounding biological 

communities,

2. Threat to human health through direct exposure to pollutants or through consumption 

of exposed aquatic organisms, or 

3. Loss of aesthetic, recreational, scientific or economic values which 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 complies with the Ocean Discharge Criteria guidelines 

established under CWA section 403(c). 

3.13. OTHER CONDITIONS (PARTS 1.11, 1.12, AND 1.13) 

This permit 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 (2008) are incorporated into the permit by reference. The permit 

requires permittees to comply with all applicable standard conditions. These regulations may be 

viewed at: 

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&sid=ddda7b420b62b6e4a956b3f5cf50db8b&r

gn=div5&view=text&node=40:22.0.1.1.12&idno=40 and will be included in the docket for this 

permit.

3.14. ELECTRONIC REPORTING REQUIREMENT

Pursuant to Part 1.14 of the permit, vessels covered the 2013 VGP must report all results 

to EPA electronically, unless they meet one of the requirements for and are granted a waiver as 

specified in Part 1.14 of the VGP. These reasons are if:

Page 45 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

• EPA has not yet developed electronic tools to allow such electronic submission of 

VGP reporting information, and has not yet implemented such electronic reporting; 

• The owner/operator’s headquarters is physically located in a geographic area (i.e., zip 

code or census tract) that is identified as under-served for broadband Internet access 

in the most recent report from the Federal Communications Commission and the 

vessel never travels to any areas with adequate broadband Internet access; or 

• The vessel owner/operator has issues regarding available computer access or 

computer capability. 

Electronic reporting improves efficiency for both vessel owner/operators and EPA. EPA 

believes that the vast majority of vessel owner/operators are able to submit NOIs and reporting 

results electronically and most prefer electronic communication versus submitting hard copy 

documents. For example, in the 2008 VGP, where electronic submittal of NOIs was encouraged, 

vessel owner/operators submitted electronic NOIs for approximately 99% of covered vessels. 

As mentioned above, in those rare cases where vessel owner/operators are unable to 

report electronically, EPA has included a provision to allow for hard copy submittal of 

information on a case by case basis, assuming the vessel owner/operator meets certain minimum 

requirements. 

EPA plans to make any ballast water monitoring data available in electronic form 

available to the public in electronic form. EPA believes that such an approach increases the 

transparency of permit compliance without unduly increasing the burden on the regulated 

community or EPA. The data will likely be made available in the format of a searchable interface 

available via EPA’s webpage at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels. For an example of how EPA makes 

VGP related data available to the public, please see EPA’s NOI search feature, also available at 

www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels. 

3.15. ADDITIONAL NOTES

As discussed more fully later in this fact sheet, the permit incorporates by reference (as 

BAT/BPT) several provisions of federal law, class society and flag state requirements. EPA has 

clarified in the permit “notes” section that the permit is intended to refer to those provisions as 

they were in effect on the date of issuance of the final VGP. Hence, the permit’s provisions that 

require compliance with statutes and regulations other than the Clean Water Act refer to those 

authorities as codified as of the date of the Federal Register notice that will announce the 

availability of this final permit. References to class society or flag state requirements are also as 

of that date. All of the provisions in this section were included in the 2008 VGP and have been 

moved to Part 1.15 of the VGP for editorial reasons. 

Page 46 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

4. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

4.1. BACKGROUND

The Clean Water Act (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 4.3. Both 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). 

4.1.1 The Clean Water Act Requires EPA to Develop Effluent Limitations that Represent 

the Following: 

4.1.1.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) 

The CWA requires BPT effluent limitations for conventional, toxic, and nonconventional pollutants. Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional pollutants: 

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids, 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 non-conventional. 

In specifying BPT, under CWA section 301(b)(1)(A), 304(b)(1)(B), and 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.

4.1.1.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) 

The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent reduction levels for 

conventional pollutants associated with BCT 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). 

Page 47 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

4.1.1.3 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, non-water 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 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 technologybased 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 discharges of oils, including oily mixtures, graywater discharges from cruise 

ships (under certain circumstances), and for ballast water discharges, numeric effluent limits 

have been established. 

4.1.2 Numeric Limitations Are Infeasible 

Because of the nature of vessel discharges, it is not practicable to derive numeric effluent 

limits to achieve these levels of control for many of the discharge types until greater information 

is available. Constituents in properly controlled discharges may vary widely based upon vessel 

type, size, and activities occurring on board the vessel. In such situations, the CWA authorizes 

EPA to include non-numeric effluent limits in NPDES permits.6 40 CFR 122.44(k)(3). The VGP 

includes such non-numeric effluent limits developed for discharges for which developing 

numeric effluent limits are infeasible to calculate at this time. Many of these non-numeric 

effluent limits require permittees to engage in specific behaviors or best management practices 

(BMPs). 

For example, vessel owner/operators must apply a broom clean standard (or similar 

management measure) to remove all debris before conducting deck washdowns. Additionally, to 

reduce the impact of oils leaking into the marine environment from oil to sea interfaces, many 

vessels must use environmentally acceptable lubricants. Additionally, several BMPs require 

vessels to “minimize” pollutant discharges. For purposes of this permit and consistent with the 

6 Refer to more detailed discussion below under “EPA’s Authority To Include Non-Numeric Technology-Based 

Effluent Limits In NPDES Permits,” “EPA’s Decision To Include Non-Numeric Technology-Based Effluent Limits 

In This Permit” and 40 CFR 122.44(k)(3). 

Page 48 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

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 specific discharges. EPA believes that for some vessel discharges, 

minimization of pollutants in those discharges can be achieved without using highly engineered, 

complex treatment systems. For other vessel discharges, highly engineered, complex, treatments 

systems that are reliable and approved for use on vessels are not currently available. The specific 

limits included in Part 2 of the permit emphasize effective pollution prevention controls, such as 

requiring phosphorus free soap, storing chemicals in protected areas of the vessel, and 

minimizing production of graywater in port. In other cases, they require more complex 

behavioral practices such as saltwater flushing or ballast water exchange as interim ballast water 

management requirements. In yet other cases, more advanced treatment may be necessary.

4.2. 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. 

4.2.1 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 

Association, 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 (biological oxygen demand (BOD5), pH, fecal coliform, total suspended solids 

(TSS), and oil and grease). BAT applies to toxic and non-conventional pollutants. Technologybased limits are to be applied throughout an industry sector without regard to receiving water 

quality. Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 671 F.2d 801 (4th Cir. 1982). 

4.2.2 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). 

Page 49 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

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 (ELGs) 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 technologybased limits are based on BPJ decision-making because no ELGs apply. 

Many of the BPJ limits in the permit are in the form of non-numeric control measures, 

commonly referred to as best management practices (BMPs). BMPs are considered “effluent 

limitations” within the meaning of the CWA. See Citizens Coal Council v. EPA, 447 F.3d 879, 

895-96 (6th Cir. 2006); Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486, 502 (2d Cir. 2005) 

(holding that site-specific BMPs at issue constitute effluent limitations within the meaning of the 

CWA); Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 673 F.2d 400, 403 (D.C. Cir.1982) (“section 

502(11) defines ‘effluent limitation’ as ‘any restriction’ on the amounts of pollutants discharged, 

not just a numerical restriction.”). Through the Agency’s NPDES permit regulations, EPA 

interpreted the CWA to allow BMPs to take the place of numeric effluent limitations under 

certain circumstances. 40 CFR §122.44(k), entitled “Establishing limitations, standards, and 

other permit conditions (applicable to State NPDES programs ...),” provides that permits may 

include BMPs 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 BMPs 

are effluent limitations under the CWA” (agreeing with EPA that the CWA does not require 

numeric effluent limits “where such limits are infeasible” because “a baseline pollutant loading 

cannot be calculated.”). 

4.2.3 EPA’s Decision to Include Non-Numeric Technology-Based Effluent Limits in This 

Permit and Rationale for Why the Limits Represent the Appropriate (BPT, BCT or 

BAT) Level of Control7

Non-numeric Limits

7 EPA’s rationales for inclusion of numeric limits appear in the discharge-by-discharge discussions as applicable

Page 50 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

With some exceptions, numeric effluent limitations are not feasible to calculate for vessel 

discharges in this permit iteration. Those exceptions include graywater and pool and spa 

discharges from cruise ships; oily discharges, including oily mixtures; some bilgewater 

discharges; and ballast water discharges. EPA may develop numeric effluent limits for certain 

additional 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 

and composition 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 

exceptions noted above (graywater and pool and spa water discharges from cruise ships; some oil 

discharges, including oily mixtures for vessels; some bilgewater discharges; and ballast water 

discharges). EPA is able to calculate numeric effluent limits for these groups because extensive 

research has been conducted and effective pollution control technologies are widely or will be 

widely commercially available. 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 non-numeric effluent limits.

Rationale for Finding that the Limits in this Permit Represent the BPT, BCT or BAT 

Level of Control 

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 

constituent of concern in the discharge. 

• Specific behavioral practices for minimizing or eliminating the pollutants or 

constituent of concern in the discharge. 

• Narrative requirements to minimize pollutants or constituents of concern in 

discharges or the discharges themselves.8

• Limiting or eliminating discharges at certain times for discharge types that can be 

limited or eliminated for short periods due to technology available on board 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). 

In the context of this general permit, EPA has determined these non-numeric effluent 

limits represent the best practicable technology (BPT) for all pollutants, the best conventional 

8 These types of effluent limits allow owner/operators to use control measures appropriate for their vessels to meet 

those limits.

Page 51 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

pollutant control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT) and the best available technology 

economically achievable (BAT) for toxic and non-conventional pollutants. EPA has determined 

that the combination of pollution prevention approaches and structural management practices 

described above are the most environmentally sound way to control the discharge of pollutants 

from vessels. 

Requirements are Technologically Available

EPA has found that the requirements of this permit represent the appropriate level of 

control representing BPT, BCT, and BAT. For example, many class societies require that vessels 

have coamings or drip pans underneath machinery as a way to keep oil from entering the bilge, 

being discharged to surrounding waters, or creating hazardous conditions on the vessel deck. The 

majority of vessels already have these available measures in place to eliminate the discharge of 

oil from their vessels, and many frequently clean oil from the drip pans if present. Hence, EPA 

believes this requirement represents BPT and this permit requires that all vessels follow this 

common sense approach if feasible. As an example of an effluent limit that meets BPT and BAT 

standards, EPA is requiring existing vessel operators to comply with additional ballast water 

management requirements such as mandatory saltwater flushing for vessels with empty ballast 

water tanks (see section 4.4.3.6 of this fact sheet for additional discussion) before they must meet 

the VGP’s numeric ballast water effluent limits. These requirements are available, in part, 

because of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Corporation’s mandatory requirements for vessels 

entering through the Seaway (33 CFR Part 401.30), and many U.S.-bound vessels with empty 

ballast tanks already perform saltwater flushing. Furthermore, because not all of these vessels 

will have reliable treatment technology for removing residual living organisms installed on their 

vessels for the full permit term (because immediately requiring installation onboard all vessels is 

economically unachievable), saltwater flushing represents BAT since it is the best approach 

currently available for these vessels under this standard. 

EPA has found that it is technologically possible to prohibit discharges in certain waters, 

and therefore such a limit is technologically available. However, it is not possible to prohibit 

these discharge categories under all circumstances. EPA decided which discharge types to 

prohibit in certain waters based on the environmental impacts of discharges and technical 

information as to whether vessels have the capacity to hold certain discharge types. These 

sources of information included technical experts and publications cited in this fact sheet 

including US EPA 1999; Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and 

Science Advisory Panel, 2002; Lamb, 2004; and EPA, 2008. 

As an example, some vessels such as cruise ships have the ability to hold graywater for a 

period from hours to days. Likewise, many large vessels can retain treated bilgewater on board in 

the bilge for prolonged periods; however, it must periodically be discharged or emptied. Yet 

another example is the discharge of AFFF for maintenance purposes. Vessel owner/operators 

may elect where they conduct the maintenance, thereby controlling where they will discharge. 

Since vessels are mobile and can move from water to water, EPA has determined that vessels 

have the technology to limit their discharges in select waters. Therefore, under the authority to 

consider “other factors the Administrator deems appropriate,” EPA has determined that the 

requirement to limit discharges to specific waters is technologically available. However, as 

mentioned, EPA finds that it is not technologically available to limit all discharge types in certain 

Page 52 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

waters. For instance, in the case of deck runoff, vessel operators have little control as to when 

water may runoff from the deck into surrounding waters without potentially creating major 

safety concerns. Hence, EPA is not prohibiting the discharge of certain discharge types into 

waters of greater concern where methods to do so are not technologically available. 

Requirements Meet the BPT and BAT Economic Tests Set Forth in the CWA 

There are different economic considerations under BPT, BCT and BAT. EPA finds that 

the limits in this permit meet the BPT and BAT economic tests. Because the types of controls 

under consideration minimize toxic, nonconventional, and 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 since 

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.

Under BPT, EPA has determined that the requirements of this permit are economically 

practicable. To make this determination, EPA has considered the reasonableness of the 

relationship between the costs of application of technology and the effluent reduction benefit 

derived. CWA section 301(b)(1)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(d)(1). EPA expects the permit requirements 

to reduce the risk of invasive species spread, to minimize production of effluent in high quality 

waters, to reduce nutrient loading, and to minimize the risk of other constituents entering vessel 

waste streams.

EPA has determined that the requirements of this permit are economically achievable. In 

determining “economic achievability” under BAT, EPA has considered whether the costs of the 

controls can reasonably be borne by the industry. EPA typically evaluates “closures,” whereby 

the costs of requirements are evaluated to see whether they would cause a facility to go out of 

business. EPA has assessed the costs of the requirements in this permit and finds that this permit 

will result in no “closures” in that the costs of the permit are small compared to all operating 

costs. EPA has assessed the costs of the requirements and finds that except in rare cases, the cost 

of implementing this permit is estimated to be below 1% of the total operating costs of almost all 

entities for any given year. The total domestic flagged vessel universe that would be affected by 

this permit includes approximately 58,600 vessels. Additionally, EPA estimates that 

approximately 12,400 foreign flagged vessels will be covered by the VGP. Including the ballast 

water and other discharge requirements, the economic impact analysis indicates that the best 

management practices in this permit would cost between $7.2 million and $23.0 million 

annually, relative to the 2008 VGP and current practice. EPA applied a cost-to-revenue test 

which calculates annualized pre-tax compliance cost as a percentage of total revenues and used a 

threshold of 1 and 3 % to identify entities that would be significantly impacted as a result of this 

Permit. See EPA’s Economic Analysis (US EPA, 2011a) prepared for this permit for further 

discussion. Based on this analysis, EPA concludes that the BAT limits in this permit are unlikely 

to result in a substantial economic impact on businesses of any size, and, in particular, small 

businesses. Hence, EPA interprets this analysis to indicate that the BAT limits are economically 

achievable. The economic analysis is available on EPA’s webpage at 

www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels and in the docket for this permit. 

Page 53 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Additionally, the discharge location limitation is economically practical and achievable, 

since discharging in one location versus another will add no or little additional cost. The only 

potential costs are an increase in fuel consumption from carrying additional volumes of effluent 

rather than discharging the effluent immediately when generated. EPA expects these incremental 

costs associated with this permit to be small relative to total operating costs. EPA’s information 

in the record does indicate, however, that it is possible and economically practicable and 

achievable to minimize graywater and some additional discharges in waters federally protected 

wholly or in part for conservation purposes. Therefore, under EPA’s authority to consider “other 

factors the Administrator deems appropriate,” it is reasonable to focus the limitations on certain 

discharge types that would have the most environmental significance. In addition, this restriction 

is alternatively and independently based on EPA’s authority under CWA section 403(c). 

Requirements have Acceptable Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

In addition, EPA has considered the non-water quality environmental impacts, including 

energy impacts, of the controls required under this permit and finds that they are acceptable. 

EPA anticipates that the requirements of this permit may result in marginal increase in fuel usage 

for vessels that must treat graywater to standards in Part 5 of the permit, or must limit the 

discharge location of certain waste streams and transport them into a different receiving water or 

hold them for discharge onshore. Additionally, owner/operators of vessels may generate more 

sludge or other waste that may need to be disposed of properly onshore. EPA expects that most 

permit requirements will result in few non-water quality impacts because, in many cases, the 

permit is reflective of practices currently being implemented by owner/operators. 

Data Sources 

As described more fully throughout this fact sheet, EPA finds that today’s final permit 

contains technology-based controls that represent the BPT, BCT or BAT levels of control. 

In developing these non-numeric effluent limits, EPA considered data from numerous 

peer reviewed publications, literature produced by the federal government, other technical 

reports and publications, public comments, and comments from experts working in the field 

(e.g., Albert et al., 2010, CSLC, 2010; Dobroski et al., 2009; Dobroski et al., 2011; Endresen et 

al., 2004; Environmental Law Institute, 2004; Gracki et al., 2002; Gray et al., 2007; Gregg & 

Hallegraeff, 2007; Lamb, 2004; Lee et al., 2010; Lloyds Register, 2010; Locke et al., 1993; 

McCollin et al., 2007; NAS, 2011; Orange County Coastkeeper, 2007; Quilez-Badia et al., 2008; 

Raikow et al., 2007; Schiff et al., 2004; Tamburri et al., 2002; US EPA, 1999, 2001a, b, 2008a, 

2010a, 2011). The data sources from which EPA derived information for decision-making 

purposes are included in the docket for the final permit and/or referenced in this fact sheet. These 

data sources discuss, among other things, vessel discharge types, BMPs available for these 

discharge types, and the effectiveness of given BMPs or behavioral practices.

Page 54 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

4.3. TECHNOLOGY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS IN THE PERMIT

4.3.1 General Effluent Limits (Part 2.1)

The general effluent limits are designed to apply to all covered vessels for all covered 

discharge types present on a particular vessel. These effluent limits are generally preventative in 

nature and are designed to minimize the discharge of pollutants from a vessel. Owner/operators 

are ultimately responsible for ensuring that all required effluent limits are implemented.

As discussed above, these technology-based effluent limits apply to all covered vessels 

and were developed using BPJ. These general technology-based effluent limits were established 

based on available and relevant information, including available technical data, existing statutes 

and regulations, statistical industry information, and research studies cited in the references 

section of this permit. 

4.3.1.1 Material Storage (Part 2.1.1) 

Any materials, whether cargo or for use onboard the vessel, that may be exposed to 

precipitation, surface water spray, or wind can potentially be discharged on their own or become 

part of other waste streams. Materials that may not be considered toxic in small concentrations 

could pose an environmental threat if significant amounts are washed overboard, particularly in 

shallow or impaired waters. 

Therefore, the permit requires that all vessel operators practice good environmental 

stewardship by minimizing any exposure of cargo or onboard materials that may result in 

releases of contaminants to the environment. This can be accomplished by containerizing or 

tarping materials, and generally limiting any exposure of these materials to wind, rain, or spray. 

In addition, if water draining from the storage area comes into contact with any oily materials, 

except for naturally occurring fish oils from fishing gear stored on deck, the permit requires 

measures to prevent the oil from being discharged in harmful quantities (pursuant to Parts 2.1.1 

and 2.1.4 of the Permit). 

EPA believes that while specific numeric limitations on toxic substances are not feasible 

for this potential source of pollutants, sound marine practices should be sufficient to reduce most 

accidental or incidental discharges of cargo or stored materials. EPA also believes that emphasis 

on training and educating vessel crew on the use and environmental benefits of these practices 

should be standard practice. 

4.3.1.2 Toxic and Hazardous Materials (Part 2.1.2) 

The presence or use of toxic and hazardous materials may be necessary for the operation 

of vessels. As part of the permit’s requirements, these materials must be properly contained to 

avoid contamination of the discharges covered by this permit. EPA has recommended human 

health and marine aquatic life criteria for a few toxic pollutants, but requiring numeric effluent 

limitations and corresponding sampling and analysis of discharges for all potentially harmful 

contaminants is not a reasonable option for this permit since discharges would be accidental in 

nature and the preventive requirements are just as effective as numeric limits at controlling such 

discharges. These provisions should effectively prevent the discharge of these toxic and 

Page 55 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

hazardous materials from storage, spills, and containment. EPA believes that preventing the 

release of these substances to the environment is the appropriate environmental protection 

strategy. Vessel owner/operators are required to ensure that toxic and hazardous substances are 

treated in a manner that prevents releases due to precipitation or surface water spray. Just as EPA 

requires of land-based industries, vessels must store, label, and secure toxic and hazardous 

materials in suitable, sealed containers.

4.3.1.3 Fuel Spills/Overflows (Part 2.1.3) 

Even small amounts of spilled fuel can contaminate large areas of water, making it 

uninhabitable for plants and animals. Most small spills can be prevented by taking basic 

precautions when filling fuel tanks. The permit requires vessel operators to implement these 

precautions that will prevent or, in the case of a spill, contain any fuel that is released to surface 

waters (e.g. use of booms). The discharge of any fuel spill or overflow may result in a discharge 

that may be harmful as defined by 40 CFR Part 110, which includes those discharges that cause a 

visible sheen. In addition, any larger scale fuel spill or overflow is not incidental to the normal 

operation of a vessel and therefore, not authorized by this permit. Through proper fueling 

operations and training on spill treatment, vessel operators may reduce impacts caused by human 

error or improper equipment use. EPA recognizes that fueling operations for large vessels are 

very different from fueling operations on small boats, and often large vessels will carry onboard 

several smaller vessels used as lifeboats, tenders, or rescue boats. Therefore, there are additional 

requirements for fueling of auxiliary vessels such as lifeboats, tenders, or rescue boats that are 

deployed from “host” vessels subject to the permit. These requirements include examining the 

surrounding area for the presence of a visible sheen during fueling, taking immediate and 

appropriate corrective actions if a sheen is observed as a result of the permittee’s fueling 

operations, and using an oil absorbent material or other appropriate device while fueling to catch 

drips from vent overflow and fuel intake. Also, vessel owner/operators must regularly inspect the 

fuel and hydraulic systems for any damages or leaks, for instance during fueling, when 

performing routine maintenance on the auxiliary vessel, and/or during deployments for testing. 

These simple steps can prevent fuel spills and overflows that would lead to a discharge and 

minimize the impact of any fuel spills or overflows that do occur. These requirements have been 

adapted from EPA’s previously proposed Recreational Vessel General Permit. 

4.3.1.4 Discharges of Oil, Including Oily Mixtures (Part 2.1.4) 

Discharges of oil, including oily mixtures, can significantly impact aquatic and terrestrial 

organisms and their ecosystems. When oil, including oily mixtures, is discharged in small 

quantities, aquatic ecosystems have limited ability to assimilate, oxidize, degrade, and destroy 

many of the hydrocarbons present in oil. However, when discharged in significant quantities 

from a single vessel, or in moderate quantities from numerous vessels, oil releases have been 

documented to create severe environmental impacts.

The permit requires that any oil, including oily mixtures, other than those exempted in 40 

CFR 110.5, may not be discharged in quantities that may be harmful. These requirements are 

consistent with section 311 of the CWA and reinforce the requirement that discharges from the 

internal portions of vessels may not result in discharges of oil in quantities likely to impact 

aquatic ecosystems. The visible sheen test was chosen as an approach to determine whether oil is 

Page 56 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

being discharged in quantities that may be harmful, because the visible sheet test is easy to use 

and is consistent with existing CWA requirements.

4.3.1.5 Compliance with Other Statutes and Regulations Applicable to Vessel Discharges 

(Part 2.1.5) 

These effluent limits contain the requirement to comply with other applicable statutes and 

regulations dealing with vessel 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 that have 

considerable expertise in vessel management. Furthermore, many of the BMPs 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. 

Some of 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 comprehensive reiterations; rather, they are short 

summaries designed to inform owner/operators of the existence of these authorities. The actual 

statutes and regulations implementing these authorities are the legally binding conditions for the 

permit.

MARPOL, APPS, and Implementing Regulations 

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 

73/78) is an international treaty that regulates certain discharges from vessels. Annexes to 

MARPOL regulate different types of vessel pollution; the United States is a Party to Annexes I, 

II, III, V, and VI. MARPOL is primarily implemented in the U.S. by the Act to Prevent Pollution 

from Ships (APPS), 33 U.S.C.1901 et seq. The U.S. Coast Guard is the lead agency for APPS 

implementation and has issued implementing regulations primarily found at 33 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. 

Substances regulated as “noxious liquid substances” (NLS) under APPS are divided into 

4 categories based on their potential to harm marine resources and human health. See 33 CFR 

Page 57 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

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 U.S. by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 1994, 

as amended ( 49 U.S.C. 5901 et seq.) and regulations appearing at 46 CFR Part 148 and 49 CFR 

Part 176. That 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 Guard regulations 

that establish specifications for safe transportation, handling, carriage, and storage of pollutants. 

The permit incorporates this requirement in Parts 1.13 and 2.1.5. 

Oil Pollution 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 on board 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. 

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

Clean Water Act Section 311, Oil and Hazardous Substances Liability Act, states that it is 

the United States’ policy that there should be no discharges of oil or hazardous substances into 

waters of the U.S., adjoining shorelines, and certain specified areas, except where permitted 

under Federal regulations (e.g., the NPDES program). As such, the Act prohibits the discharge of 

oil or hazardous substances into these areas in such quantities as may be harmful. Further, the 

Act states that the President shall, by regulation, determine 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 

Page 58 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

of the water or upon adjoin 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.

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 U.S. ensuring that if pesticides are used in accordance with the specifications on the label, 

they will not cause unreasonable 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 review of the label and underlying science, and approval of the 

label, approved by the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 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. 

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 

qualities. Additional restrictions and requirements may be imposed on vessel owner/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/welcome.html. 

4.3.1.6 General Training 

The 2008 VGP outlined training requirements for owner/operators of specific vessel 

types, as identified in Part 5 of that permit. In order to clarify that broad instruction should be 

conducted to ensure that crews are adequately trained to implement all the terms of the VGP and 

operate all pollution prevention equipment on board, EPA has added general training as a new 

requirement of the 2013 VGP, pursuant to CWA section 402(a)(2), and 40 CFR 122.43(a) and 

other implementing regulations. For some vessels with existing Integrated Safety Management 

(ISM) plans, this may mean simply assuring those plans are consistent with the terms of the 

VGP, and that crews are aware of any other VGP requirements and how they must meet them. 

Others may require that the vessel chief engineer or Master read the permit and inform crew of 

their responsibilities. The general training requirement stipulates that all key personnel 

understand how to use key pollution prevention equipment; for example, if applicable, a master, 

Page 59 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

chief engineer, and/or any key staff must understand how to properly operate and maintain an 

onboard ballast water treatment system as applicable. In addition, all owner/operators of vessels 

must ensure appropriate vessel personnel be trained in the procedures for responding to fuel 

spills and overflows, including notification of appropriate vessel personnel, emergency response 

agencies, and regulatory agencies. For vessels with less developed management systems, training 

may be more extensive, and could require environmental managers or others instructing crews on 

how to implement the permit and assure that terms of the permit are met. This permit does not 

require that vessel owner/operators provide any formal training, such as one of the many 

privately developed VGP training courses. However, for some vessel owner/operators, use of 

such courses might be an efficient and cost effective manner to provide training which will assist 

in ensuring that the terms of the permit are adequately implemented onboard their vessels.

Vessel owner/operators must outline their training plans in their recordkeeping 

documentation to show they have made good faith efforts to assure their crews can adequately 

maintain and use pollution prevention equipment and otherwise meet the terms of this permit. 

4.4. EFFLUENT LIMITS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC DISCHARGE CATEGORIES 

(PART 2.2) 

4.4.1 Deck Washdown and Runoff Including Above Water Line Hull Cleaning (Part 

2.2.1) 

Constituents of deck runoff and above water line hull cleaning may include oil, grease, 

cleaner or detergent residue, paint chips, paint droplets, and general debris (e.g., paper, wire). 

Discharge rates for deck runoff vary from vessel to vessel and depend on weather, deck 

machinery, deck operations, and frequency of deck washdowns. It is infeasible to set specific 

numeric effluent limits for discharges of deck runoff due to variation in vessel size and 

associated deck surface area, types of equipment operated on the deck, and limitations on space 

for treatment equipment. Instead, the permit requires that vessel operators minimize discharges 

from deck runoff and implement BMPs to reduce their potential impact. 

BMPs for controlling deck runoff and above water line hull cleaning are associated with 

(a) containing potential contaminants to keep them from entering the waste stream, (b) properly 

maintaining the deck and bulkhead areas to prevent excess corrosion, leaks, and metal 

discharges, and (c) using environmentally safe products for cleaning deck areas. Because it 

would be extremely difficult if not impossible to safely hold or treat all deck runoff for all vessel 

designs at all times, EPA is not requiring deck runoff to be collected and treated before discharge 

from all vessels. Requiring vessel owner/operators to collect deck runoff could either require 

major vessel modification of the ship’s structure and machinery or could compromise the safety 

and stability of the vessel. Many vessels are designed to quickly discharge deck runoff as an 

operational necessity. 

EPA is requiring that deck runoff be collected during certain times such as during or after 

fueling operations, when spills occur, or when required by a vessel’s class society.9 EPA is also 

requiring that vessel operators minimize contamination of deck runoff discharges by debris, 

9 A vessel’s class society establishes technical standards related to the design, construction, and survey of a vessel. 

Page 60 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

garbage, and chemical spills (e.g., grease, fuel, hydraulic fluid, caustics, detergents). EPA is also 

requiring that the vessel owner/operator maintain the topside surface of the deck in a manner 

consistent with good marine practice that prevents excess discharge of metals and oils from 

eroding metals and deteriorating pipes, coamings, and other topside infrastructure. When 

machinery is located on deck, the use of drip pans when feasible will collect spilled oil and allow 

the vessel owner/operator to prevent its discharge. When required by their class societies (e.g., 

tank barges), vessels must be fitted with and use perimeter spill rails and scuppers to collect the 

runoff for treatment. In addition, if washing down the deck will result in a discharge, the 

washdown must be conducted with minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable cleaners 

and detergents, as those terms are defined in Part 7 of the permit. EPA expects that minimallytoxic cleaners and detergents will contain little to no nonylphenols. The purpose of this 

requirement is to minimize the discharge of caustic and potentially toxic detergents and solvents 

into waters subject to this permit. Phosphorus is one of the drivers of eutrophication or 

hypereutrophication, which is one of the major causes of impairment to waters of the United 

States. Toxic materials interfere with aquatic organisms and can contribute to chronic or acute 

effects, including death. Additionally, EPA is requiring that permittees must minimize residual 

paint droplets from entering waters subject to this permit whenever they are conducting 

maintenance painting. EPA is also requiring that discharges of deck runoff are consistent with all 

other relevant laws. EPA believes that adhering to these requirements will reduce the discharge 

of these potentially environmentally harmful substances. Finally, EPA has clarified in the 2013 

VGP that before deck washdowns may occur, vessel owner/operators must broom clean exposed 

decks or use comparable management measures to remove all existing debris, and that vessel 

owner/operators may use the “equivalent” of broom cleaning as vessel owner/operators may use 

other methods to reduce debris on their decks. Though fundamentally similar to the requirements 

in the 2008 VGP, these requirements clarify that vessel owner/operators are expected to use 

obvious management measures to prevent the introduction of garbage or other debris into any 

waste stream. 

4.4.2 Bilgewater (Part 2.2.2) 

Bilgewater is an accumulation of water from various sources across the entire vessel. 

Constituents include oil, grease, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, inorganic salts, 

and metals. Volumes vary with the size of the vessel, and discharges typically occur several 

times per week. Cruise ship volumes have been estimated at 25,000 gallons per week for a 3,000 

passenger/crew vessel (US EPA, 2008a). 

Conditions in the 2008 VGP applicable to oily bilge water discharges from vessels are 

based on Annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 

1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78). Under Annex I to MARPOL, all 

ships over 400 gross tons (GT) are required to have equipment installed onboard that limits the 

discharge of oil into the oceans to 15 ppm when a ship is en route. All vessels over 400 GT are 

also required to have an oil content monitor (OCM), including a bilge alarm, integrated into the 

piping system to detect whether the treated bilge water that is being discharged from the bilge 

separator meets the discharge requirements. Some countries have bilge discharge requirements 

that are stricter than the international 15 ppm standard. For example, the Canadian Regulations 

for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and for Dangerous Chemicals requires 5 ppm bilge 

alarms for Canadian-flagged vessels which discharge treated bilgewater on the Great Lakes.

Page 61 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Bilge separators, oil content meters and bilge alarms are certified by the Coast Guard to 

meet 46 CFR 162 (MARPOL Annex I implementing regulations). Type approval is based on 

testing of manufacturer-supplied oil pollution control equipment by an independent laboratory, in 

accordance with test conditions prescribed by the Coast Guard (33 CFR 155 and 157 and 46 CFR 

162). In order to be consistent with International Maritime Organization (IMO) resolution 

MEPC.108(49), the measurement of oil (petroleum products or hydrocarbon, HC) in bilge 

separator effluent can be analyzed using ISO method 9377-2:200010 or equivalent. Alternatively, 

vessel owner/operators may use EPA method 1664. 

Additional treatment stages (unit operations) are often added to bilge separators to better 

clean (“polish”) bilge water to comply with current and potential future discharge standards (Sun 

et al., 2009; Caplan et al., 2000). In addition to providing greater overall reduction in bilge oil 

concentrations, the addition of treatment stages makes bilge separators more reliable by 

providing some redundancy to withstand problems or failure of individual stages. Including one 

or more polishing steps is an added cost to the operation of a ship; however, onboard bilge 

separation is typically more economical than holding all oily bilge water for transfer and 

subsequent treatment on shore (Ghidossi et al., 2009). 

Bilgewater treatment technologies are also capable of removing other pollutants from 

bilge water. For example, Tomaszewska et al. (2005) found that ultrafiltration was effective in 

removing turbidity and suspended solids, organic carbon, and several trace metals (Al, Fe and 

Zn) from bilge water, in addition to oil. 

As discussed more fully below, the 2013 VGP maintains most of the best management 

practices and numeric limits contained in the 2008 VGP. 

4.4.2.1 Bilgewater Requirements 

Vessel operators are required to minimize bilgewater generation by practicing proper 

maintenance of vessels and equipment. Routine cleaning and maintenance activities associated 

with vessel equipment and structures are considered to be normal operation of a vessel. 

However, EPA notes that the addition of substances not associated with the normal operation of 

a vessel to the bilgewater is not allowed. 

EPA believes this reduction in the volume of waste will reduce the need for vessels to 

discharge treated bilgewater to waters of the U.S. EPA also recognizes that onshore disposal is 

not always a feasible alternative for larger vessels. As part of the permit, bilgewater discharges 

must adhere to all requirements under 40 CFR Parts 110, 116, and 117 and 33 CFR Part 151.10. 

These limitations are achievable with use of oily-water separators or use of a segregated bilge 

system. Large vessels generally must have onboard oily-water separation capabilities or hold 

their bilge for onshore disposal. Smaller vessels must also demonstrate that the discharge of 

bilgewater is sufficiently clean by conducting a visual sheen observation prior to and at the time 

of discharge. EPA has utilized the visual sheen test as a reliable indicator as to whether oil, 

including oily mixtures, is not being discharged in quantities that may be harmful.

10 This analytical method is “Water quality -- Determination of hydrocarbon oil index -- Part 2: Method using 

solvent extraction and gas chromatography.”

Page 62 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

All vessels greater than 400 gross tons which discharge bilgewater into waters subject to 

this permit must be equipped with an oil discharge monitoring system that monitors the 

discharge of oily bilge water into waters subject to this permit. These vessels must also be 

equipped with an overboard discharge control unit that automatically initiates the sequence to 

stop the overboard discharge of the effluent in alarm conditions and prevents the discharge 

throughout the period the alarm condition prevails. The overboard discharge control unit must be 

designed to receive automatic signals of oil content of the effluent, measured as ppm, from the 

oil content meter. 

Each oil content meter and each control section of an oil discharge monitoring system 

must be subjected to a functional test that includes the operations listed in 33 CFR § 157.12f and 

is conducted as outlined in 46 CFR § subpart 162.050 on a suitable test bench prior to delivery. 

The detailed program for a functional test of such equipment must be developed by the 

manufacturer, taking into account the features and functions of the specific design of equipment 

and the types of oils that will be monitored. A completed workshop certificate, including the 

delivery functional test protocol, must be received with each unit delivered. A copy of the 

certificate must be carried aboard the vessel at all times. 

Routine maintenance of the monitoring system and troubleshooting procedures must be 

clearly defined in the oil discharge monitoring system’s Operating and Maintenance Manual kept 

onboard the vessel. All maintenance activities related to the bilge water monitoring system and 

overboard discharge control unit must be recorded and the information must remain on board for 

inspection purposes. In addition, vessel staff training must include familiarization with the 

operation and maintenance of the bilgewater overboard discharge control and oil discharge 

monitoring equipment. 

If the vessel operator does not treat bilgewater with an oily-water separator, or it cannot 

be assured that the bilgewater will not cause a sheen on the surface of the receiving water, the 

bilgewater must be held onboard for onshore disposal. Vessel operators may not use dispersants, 

detergents, emulsifiers, chemicals, or any other substances to remove the appearance of a visible 

sheen. This requirement does not prohibit the use of these materials in machinery spaces for the 

purposes of maintaining or cleaning equipment. 

The permit has additional BMPs for bilgewater that focus on where vessels may or may 

not discharge bilgewater. For instance, vessels that regularly leave waters subject to the permit 

(at least once per month), and are more than 400 gross tons, may not discharge treated or 

untreated bilgewater while stationary. In addition, vessels that regularly leave waters subject to 

the permit may not discharge treated bilgewater within 1 nm of shore if it is technologically 

feasible to hold it. In this context, technological feasibility includes consideration of operational 

constraints. It is EPA’s understanding that many existing large vessels do not generate significant 

quantities of bilgewater and should have sufficient holding capacity. 

In those cases where a vessel does not have the capacity to hold bilgewater generated in 

waters subject to this permit or where bilgewater is causing a general safety or stability concern 

or could enter a hold and contaminate cargo, or otherwise interfere with essential operations of 

the vessel, EPA would not consider holding the bilgewater to be technologically feasible. In 

these cases, even though the discharge is permitted (but must be recorded and reported), EPA 

Page 63 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

believes that the permit will still limit the cumulative discharges of all vessels in an area 

collectively. The cumulative impact of numerous vessels releasing bilgewater in nearshore, 

estuarine environments or in waters with limited circulation can be of concern. Hence, this 

provision is included to limit the discharge of pollutants in areas where vessels are more likely to 

be concentrated, where the cumulative impact of discharges is likely to be higher, and in 

ecosystems that are already stressed and unlikely to have additional assimilative capacity. 

Vessels can then discharge the bilgewater, provided it meets all applicable laws, in waters that 

are likely to have greater assimilative capacity or where vessel traffic is not as concentrated, or 

the vessel can hold the bilgewater for proper onshore disposal. Other provisions limiting the 

location or manner in which bilgewater is discharged are based on a similar rationale. 

4.4.2.2 EPA’s Exploration as to Whether to Include More Stringent Bilgewater Management 

Requirements for New Build Vessels and Whether to Provide Existing Vessels with 

Additional Bilgewater Management Options 

When the Agency published the draft 2013 VGP for comment, EPA specifically sought 

comment on whether to include a more stringent bilgewater management regime for new vessels 

and whether to provide existing vessels with additional bilgewater management options in the 

final 2013 VGP. EPA had researched the state of bilgewater treatment systems (US EPA, 2011b) 

and believed that a targeted reduction in the bilgewater effluent limit to 5 ppm oil and grease in 

U.S. waters might have been appropriate, as technology meeting such a limit appeared to be

available for all vessels and economically achievable for at least new build vessels. However, 

EPA is not finalizing this option in today’s permit due to concerns that have been raised 

regarding implementation that call into question whether these systems are, in practice, 

“available” and actually function onboard ships as their type approval data indicate they 

otherwise should. 

EPA received a variety of comments on whether to include a 5 ppm limit, and those 

comments generally made three major assertions: 

1) Before imposing requirements in the US, EPA should work with the international 

community at IMO to explore whether to have more stringent limits for new build 

vessels,

2) EPA should seek additional information as to whether systems do, in fact, continue to 

perform as indicated in their type approval data when actually on board ships, and 

3) Type approved systems capable of meeting a 5 ppm limit are available.

Although EPA is not today adopting the 5 ppm option, as suggested in public comment, 

EPA plans to work with our international partners at the IMO to explore whether systems and 

alarms that do actually perform at 5 ppm are available in the marketplace. Working at IMO to 

obtain broad international acceptance of a 5 ppm limit would increase the economic achievability

by providing a more widespread international market for such systems and broad international 

acceptance of, and type-approval testing to, the 5 ppm standard. 

Page 64 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

4.4.2.2.3 Annual Bilgewater Monitoring for New Build Vessels

When EPA published the draft permit for comment, EPA also sought comment on 

approaches for the monitoring of bilgewater discharges that would improve our understanding of 

that discharge and determine compliance with numeric limits. Based on the comments received 

on that proposal, EPA has finalized a modified, reduced monitoring regime from that in the draft 

VGP for new build vessels (built on or after December 19, 2013). EPA believes gathering this 

information is necessary to help inform the Agency about how systems actually perform onboard 

vessels and to help better characterize which vessels are actually discharging in waters subject to 

this permit. These data will help inform future regulatory decision making in addition to assisting 

the Agency in better understanding how vessels are meeting the 2013 VGP’s existing permit 

terms.

In the proposed 2013 VGP, EPA sought comment on a monitoring regime that would 

require 5 sampling events for initial analytical monitoring and maintenance monitoring once per 

year for new build vessels greater than 400 gross tons planning to discharge bilgewater in waters 

subject to this permit. These draft requirements were being considered to assure that oily water 

separator systems were, in fact, regularly achieving their 5 ppm limit, the limit on which the 

Agency sought comment but decided not to impose in today’s final permit (see discussion in 

Section 4.4.2.2). Although the Agency did not adopt the more stringent limit, EPA continues to 

believe that annual bilgewater monitoring information from new vessels as discussed in the draft 

VGP fact sheet would provide valuable information to the Agency in determining future 

requirements for bilgewater discharges. As described in the 2011 technical development 

document on oily water separators (US EPA, 2011b) and earlier in this fact sheet, though EPA 

believes many oily water separators are able to achieve their design limit (15 ppm or 5 ppm 

depending on the system) in the type approval setting, EPA is also aware that performance 

during operation can be variable. In some cases, systems may actually perform better than their 

manufacturers claim. In others, field conditions such as improper maintenance or other 

operational challenges in the marine environment can result in underperformance. Hence, EPA 

has finalized this revised monitoring regime in the 2013 final VGP to help the Agency and 

shipping industry stakeholders better understand how oily water seperator systems are actually 

performing. In the interest of encouraging the use of the most advanced and effective 

technologies, EPA has also included a reduced frequency monitoring incentive for those vessels 

who demonstrate their oil and grease discharge is below 5 ppm on at least two consecutive 

sampling events. 

Analytical Monitoring 

Annually, new build vessels greater than 400 gross tons which discharge bilgewater into 

waters subject to this permit must collect a sample of the bilgewater effluent for analysis of oil 

by Method ISO 9377-2 (2000) Water Quality–Determination of hydrocarbon oil index–Part 2: 

Method Using Solvent Extraction and Gas Chromatography (incorporation by reference, see 46 

CFR § 162.050–4) or EPA Method 1664 to demonstrate treatment equipment maintenance and 

compliance with this permit. At the time of sample collection, the reading on the oil content 

meter will be recorded so the oil concentration measured by the laboratory can be compared to 

the oil content meter. The monitoring may be conducted during the vessel’s renewal survey or 

during the course of normal operations, at the discretion of the vessel owner/operator. 

Page 65 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

In addition, an annual test of the oil discharge monitoring system alarm functions and the 

electronic-valve switching function must also be performed onboard the vessel to verify they will 

activate when the oil concentration measured by the oil content meter is greater than regulatory 

limits

A vessel owner operator may cease conducting analytical monitoring if the following 

conditions are met: 

• A vessel which has an oil discharge monitoring system that has been type 

approved by any flag administration to a 5 ppm standard or has an alarm and 

overboard discharge control unit which prevents the discharge of any bilgewater 

with an oil content of greater than 5 ppm oil and grease; 

• The analytical monitoring results are below 5 ppm oil and grease for two 

consecutive years of permit coverage; and 

• The vessel only discharges bilgewater when the oil content monitor reads below 5 

ppm oil and grease. 

If a vessel has not met the above conditions, that vessel owner/operator must conduct 

annual analytical bilgewater monitoring for each year of permit coverage.

Records of the sampling and testing results must be retained onboard for a period of 3 

years in the vessel’s recordkeeping documentation. Records of monitoring information shall 

include: 

• The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements, and any meter 

recalibration;

• The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements, and any meter 

recalibration;

• The date(s) analyses and any meter recalibration were performed;

• The individual(s) who performed the analyses and any meter recalibration; 

• The techniques or methods used for sample analyses and any meter recalibration; and 

• The results of such analyses and any meter recalibration.

Monitoring Reporting 

The vessel owner/operator must submit data showing that the bilgewater standards are 

achieved by their oil discharge monitoring system to EPA’s e-reporting system, unless they meet 

one of the exceptions to electronic reporting found in Part 1.14 of this permit. Monitoring data 

must be submitted at least once per calendar year no later than February 28 of the year after the 

data are collected. Data may be submitted as part of the vessel’s annual report

Page 66 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

4.4.2.2.4 Why EPA included Annual Monitoring for New Build Vessels

As discussed above, EPA sought comment on whether vessels greater than 400 gross tons 

electing to discharge bilgewater in waters subject to this permit should complete additional 

monitoring requirements to periodically assure the accuracy of their oil content monitor. Vessels 

must be equipped with an oil discharge monitoring system that monitors the discharge of oily 

bilge water into waters subject to this permit. Vessels must also be equipped with an overboard 

discharge control unit that automatically initiates the sequence to stop the overboard discharge of 

the effluent in alarm condition and prevents the discharge throughout the period the alarm 

condition prevails. The control unit must be designed to receive automatic signals of oil content 

of the effluent, measured as ppm, from the oil content meter. EPA incorporated the modified 

monitoring requirements to gain a better understanding of the state of bilgewater treatment 

onboard vessels. The monitoring methods rely on both analytical methods and the vessels 

existing oil content meters and monitoring conditions based upon readily available and generally 

accepted methods. Additionally, by allowing vessel owner/operators to cease monitoring if they 

have results below 5 ppm for two consecutive years, the Agency is providing an incentive to 

those vessel owner operators which invest in advanced technology and maintain it appropriately. 

EPA has estimated the additional cost associated with analytical monitoring in the economic 

analysis accompanying this permit, and found that the costs of monitoring are economically 

achievable for new build vessels electing to discharge bilgewater within waters subject to permit. 

Please see US EPA (2011a) for additional discussion regarding the costs of these permit 

conditions. 

4.4.3 Ballast Water (Part 2.2.3) 

Technology-Based Effluent Limitations 

In today’s permit, EPA has finalized new, more stringent numeric technology-based 

effluent limitations to replace the non-numeric limitations in the 2008 VGP for ballast water. 

These changes will achieve significant reductions in the number of living organisms discharged 

via ballast water into waters subject to this permit. EPA has set the numeric effluent limit for 

ballast water as numbers of living organisms per cubic meter discharged (i.e., as a maximum 

acceptable concentration) because reducing the concentration of living organisms will reduce 

inoculum densities of potential invasive species discharged in a vessel’s ballast water. As part of 

today’s permit, EPA has also established discharge limitations for certain biocides and residuals 

(expressed as an instantaneous maximum). 

EPA’s SAB (2011) recommended that EPA not solely rely on numeric standards for 

ballast water discharges, in particular that:

 “...EPA adopt a risk-based approach to minimize the impacts of invasive species in 

vessel ballast water discharge rather than relying solely on numeric standards for 

discharges from shipboard BWMS. The Panel found that insufficient attention has been 

given to integrated sets of practices and technologies that could be used to systematically 

advance ballast water management. These practices include managing ballast uptake to 

reduce the presence of invasive species, reducing invasion risk through operational 

adjustments and changes in ship design to reduce or eliminate the need for ballast water, 

Page 67 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

development of voyage-based risk and/or hazard assessments, and treatment of ballast 

water in onshore reception facilities.” (EPA SAB, 2011) 

Consistent with this recommendation, EPA has included some of the management 

practices referenced above in the permit and continues to explore other integrated approaches to 

managing ballast water risk reduction. 

Vessel owner/operators subject to the concentration-based numeric treatment limit may 

meet their obligations in one of four ways: discharge treated ballast water meeting the applicable 

numeric limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP; transfer of the ship’s ballast water to a third party 

(which may be onshore or on another vessel such as a treatment barge); use of treated 

municipal/potable water as ballast water; or by not discharging ballast water. In addition, vessels 

enrolled in, and meeting the requirements of the US Coast Guard’s Shipboard Technology 

Evaluation Program (STEP), are deemed to be compliant with the permit requirements for ballast 

water treatment.

Ballast water typically consists of ambient water taken onboard to maintain vessel draft, 

trim, stability, and stresses, regardless of how it is carried. Large commercial vessels (e.g., 

container ships, bulk carriers, other cargo vessels, tankers, and passenger vessels) normally have 

ballast tanks dedicated to this purpose and some vessels may also put ballast water in empty 

cargo holds. The discharge rate and constituent concentrations of ballast water will vary by 

vessel type, ballast tank capacity, quality of and constituents contained in the ambient source 

waters, efficacy of any treatment applied to the discharge of ballast water, type of deballasting 

equipment, and other factors. Volumes of ballast water discharged are significant and can range 

from several hundred to many thousands of cubic meters of water. For instance, large passenger 

vessels (cruise ships) have a representative ballast capacity of about 3,000 cubic meters (about 

790,000 gallons) while ultra-large crude carriers (ULCCs) have a representative ballast capacity 

of about 95,000 cubic meters (about 25 million gallons) (ABS, 2010). Some vessels, such as 

small water ferries, may have as little as 5 cubic meters (about 1321 gallons) of ballast water.

Ballast water discharge has been cited as one of the primary sources (or vectors) for the 

spread of aquatic invasive species, also known as aquatic nuisance species (ANS) (Carlton, 

1985; Carlton and Geller, 1993; Gollasch et al., 2002; Kasyan, 2010). These species can enter 

new aquatic environments when the vessel operator discharges from ballast water tanks. These 

organisms may also be released when vessel operators load ballast water into ballast tanks with 

existing residual water or sediment, mixing the new ballast water with the residual water and 

sediment, which may contain viable living organisms and organisms in resting stages, then later 

discharge this mixed effluent. When species in ballast tanks are transported between waterbodies 

and discharged, they have the potential for establishing new, non-indigenous populations that can 

cause severe economic and ecological impacts. The permit includes technology-based numeric 

limitations and other provisions to limit the concentrations of potentially viable organisms that 

are released into potentially receptive aquatic habitats. 

ANS cause substantial environmental and economic harm to the United States. Well 

known examples of ANS or pathogens that have been introduced to U.S. waters include Chinese 

mitten crab, European green crab, hydrilla, European loosestrife, Eurasian water milfoil, round 

goby, melaluca, salt cedar, Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS), and zebra mussels. For 

Page 68 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

additional information on the impacts of ANS introduced via ballast water discharges, refer to 

some of the numerous studies and reports that have been completed and are available in the 

docket for today’s permit (Bolch & Salas, 2007; Dobbs et al., 2006; Doblin et al., 2007; Drake & 

Lodge, 2007; Drake et al., 2007; Endresen et al., 2004; Knight et al., 1999; M.G.G. et al., 2003; 

NAS, 2011; Reynolds et al., 1999; Roman, 2006; Ruiz et al., 2000a; Ruiz et al., 2000b; Smayda, 

2007; US EPA, 2001; Zo et al., 1999). For additional information on the impact of aquatic 

nuisance species, refer to section 3.4.1 of this fact sheet and the economic analysis available in 

the docket for today’s permit. 

4.4.3.1 Training 

As a requirement of this permit, the master, operator, person-in-charge, and crew 

members who actively take part in the management of ballast water must have a general 

understanding of ballast water systems on board vessels. Crew must be able to effectively 

implement all appropriate requirements laid out in a vessel’s ballast water management plan. For 

vessels which have a ballast water treatment system onboard, crew engaged in the active 

management of ballast water must understand how to operate and maintain ballast water 

equipment. Additionally, if the vessel crew will engage in sampling of any ballast water 

discharge streams, those crew must understand how to engage in proper sample collection, 

handling, and packaging. Thus, EPA is requiring that owner/operators maintain a written training 

plan, which describes the training provided to the vessel crew, as well as a record of the date on 

which that training was provided to each member of the crew. This can be in the form of a standalone training plan, can be incorporated into the vessel’s ballast water management plan, or other 

recordkeeping documentation as appropriate (provided the vessel’s crew can quickly point to this 

language for their use and purposes of inspection). The permit does not prescribe the appropriate 

level of detail of the written training plan; this should be determined by the permittee. In general, 

it need only be detailed enough to document that appropriate training is taking place. 

EPA included these requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(k), which requires EPA to 

impose best management practices when “reasonably necessary to achieve effluent limitations 

and standards or to carry out the purposes and intent of the CWA.” See also CWA section 

402(a)(2) and 40 CFR 122.43(a). The Agency believes that ballast water management is 

complex, and inadequately trained crew may not appropriately implement the ballast water 

requirements found in this permit, thereby increasing the risk that the effluent limits and 

standards of the permit will not be achieved. 

4.4.3.2 Ballast Water Management Plans 

All vessels equipped with ballast water tanks must have a ballast water management plan. 

US Coast Guard regulations also establish mandatory ballast water reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements (33 CFR 151.2041 and 151.2043), and also require vessels to have a ballast water 

management plan that is specific for that vessel and assigns responsibility to the master or 

appropriate official to understand and execute the ballast water management strategy for that 

vessel (33 CFR 151.2035(a)(7)). 

Like the 2008 VGP, this iteration of the VGP also requires that all vessel owner/operators 

maintain ballast water management plans as a requirement related to effluent limits. As part of 

Page 69 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

these plans, vessel owner/operators must document how they will meet the ballast water 

requirements contained in the VGP. 

EPA notes that the requirement to do such a plan is being imposed as “conditions to 

assure compliance” with effluent limitations under CWA§ 402(a)(2) and 40 CFR 122.43(a), and 

as practices “reasonably necessary to achieve effluent limitations and standards or to carry out 

the intents and purposes of the CWA,” per 40 CFR 122.44(k). 

4.4.3.3 Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices: Management Measures Required of 

all Vessel Owner/Operators 

As in the 2008 VGP, EPA has included, pursuant to 122.44(k), best management 

practices (BMPs) applicable to all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks that enter or operate 

within waters subject to this permit as technology-based effluent limits. EPA’s Science Advisory 

Board (2011) found that “insufficient attention has been given to integrated sets of practices and 

technologies that could be used to systematically advance ballast water management.” Hence, 

consistent with the recommendations of that panel, EPA has retained the current BMPs and 

developed additional management measures, both found in Part 2.2.3.3 of the VGP, which are 

designed to reduce the number of living organisms taken up in, and later discharged in, ballast 

water or to ensure that such discharges do not occur in known sensitive areas. Many of these 

measures are consistent with existing requirements found in the 2008 VGP and US Coast Guard 

regulations (found at 33 CFR 151, Subparts C and D), and therefore, are widely followed 

practices by the regulated community. The remainder are practices that EPA believes will be 

reasonably easy to implement. EPA thus finds these practices to be available and economically 

achievable. Additionally, EPA notes that the discharge of ballast water in critical habitat should 

be avoided when feasible, consistent with the advice offered to EPA by NMFS and FWS during 

EPA’s consultation with those two federal resource agencies. The list of critical habitat can be 

found at: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/; and 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/criticalhabitat.htm. 

Examples of these BMPs include avoiding or minimizing ballast water uptake in areas 

recognized as having a high potential to contain harmful organisms, only discharging the 

minimum amounts of ballast water necessary in coastal and internal waters, and regularly 

cleaning ballast water tanks to remove sediment. When achievable, vessel operators should not 

take up 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) and instead use internal ballasting. In these areas, it may be achievable for 

vessel owner/operators to 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. Additionally, when feasible, vessel 

owner/operators must deballast using their pumps rather than gravity draining their tanks unless 

they meet the limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the permit. This is because pumps cause increased 

mortality among living organisms, particularly zooplankton and other larger organisms, that 

might otherwise be discharged (due to among other things, cavitation, entrainment, and/or 

impingement. 

Page 70 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Like the 2008 VGP, today’s permit does not authorize the discharge of sediments from 

the cleaning of ballast tanks. Hence, the discharge of sediment removed from tanks by cleaning 

operations into waters subject to this permit, including the discharge of sediments suspended as a 

result of ballast tank cleaning, are prohibited from being discharged into waters covered by this 

permit and must be disposed of in accordance with any applicable local, State, and Federal 

regulations. Regarding sediment disposal, vessel owner/operators may need to make 

arrangements for proper onshore disposal or arrangements to discharge sediment outside waters 

subject to this permit unless prohibited by statute or applicable law). Sediment could be removed 

when vessels are in port or while vessels are in drydock. Furthermore, because EPA did not 

authorize the discharge of sediments in the 2008 VGP, the Agency assumes that all vessel 

owner/operators are currently complying with these permit requirements. Based upon data 

submitted on vessel NOIs for the 2008 VGP, the vast majority of vessels discharge sediment 

from the cleaning of ballast tanks to either onshore facilities or when they are out of waters 

subject to this permit. See Table 2 below. 

Table 2: Ballast Water Sediment Disposal Methods by Vessel Types/Categories Based on 

NOI Data for the 2008 VGP (Data Current as of December 2010: Values are in Percent of 

Vessels for which a Response was Provided) 

Methods Barges

Oil and

Gas

Tankers

Comm.

Fishing

Large

Ferries

Large

Cruise

Ship

Med.

Cruise

Ship Research Emerg. Other

Onshore at 

shipyards via third 

party 78 37 81 50 72 49 55 84 70

Onshore/Landfill 0.2 4 0 2 0 0 2 4 0

Onshore and 

Offshore 0 19 0 0 10 13 7 4 7

Offshore/overboard 0.8 37 6 6 18 19 8 5 16

Not applicable/

No Ballast 21 3 13 42 0 19 28 3 7

Total # 

Respondents 6,950 2,521 123 62 97 16 74 56 8,529

EPA has not authorized the discharge of sediment from cleaning of ballast tanks for two 

primary reasons. First, sediment poses a risk for the further distribution of aquatic nuisance or 

invasive species. Organisms can survive in ballast sediment for prolonged periods in resting 

stages. Secondly, and of equal importance in the Great Lakes, sediment is a traditional pollutant 

which can be linked to violations of water quality standards. Sediment discharged in any 

significant quantities will increase turbidity, decrease the size of the photic zone, and result in 

increased benthic embeddedness. Though the sediment collected on the bottom of ballast tanks 

likely settled from waters drawn into the ballast tank, the characteristics of that sediment can be 

substantially altered from when it was taken onboard the vessel due to other constituents of 

ballast water and chemical changes in the ballast water tank. Furthermore, the sediment is not 

always from the same location or waters where the ballast water was taken onboard the vessel as 

the tanks are not completely emptied when ballast water is discharged. Therefore, EPA 

determined not to authorize the discharge of sediment from cleaning of ballast tanks anywhere in 

Page 71 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

waters subject to this permit including the Great Lakes. EPA believes it is feasible to remove 

accumulated sediments from ballast tanks without flushing them into waters subject to this 

permit, and has received not information suggesting that this requirement has posed a problem in 

complying with the 2008 VGP. 

4.4.3.4 Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices for “Lakers” 

In the 2011 Draft VGP, EPA had proposed that due to their special characteristics (see 

section 4.4.3.5.6.3 of Fact Sheet for the 2011 draft VGP), existing bulk carriers confined 

exclusively to the Great Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal (“Confined Lakers”) would not be 

required to meet the effluent (and related) limits in section 2.2.3.5 of the VGP during the term of 

the VGP. During the comment period on the draft VGP, the some commenters provided 

information demonstrating that vessels confined to the Great Lakes, but which operate beyond 

the Welland Canal, share such characteristics (e.g., high ballast water flow rates, short term 

voyages, uncoated ballast tanks, challenges of finding ballast water treatment systems suitable 

for freshwater, plus have even more confined space for fitting equipment), and thus should be 

treated the same as was proposed for “Confined Lakers.” In light of these comments, EPA has 

revised the final VGP to eliminate the confined vs. unconfined Laker distinction by adopting a 

definition of “Laker” to encompass existing bulk carriers that operate exclusively on the 

Laurentian Great Lakes, regardless of whether their operation is or is not beyond the Welland 

Canal. 

As a result, “Lakers” meeting the final VGP definition, would not be required to meet the 

effluent (and related) limits in section 2.2.3.5 of the VGP, as their special characteristics render 

treatment technologies or other strategies to meet the limits currently unavailable and 

economically unachievable. However, because they share similar characteristics, all such 

“Lakers” would be subject to the three ballast water management measures that the draft VGP 

had proposed to apply only to “confined Lakers.” EPA has established three ballast water 

management measures specific to existing bulk carrier vessels (commonly known as Lakers) 

built before January 1, 2009. These include developing sediment management measures, 

minimizing the amount of ballast taken in nearshore environments, and requiring inspection of 

sea chest screens and repair as necessary. EPA has found these requirements to be available and 

economically achievable, as they represent simple to implement and common sense approaches 

to managing ballast water discharges for these vessels to minimize the spread of ANS. 

The first management measure requires the vessel owner/operator to annually assess 

sediment accumulations and document their sediment-related activities (to assure they are 

managing sediment effectively and to assure compliance with permit conditions). The second 

measure, adopted from voluntary Laker BMP approaches to mitigate the transfer of invasive 

species, requires that Lakers minimize the amount of water they take on in nearshore 

environments (for an example of voluntary Laker BMPs, see Great Lakes Maritime Industry 

Voluntary Ballast Water Management Plan for the Control of VHS, available in the docket for 

today’s permit). The third measure requires that Lakers ensure that their sea chest screen(s) are 

adequately maintained. These screens will keep out the largest living organisms, such as fish, 

from ballast tanks (and bacteria and viruses associated with those larger organisms), which may 

reduce the risk of transferring ANS. Lakers confined exclusively to the Great Lakes upstream of 

the Welland Canal are laid up or put in drydock every winter; hence, they have the time and 

Page 72 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

opportunity to inspect and repair sea chest screens, and replace as necessary. EPA believes that 

adequately maintaining sea chest screens is a simple and economically available technologybased requirement to reduce the threat of ANS dispersal within the Great Lakes.

For the reasons described in section 4.4.3.5 of this fact sheet, if existing Lakers are 

retrofitted to meet the treatment requirements in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP, these vessels are not 

required to meet the other requirements of Part 2.2.3.4 of the VGP. However, existing Lakers 

with ballast water treatment systems would still be required to meet the BMPs for ballast water 

management found in Part 2.2.3.3 of the VGP that are applicable to all vessels. 

4.4.3.5 Ballast Water Treatment Measures 

In developing today’s numeric effluent limits, EPA considered data from numerous peer 

reviewed publications, literature produced by the federal government, other technical reports and 

publications, public comments, and comments from experts working in the field (see EPA SAB, 

2011; ABS, 2010; Albert et al., 2010; CSLC, 2010; Dobroski et al., 2011; GLBWC, 2010; 

Lloyd’s List, 2010; WDNR, 2010). The data sources from which EPA derived information for 

decision-making purposes are included in the docket for the permit and/or referenced in this fact 

sheet. These data sources discuss ballast water discharges, technologies available for the 

treatment of these discharges, and the effectiveness of the technologies. EPA considered these 

data in selecting the best practicable technology (BPT) and best available technology 

economically achievable (BAT) for today’s permit. The permit includes numeric limits for 

ballast water discharges and provides vessel owner/operators options for determining how they 

will meet those limits. Not all vessels will use onboard treatment systems to comply with 

discharge requirements. Estimates developed by King et al. (2010) suggest that less than half of 

the vessels with ballast water discharge are likely to install onboard ballast water treatment 

systems. Some vessels are more likely to use an alternative ballast water management approach, 

including not discharging ballast water while in waters subject to this permit, using onshore 

facilities, or using potable water as ballast. 

4.4.3.5.1 Ballast Water Management Using a Ballast Water Treatment System 

Based on EPA’s review of available data, EPA has established technology-based numeric 

effluent limits for the discharge of living organisms equivalent to the U.S. Coast Guard discharge 

standard (USCG, 2012, 33 CFR 151.1511 and 151.2030), which is equivalent to the standard set 

forth in Regulation D-2 of the International Ballast Water Convention (IMO, 2008) (henceforth 

referred to as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) standard). 11 EPA has established 

the VGP permit limits because several treatment technologies have been shown to be safe, 

reliable and effective at reducing viable living organisms in ballast water discharges to meet 

these limits. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that several of these technologies are 

commercially available for shipboard installation and their use is economically achievable. 

Several studies and publications are available that discuss current treatment technologies, their 

efficacy and performance, and whether they are commercially available for shipboard installation 

(see EPA SAB, 2011; ABS., 2010; Albert et al., 2010; CSLC, 2010; Dobroski et al., 2011; 

11 Note that three size groupings addressed in section 2.2.3.5 effluent limits are (or include): (1) 

macrofauna/zooplankton, (2) phytoplankton, and (3) indicator microbes.

Page 73 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

GLBWC, 2010; Lloyd’s List, 2010; WDNR 2010). Establishment of a ballast water discharge 

limit at the U.S. Coast Guard /IMO discharge standard will result in a substantial reduction in the 

concentration of living organisms in the vast majority of ballast water discharges, compared to 

discharges of ballast water managed by mid-ocean exchange or discharges of unexchanged 

ballast water. In addition, EPA believes that no existing ballast water treatment systems are 

widely available for inland or seagoing vessels smaller than 1600 gross registered tons. Hence, 

inland or seagoing vessels smaller than 1600 gross registered tons are not required to meet the 

numeric ballast water effluent limitation. However, these vessels must meet all other ballast 

water requirements found in Part 2.2.3 of the VGP as applicable. 

The CWA is a critical tool in forcing the development and installation of environmentally 

beneficial technologies. The statute demands application of best available technology 

economically achievable, which will result in “reasonable” progress toward the goal of 

eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). Hence, EPA has 

established the ballast water discharge limit at the Coast Guard Phase I discharge standard/IMO 

standard with a rolling implementation schedule, similar to that established by the USCG 

proposal and IMO. Furthermore, EPA notes that as technologies improve and better data on the 

efficacy of systems become available, the Agency fully expects to make the BAT limit more 

stringent in the future, in line with the capabilities of treatment systems and the capability of 

testing protocols to establish that systems can achieve these limits. EPA also notes that not all 

vessels that are required to meet such numeric effluent limitations will need to do so as of the 

effective date of the permit, and will instead be required to meet other non-numeric BAT 

requirements established for their ballast water discharges upon the permit’s effective date. EPA 

has found that sufficient numbers of treatment systems meeting today’s limits will not be 

available for all vessels by the issuance date of this permit. Furthermore, requiring all vessels to 

install treatment systems immediately upon the effective date of the permit would not be 

economically achievable, and therefore does not represent BAT. See discussion below. 

Finding that the Ballast Water Limits in this Permit Represent the BPT and BAT Level of 

Control 

Ballast water discharge is a known vector for the spread of invasive species. The risk of 

establishment of ANS is assumed to decrease with decreasing propagule supply, although the 

exact quantitative relationship between propagule supply and invasion risk is unknown for any 

species, and in fact likely varies for any species over time and location. This assumption 

regarding risk is supported by a wide body of empirical, theoretical, and experimental evidence 

showing that invasion success increases with an increase in propagule supply, either by a higher 

concentration of organisms in an inoculation and/or by an increase in the frequency of 

inoculations (e.g., Simberloff, 1989, 2009; Ruiz et al., 2000a; Kolar and Lodge, 2001, Ruiz and 

Carlton, 2003; Lockwood et al., 2005; Johnston et al., 2008). Significantly reducing propagule 

pressure will reduce the probability of invasions, when controlling for all other variables (NAS, 

2011). The ballast water discharge standard in today’s permit will reduce discharges of living 

organisms, thereby reducing risk of the spread of aquatic nuisance species. 

The living organism discharge standard for ballast water is expressed as concentrations of 

organisms per unit volume by organism size class. The numeric limitations in today’s permit 

Page 74 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

represent the most stringent standards that ballast water management [treatment] systems 

currently safely, effectively, credibly, and reliably meet (US EPA SAB, 2011). 

In the context of this general permit, EPA has determined that the ballast water discharge 

standard represents the best practicable technology (BPT) for all pollutants, the best conventional 

technology (BCT) for conventional pollutants, and the best available technology economically 

achievable (BAT) for toxic and non-conventional pollutants. In making this determination, EPA 

evaluated effluent limits using a BPT and a BAT standard, but since conventional pollutants will 

also be adequately controlled by these same effluent limits for which EPA applied the BPT and 

BAT tests, EPA determined that it was not necessary to conduct BCT economic tests.

Ballast Water Treatment is Technologically Available

EPA developed the BPT/BAT numeric discharge limitations for ballast water based on an 

assessment of the demonstrated performance of current ballast water treatment technologies. 

Based upon available data, EPA’s Science Advisory Board (2011) determined that five ballast 

water treatment system types (listed below) have been demonstrated to meet the IMO D-2 

discharge standard, when tested under the IMO G8 guidelines for approval of ballast water 

treatment systems (MEPC, 2008), and will likely meet USCG Phase 1 standards (if tested under 

EPA’s more detailed Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Protocol).

These five types of ballast water treatment technologies include: 

• Deoxygenation + cavitation; 

• Filtration + chlorine dioxide;

• Filtration + UV;

• Filtration + UV + TiO2; and

• Filtration + electro-chlorination. 

Deoxygenation is a physical-chemical process that kills organisms by creating severe 

hypoxia (through lowered pressure via venturi or vacuum or lowered partial pressure via 

sparging with inert gasses). Cavitation is a physical process that kills organisms by the high 

pressure, shear forces, and shock waves generated by the collapse of micro-vapor bubbles 

induced into the ballast water. Filtration accomplishes a variety of physical separation processes, 

including screening to remove sediment and larger organisms resistant to disinfection, reduction 

of organic matter to reduce oxidant demand, and reduction of turbidity to increase transmittance 

of UV radiation (EPA SAB, 2011). Chlorine dioxide and electro-chlorination disinfect ballast 

water using the chemical disinfectants chlorine dioxide and hypochlorite. In the latter, 

hypochlorite is generated by electrolytic processes using sea water as the source of ions. UV is a 

physical-chemical process that disinfects ballast water using photochemical reactions generated 

by ultraviolet light radiation. In the UV + TiO2 physical-chemical process, UV light also 

activates the surface of the titanium catalytic semiconductor, disinfecting ballast water using 

both photochemical and photocatalytic reactions. 

Page 75 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

In conducting its study, EPA’s SAB (2011) used the following criteria to determine that 

the five ballast water treatment technologies were available and demonstrated to meet the 

standard in today’s permit: 

• The technical literature supported the fundamental use of the technology (e.g., is it

well documented that using the approach will safely and effectively remove, kill, or

inactivate aquatic organisms).

• Laboratory testing was conducted with “reasonable and appropriate methods” (i.e.,

methods commonly used in aquatic studies or alternative methods that appear

rigorous and equivalent to a standard, common approach).

• Land-based testing was conducted with appropriate sample numbers and sizes;

sample collection and handling were appropriate and documented; analytical facilities

were adequate; IMO or ETV (v. 5.1) challenge conditions were met; appropriate

toxicological studies were conducted and demonstrated environmental safety; a

QA/QC policy was in place and followed; and ultimately, land-based testing

produced credible results.

• Shipboard testing was conducted with the same considerations as land-based testing

(described above) and produced credible results.

• If an active substance was included, the technology had credible toxicity and

chemistry data and had received IMO Basic approval or Final Approval (which

requires Basic Approval).

12

• The technology had a type approval certificate from a flag administration.

13

• The technology was in operational use (i.e., not used only during shipboard type

approval testing) on one or more active vessels. (US EPA SAB, 2011)

EPA notes that other types of ballast water treatment systems may also meet these 

standards. However, the SAB panel determined that adequate data about these systems were not 

available for use by the panel to evaluate those systems. Based upon the data available, no 

current ballast water treatment technologies were considered likely to meet standards more 

stringent than IMO D-2/Phase 1 (US EPA SAB, 2011). 

As of the 64th meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) at 

IMO, 28 systems had been type approved by their flag administrations. MEPC 64/23 at ¶ 2.12. 

Based upon information generated by those system vendors and data regarding system 

12Under Regulation D-3(2) of the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention, ballast water treatment systems that

make use of “active substances” (biocides or other potentially harmful substances) are subject to approval by the 

IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) with respect to active substance-related health, 

environmental, and safety issues. This review and approval is conducted under the G9 Procedure for approval of 

Ballast water management systems that make use of active substances ” developed by MEPC, available at

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=09000064807e890e.

13 EPA notes that in addition to measuring environmental efficacy (e.g., how well do systems prevent the discharge 

of living organisms), type approval involves evaluating the system’s design and construction for operation on ships, 

the manufacturing standards, and safety aspects.

Page 76 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

performance generally taken by third parties, those flag administrations believe that these 

systems can consistently meet the IMO D-2 discharge standard when installed and used on ships 

under normal operating conditions. Examples of data available to evaluate the efficacy of ballast 

water treatment systems include Cangelosi, 2010a; Cangelosi 2010b; Gollasch, 2011; Tamburri 

and Ruiz, 2005; ten Hellers et al.,2009; USCG, 2008; Veldhuis et al., 2008; Veldhuis et al., 

2009a; Veldhuis et al., 2009b; Wright, 2009. 

Based on EPA’s review of available data public comment, the Agency agrees with the 

SAB’s evaluation that ballast water treatment systems are available which meet the limits in 

today’s VGP, and that at least five types of treatment technologies are available to meet those 

limits. Combining EPA’s review with that of the SAB and other evaluations of available 

technology (see US EPA SAB, 2011; GLBWC, 2010; Albert et al., 2010; CSLC, 2010; Dobroski 

et al., 2011; Lloyd’s List, 2010; WDNR, 2010) and the fact that numerous BWTS have been type 

approved by their flag administrations, EPA believes that effective technologies which meet 

today’s technology based standards are or will be available for most types of vessels. 

Ballast Water Treatment Requirements in the 2013 VGP are Economically Practicable 

and Economically Achievable 

The US Coast Guard estimated the cost of requiring ballast water treatment systems for 

its March 2012 final rulemaking. The Coast Guard’s Regulatory Analysis, available in the docket 

for today’s permit, estimates the average capital cost of ballast water treatment systems that will 

be installed to meet their Phase I/ IMO D-2 standards. As determined by the USCG in their 

analysis of the March 2012 rulemaking, an estimated 1,459 domestic flagged vessels are 

expected to install BWTS through 2018 at costs that range from $258,000 for chemical 

application in offshore supply vessels to more than $2.5 million to retrofit Very Large Crude 

Carriers (VLCCs) with ozone generating systems. USCG estimated the total annual cost for the 

rule at $90 million (at 3 percent discount rate, in 2007 dollars).Capital costs primarily vary with 

pumping capacity and technologies utilized, but are also slightly influenced by differences 

between the vessel categories. 

For purposes of evaluating and determining BAT, EPA has found that requiring 

installation of ballast water treatment will impose no incremental cost to the regulated 

community over meeting the US Coast Guard standards. The US Coast Guard rulemaking 

requires ballast water treatment systems be installed on the same schedule as today’s final 

permit. 

EPA believes that installation of ballast water treatment systems is economically 

practicable and achievable even if costs are fully attributable to this permit alone. This 

determination considers the full installation and operation cost (as summarized in the discussion 

of the USCG’s cost estimates above and the economic analysis document that accompanies this 

permit) of ballast water treatment systems on applicable vessels. It also considers revenue for the 

vessels. For example, as reported in section 3.4.2 of EPA’s economic analysis document, average 

daily charter rates for vessels ranged from $17,000 to $37,500 per day in 2006 (USCG, 2008) 

and averaged $15,179 per day per voyage in 2010. 

Page 77 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

EPA further notes that numerous publications and forums have been devoted to the 

imminence of the IMO standards, the availability of ballast water treatment systems, and the 

selection of those systems by vessel owner/operators (e.g., see ABS 2010; Lloyds 2010; Lloyds 

2011; USCG 2009). Hence, EPA believes that vessel owner/operators have been planning for the 

installation and use of ballast water treatment systems, or making other arrangements for ballast 

water management as appropriate, and they have factored these costs into their long-term 

operating plans. 

EPA has determined that a more rapid implementation schedule than that in the U.S. 

Coast Guard final standard is not economically achievable at this time. As discussed in section 

4.4.3.5.5 of this fact sheet, EPA has determined that it is not possible for all vessels equipped 

with ballast water tanks to install ballast water treatment systems by December 19, 2013 (for 

more information, see additional discussion in section 4.4.3.5.5). If EPA were to require 

treatment with ballast water treatment systems for all vessels on December 19, 2013, those

vessels which would be unable to install systems due to these limitations would be unable to 

legally discharge ballast water, and therefore legally operate, in U.S. waters as of that date. 

Those vessel owner/operators without ballast water treatment systems would face the unenviable 

choice of ceasing operation in US waters or knowingly violating the CWA, which could carry 

significant civil and criminal penalties. In addition to significant costs for these vessel 

owner/operators, trade to and from US ports would suffer, resulting in widespread and 

significant disruptions in trade and economic activity. 

EPA expects that production capacity will be available for the numbers of new vessels 

coming into service every year and new build vessels are in the shipyard or drydock for a 

substantial portion of their construction which will allow them to install ballast water treatment 

systems before coming into service. Furthermore, vessel owner/operators of new build vessels 

have been aware of impending ballast water treatment requirements for these vessels since the 

signing of the IMO ballast water convention. For these new build vessels, BAT will be the 

numeric effluent limitations associated with using a treatment device to meet IMO limits. 

However, as discussed above, it is not economically achievable for all vessels, including most 

existing vessels, to have ballast water treatment systems installed by December 19, 2013. Hence, 

BAT as of the effective date of this permit is use of a treatment system for new vessels built on 

or after December 1, 2013 and use of other narrative best management practices for existing 

vessels. By the end of the permit term, EPA expects a substantial portion of vessels operating in 

US waters, including most existing vessels, to be utilizing ballast water treatment systems, as it is 

not cost prohibitive to install ballast water treatment systems when a vessel is in drydock or out 

of service, and phasing the installation of systems over time will allow the shipping industry to 

spread costs over several years. The basis for the implementation schedule is discussed more 

fully in section 4.4.3.5.5 below. 

Ballast Water Treatment Technologies have Acceptable Non-water Quality 

Environmental Impacts

In addition, EPA has considered the non-water quality environmental impacts, including 

energy impacts, of the ballast water discharge limitations required under this permit and finds 

that they are acceptable. Energy impacts result from energy requirements to operate the ballast 

water treatment equipment such as pumps, filters, UV lamps, chemical generators, and gas 

Page 78 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

spargers. EPA anticipates that the ballast water requirements of this permit may also result in an 

increase in fuel usage; however, EPA expects an offsetting decrease in fuel usage for those 

vessels which no longer have to conduct ballast water exchange (and must conduct it under the 

2008 VGP). Additionally, owner/operators of vessels may generate certain air emissions, such as 

greenhouse gases from incremental fuel consumption; however, EPA does not anticipate that 

ballast water treatment would result in solid waste impacts. The Agency concludes that the 

effluent reduction benefits for ballast water treatment far exceed the potential adverse effects 

from the increase in energy and fuel consumption and air emissions. 

EPA’s Consideration of Conclusions Found in the California State Lands Commission 

Ballast Water Treatment Report 

EPA understands that some stakeholders may view the California State Lands 

Commission report titled “2010 Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability, and Environmental 

Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for use in California Waters” (CSLC, 2010; 

Dobroski et al., 2011) as providing justification for inclusion of treatment standard 

concentrations which are lower than those technology-based effluent limits included in the VGP 

(e.g., justification for setting the limits as 100 or 1000 times more stringent than IMO). As an 

interim standard (applicable until 2020), California has utilized a “no detectable living organism” 

approach for the largest size classes of organisms, with numeric standards for smaller size 

classes. 

EPA believes that these California State Lands Commission (CSLC) reports, and their 

earlier versions, have served a role in consolidating summary data regarding the efficacy of 

ballast water treatment systems and drawing conclusions from those data where feasible. 

However, though some may view the CSLC report as justifying a more stringent standard than 

IMO, the methodology employed by the State of California is inconsistent with CWA 

requirements that must be applied by EPA in evaluating whether technologies are available to 

meet a given discharge limit. The CSLC report “examines treatment system performance data to 

determine whether or not systems have demonstrated the potential to comply with California’s 

standards” (CSLC, 2010, 42). EPA understands that the CSLC defines a Ballast Water Treatment 

System as having the potential to comply with their performance standards if the system has at 

least one test (potentially of many) from either a land-based or shipboard test for which the 

measurement indicated compliance with the California standard. CSLC found that 8 systems 

have the potential to meet their standards under these evaluation criteria. California further notes 

that “three of eight systems show the potential to meet California standards under their additional 

more rigorous evaluation criteria. These three passed more than 50% of the time over multiple 

tests (3 or more) at either land or shipboard scale” (CSLC, 2010, 75-76). EPA notes that no 

systems had “no detects” in all sample tests. Hence, CSLC is very careful to note that several 

systems they evaluated have the “potential to meet” their discharge limits (for some discharge 

events) but that use of systems highlighted in the report in no way guarantees compliance with 

the “no detectable living organism” standard in California waters. 

In its analysis of the data presented in the CSLC report, EPA concludes that those data 

are not adequate to determine whether any of the treatment systems can meet a significantly 

more stringent limit than those for this permit term. EPA believes that the data California 

reviewed for their evaluation of ballast water treatment systems were generally from tests to 

Page 79 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

determine whether systems could meet the IMO limits, and do not have significant precision or 

resolution to detect efficacy significantly beyond those limits. As noted by the SAB, “current 

methods (and associated detection limits) prevent testing of BWTS to any standard more 

stringent than D-2 and make it impracticable for verifying a standard 100 or 1000 times more 

stringent.” Hence, EPA does not believe that the report can be used to support the assertion that 

technologies are available to meet a limit 100 or 1000 times more stringent than IMO. In fact, 

until better shipboard testing methods are developed, there is no way to efficiently detect 

organisms present in low concentrations (e.g., at or below the IMO standard) from a shipboard 

discharge. This means that, in practice, the “no detectable living organism standard” required by 

California is no more stringent than the IMO standard at this time. This conclusion is supported 

by a recent NAS report, which states that the zero-detectable organism standard “is functionally 

defined by the ability to characterize concentrations of organisms at low densities” and that the 

exact California discharge standard “is largely undefined and contingent on sampling protocols” 

(NAS, 118). 

4.4.3.5.1.1 Monitoring from Vessels Using a Ballast Water Treatment System

Pursuant to CWA section 308 and 402(a)(2), 40 § CFR 122.43(a), 40 § CFR 122.44(i), 40 

CFR 122.45(e), 40 § CFR 122.48, and other applicable implementing regulations, the following 

requirements have been included in the permit, as discussed below.14 The monitoring 

requirements in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1 of the permit apply to ballast water discharges from vessels 

employing ballast water treatment systems. Effluent samples for biological indicators (i.e., E. 

coli and enterococci), residual biocides and biocide derivatives must be collected during an 

actual ballast water discharge. 

The monitoring is divided into three components. The first component, in Part 

2.2.3.5.1.1.2, requires functionality monitoring to assure the system is operating as designed. 

Vessels conducting this monitoring also must adequately calibrate their equipment as required in 

Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.3. The second component, in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 requires monitoring from all 

ballast water systems for selected biological indicators. The third component, in part 

2.2.3.5.1.1.5 requires monitoring of the ballast water discharge itself for biocides and residuals to 

14 As described above, EPA developed today’s ballast water monitoring requirements in accordance with, among 

other provisions, 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(i) & (ii) and 122.45(e). “Where applicable,” sections 122.44(i)(1)(i) & (ii) 

require conditions imposing monitoring “to assure compliance with permit limitations” for “[t]he mass (or other 

measurement specified in the permit) for each pollutant limited in the permit” and “the volume of effluent 

discharged from each outfall.” EPA notes that, for the reasons described above, with the exception of indicator 

organisms, living organism monitoring of vessel ballast water discharges, by mass or any other measure, is not 

required in this permit due to practical constraints on the ability to collect and analyzed the volumes of ballast water 

necessary to directly detect and quantify such organisms at the levels of concern. Such requirements, therefore, are 

not “applicable” to this situation and are not included in today’s permit. As for 122.44(i)(1)(ii)’s requirement for 

monitoring of volume of effluent discharged, there are no limits on the volume of effluent in the permit and thus no 

monitoring is needed to assure compliance with permit limitations. Note that vessel owner/operators are nonetheless 

required to record the volumes of ballast water that they discharge in Part 4.3 of the permit. As for section 122.45(e), 

EPA did not consider the listed factors because they were not appropriate to the ballast water context; it would not 

be appropriate to limit the frequency of ballast water discharges due to their important functions regarding safety 

and stability of the ship and, as described more fully above, ballast water discharges are not conducive to limitations 

based on total mass or rates of discharge. 

Page 80 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

assure compliance with the effluent limitations established in part 2.2.3.5 of the permit, as 

applicable. 

Studies have concluded that the reduced discharge of viable organisms capable of 

establishing a viable population of the organism in US waters invasive reduces the risk of 

invasions (NAS, 2011). Monitoring data on the efficacy of ballast water treatment technologies 

will help EPA and others understand whether the number of living organisms in discharges has 

been reduced. In addition, monitoring is needed to better understand whether new invasive 

species are introduced from ballast water and other ship-based sources. This monitoring 

information is needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of requirements for treatment of 

ballast water and other measures to reduce introduction of invasive species. To address these 

important data needs, EPA is working with the Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force to 

develop a national strategy to improve understanding of invasion dynamics. 

The following sections provide an in-depth discussion of each component and the basis 

for the requirements: 

4.4.3.5.1.1.1 Ballast Water System Functionality Monitoring

Measures of treatment performance for ballast water systems can include a variety of 

techniques. Today’s permit relies on existing sampling methods to ensure that a ballast water 

treatment system is functioning as designed (and as such, is assumed to be effectively killing 

living organisms). Unfortunately, there are significant limitations which prevent the widespread 

direct detection and quantification of the two largest size classes of organisms regulated by 

today’s VGP (see EPA, 2010; US EPA SAB, 2011; King and Tamburri, 2010; Lee et al., 2010; 

Miller 2011). This means that it is not practical or economical for all vessel owner/operators to 

directly evaluate whether a ballast water discharge from a given vessel is meeting the numeric 

limitations contained in Part 2.2.3.5 with currently available, validated methods. Hence, the 

monitoring requirements in the “ballast water system functionality monitoring” focus on 

physical/chemical indicators of treatment performance.

Physical/chemical indicators of treatment performance verify that the ballast water 

treatment system is operating according to the manufacturers’ requirements. Most ballast water

treatment systems have control and self diagnostic equipment such as sensors that continuously 

measure treatment parameters to verify performance. Sensors commonly incorporated into the 

most frequently installed systems include flow meters, pH sensors, dissolved oxygen sensors, 

OPR and amperometric (TRO) sensors, and on-line chlorine analyzers. All of these meters and 

sensors are widely available as they have broad application in the water and wastewater 

treatment industry and are available off-the-shelf from many major equipment suppliers. Other 

ballast water treatment systems are provided with testing meters or kits, such as portable chlorine 

and dissolved ozone monitors, to verify adequate levels of treatment chemicals are being 

maintained within the ballast tanks. Vessel operators monitor and record this data and make 

adjustments, maintenance, or repairs to the ballast water treatment system to ensure the 

equipment is functioning properly. For publicly available information which discusses the 

treatment processes used by various ballast water treatment systems, please see, e.g., ABS, 2010; 

Albert et al., 2010; and Lloyds, 2010. 

Page 81 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Ballast water treatment systems are designed and manufactured with various sensors and 

other control equipment to automatically monitor and adjust system operating conditions to 

ensure proper operation and to alert vessel personnel when intervention, maintenance, or repair is 

required. Sensors and other control equipment, interfaced with monitoring equipment to record 

operating parameters, also help vessel operators determine data trends, while allowing EPA to 

verify that a system is operating as designed. The vendor’s Operating and Maintenance Manual 

explains the applicable sensors and other control equipment for the ballast water treatment 

system and should specify requirements for maintaining those systems. They may also specify 

what constitutes a range of stable operating conditions for the system. Many ballast water 

treatment system manufacturers require that the BWTS monitoring and recordkeeping be 

operated continuously to assure the system is functioning as designed. EPA requires vessel 

owner/operators to operate the system according to such specifications. Appendix J in the permit 

contains all the treatment processes and required monitoring parameters that EPA believes are 

currently widely used in existing ballast water treatment systems. EPA expects that most ballast 

water treatment systems will incorporate multiple treatment processes (e.g., filtration plus 

electrochlorination). Based on ballast water treatment system status reported in Albert et al. 

(2010), the vast majority of systems use between two and four treatment processes. EPA expects 

that vessel owner/operators will only monitor for a subset of parameters contained in Appendix J 

in the permit that are for processes incorporated into the design of their ballast water treatment 

system.

When alarms are initiated or when sensors indicate the ballast water treatment system is 

not functioning properly, the vessel must not discharge ballast water. Ballast water discharge can 

resume only after correcting the problems with the system and reestablishing stable operating 

conditions. 

Routine maintenance of the ballast water treatment system and troubleshooting 

procedures are typically clearly defined in the system’s Operating and Maintenance Manual kept 

onboard the vessel. All maintenance activities related to the ballast water monitoring system and 

overboard discharge control unit must be recorded, and the information must remain on board 

the vessel for three years for inspection purposes. In addition, vessel staff training must include 

familiarization with the operation and maintenance of the ballast water overboard discharge 

control and monitoring equipment (see Part 2.2.3.1 of the permit). All ballast water treatment 

systems must be inspected on a monthly basis to determine both short-term and long-term 

maintenance needs as specified in the vendor’s Operating and Maintenance Manual.

4.4.3.5.1.1.2 Ballast Water Monitoring Equipment Calibration

All applicable sensors and other control equipment must be calibrated as recommended 

by sensor and equipment manufacturers, or by ballast water treatment system manufacturers or 

when warranted based on device drift from a standard or calibrated setting. At a minimum, all 

applicable sensors and equipment must be calibrated annually, however EPA fully expects many 

sensor types (e.g., pH probes, TRO sensors, DO probes) will need to be calibrated on a more 

frequent basis. The vessel owner/operator must do so if specified by the probe or ballast water 

treatment system manufacturer. Calibration of the sensors and equipment can be conducted onboard the vessel or they can be removed and shipped to the manufacturer for calibration. For 

some probes, vessel owner/operators may want to switch out electrodes more frequently, e.g., 

Page 82 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

once every four months, to maximize accuracy of their probes. During any period when the 

sensors are not installed and operating on the ballast water treatment system, the vessel must not 

discharge ballast water. 

Ballast water treatment systems that are equipped with automated control systems that 

initiate a sequence to stop the overboard discharge of the effluent in the event of alarm 

conditions must be subjected to an annual functional test. The detailed program for a functional 

test of such equipment is typically developed by the manufacturer, taking into account the 

features and functions of the specific design of the equipment and the operating and discharge 

conditions monitored. A copy of the functional test protocol must be carried aboard the vessel at 

all times.

4.4.3.5.1.1.3 Effluent Biological Organism Monitoring

Biological indicator compliance monitoring sampling is intended to verify the treatment 

system is operating properly by collecting a small volume sample and analyzing the sample for 

concentrations of certain biological indicator parameters. Analysis of concentrations of indicator 

organisms must include at least E. coli and enterococci bacteria. Biological indicator compliance 

monitoring sampling of ballast water effluent must be conducted 2 times during the first year the 

system is installed or used for vessels with type approved devices for which high quality type 

approval data are available. For vessels with high quality data, if sampling results are below 

permit limits for two consecutive events, the vessel owner/operator may reduce monitoring to 

one time per year after the first year. However, if the vessel owner/operator exceeds a permit 

limit on any sampling event, they must return to monitoring two times per year until they have 

two additional results below permit limits. . For vessels for which high quality data are not 

available, monitoring must be conducted 4 times per year, no closer than 14 days apart on water 

treated during separate treatment episodes, to verify the system is operating properly. Records of 

the sampling and testing results must be retained onboard for a period of 3 years in the vessel’s 

recordkeeping documentation consistent with Part 4.2 of the permit. 

In March 2012, the USCG finalized its ballast water discharge standards and typeapproval rulemaking (79 FR 17254, March 23, 2012). Under those final regulations, the USCG 

type-approval process in 46 CFR Part 162, Subpart 162.060 requires use of the EPA-ETV testing 

protocols (see e.g., 46 CFR 162.060-26; 162.060-28(f), (h), and (j)). Use of the ETV protocols 

will ensure any USCG type-approvals are based on high quality data. In addition, the USCG 

final rule provides for temporary use of “Alternative Management Systems, or “AMS” (33 CFR 

151.1504 and 151.2026). To obtain a determination by the USCG that a system qualifies for 

treatment as an AMS, those regulations require the system to have received type-approval by a 

foreign administration, submission of full analytical procedures and methods, Quality Assurance 

procedures, and a type-approval application as described under 46 CFR 162.060–12, which in 

turn includes a requirement for a thorough explanation of how the submission meets or exceeds 

the requirements of Subpart 162.060 in respect to the ability to meet the discharge standard 

requirements. These requirements will ensure that systems with an AMS determination from the 

USCG are based upon high-quality testing data. Thus, systems which receive USCG typeapproval or a USCG AMS determination will be considered to have high quality data and subject 

to the minimum 2 times in the first year (and 1 time per year thereafter if permit limits are met) 

biological indicator compliance monitoring sampling provisions of the VGP. Though systems 

Page 83 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

with “high quality data” could include systems other than those having received U.S. Coast 

Guard type approval or a U.S. Coast Guard AMS determination, as a practical matter, EPA does 

not expect many, if any, other treatment systems to be considered to have “high quality data” 

without one of these two data quality control reviews. Table 2 in the permit lists the biological 

indicator compliance monitoring sampling analytical methods and effluent limits for treated 

ballast water. For today’s permit, EPA has required monitoring of organisms in discharged 

ballast water, but has limited the scope of the organisms monitored to the bacterial indicators 

specified in the discharge standard. EPA has limited the scope of biological monitoring due to 

logistical constraints of conducting such monitoring. In particular, the collection of adequate 

representative samples for analysis of larger organisms, which can involve significant volumes 

of water (3-5 cubic meters), could be impractical during the intensive activities associated with 

conducting cargo operations (including the management of ballast water to adjust for changes in 

the amount and distribution of cargo within the ship) during relatively limited times during 

which vessels are at dock. 

EPA has established effluent limits for three pathogen indicators: Escherichia coli, 

enterococci, and Vibrio cholerae, consistent with the US. Coast Guard Phase I standard. 

However, EPA notes that the Agency is requiring monitoring for Escherichia coli and 

enterococci but is not requiring monitoring for Vibrio cholerae. The Agency is not requiring 

monitoring for Vibrio cholerae because the Agency has found based upon conversations with 

several ballast water treatment system testing laboratories (e.g., Naval Research Lab, Maryland 

Environmental Resource Center, the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research) that 

monitoring of this parameter would generally not result in the detection of the presence of this 

pathogen, even if the ballast water treatment system were not fully functional. Importantly, EPA 

also notes that Part 136 methods are not available for detecting Vibrio cholerae in wastewater.

EPA is also requiring monitoring for total heterotrophic bacteria to establish better information 

about how bacterial communities respond to ballast water treatment. EPA has found this test to 

be affordable, and the sample can be collected at the same time other effluent samples are 

collected.

Effluent biological organism monitoring is required between once per year and four times 

per year, dependent on whether the system is a device for which high quality type approval data 

are available, as described above. For vessels with a ballast water treatment system for which 

high quality type approval data are available, EPA believes that requiring monitoring twice per 

year during the initial year of system use, and once thereafter (if permit limits are met) will assist 

in assuring that the system is being maintained and performing to reduce the concentration of 

living organisms in the discharge. 

EPA expects that the vast majority of vendors will either get their systems type-approved 

by the US Coast Guard, receive a USCG AMS determination, or at minimum, will share their 

full type approval data packages with the US government during this permit term. Hence, EPA 

expects that there would be few, if any, systems in use in waters subject to this permit that do not 

have AMS or USCG type approval. However, EPA notes that some vendors and/or flag 

administrations have shown a reluctance to share necessary data. Lack of data availability has 

been noted as a significant impediment to effectively evaluating the efficacy of ballast water 

treatment systems (Albert, 2011; US EPA SAB, 2011). For those systems for which data are not 

fully transparent, EPA must receive a higher degree of assurance that the systems are functioning 

Page 84 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

so that they are effective, and that they are effectively eliminating living biological organisms (to 

the extent allowed by existing testing methodologies). As a result, EPA has required monitoring 

on a more frequent basis for any ballast water treatment system for which adequate data (e.g., 

full data packages submitted to flag administrations) are not available. Hence, the monitoring 

frequency is increased to four times per year for vessels using a ballast water treatment system 

which full data are not available to the US EPA and the US Coast Guard. 

EPA’s SAB found that “Measuring adherence to a standard that is 10x more stringent 

may be possible if a continuously isokinetically taken representative sample is used” (EPA SAB,

2011, page 29). In addition, the SAB reported, “New or improved methods will be required to 

increase detection limits sufficiently to statistically evaluate a standard 10x more stringent than

IMO D-2/Phase 1; such methods may be available in the near future.” EPA is working with the 

Coast Guard to develop improved testing protocols that might establish whether treatment 

systems are able to remove organisms to a greater extent than the final standards. As part of this

process, EPA, working through the ETV program, has a public participation process. The 

Agency encourages the participation of all interested stakeholders in order to best inform the 

Agency’s decision making on developing new and updated testing protocols. The most recent

version of the ETV Protocols (US EPA 2010) can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/etv/vp.html. Information on EPA’s ETV program can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/index.html. 

4.4.3.5.1.1.4 Authorization of Residual Biocides Associated with Ballast Water Treatment 

Systems

Many ballast water treatment systems produce or use biocides as an agent to kill 

organisms present in ballast water discharges. The definition section of the permit contains a 

definition of biocides subject to these provisions. Ballast water treatment systems that use 

biocides as active substances have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion 

of applicable numeric and/or narrative criteria for the protection of aquatic life. EPA established 

the biocide effluent limitations contained within Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 of the VGP to ensure that such 

discharges are controlled as necessary to ensure compliance with applicable water quality 

standards, pursuant to 122.44(d)(1)(vi) and (vii). 

EPA assumes that a subset of the BWTS installed use biocides as disinfection methods 

and would have the potential to discharge residual biocides and therefore be subject to the 2013 

VGP requirements found in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 of the Permit. According to Lloyd’s Register 

(2011), about half of the 200 BWTS installed as of June 2011 use chemical disinfection methods 

that have the potential to discharge residual biocides. 

EPA notes that this permit does not authorize the use of dispersants in the vessel 

owner/operators’ ballast tanks which may remove the appearance of a visible sheen from the 

discharge.

The concern with respect to the aquatic environment is that if the treated ballast water 

contains biocides or their derivatives at levels that are still toxic at the time of discharge, then 

organisms in the receiving water may be harmed. Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 of the permit thus contains 

specific limitations with respect to discharges of biocides or their derivatives. The permit 

Page 85 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

contains a requirement that any ballast water technology must not discharge (and therefore, must 

not use) any “pesticide” within the meaning of FIFRA unless the pesticide has been registered 

for use in ballast water treatment under such Act, or unless the pesticide is generated solely by 

the use of a “device,” within the meaning of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act, 7 U.S.C.136 et seq. (“FIFRA”), on board the same vessel as the ballast water to be treated. 

In addition, the permit contains specific limits for commonly used biocides in ballast 

water treatment systems. Chlorination (generally via hypochlorite electrolytic generation) is a 

commonly used disinfection technology and is known to be proposed for use in ballast water 

treatment systems. As in the 2008 VGP, the permit provides that Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) 

may not exceed 100 micrograms per liter (μg/l) as an instantaneous maximum. Routine methods 

for de-chlorination of treated water are well demonstrated, and in selecting this limit EPA 

considered existing TRC limits found in a number of NPDES permits for publicly owned 

treatment works, with the TRC limit for this permit reflecting the median limit for the permits 

reviewed. 

For today’s permit, EPA has also established a discharge limit for ozone, expressed as an 

instantaneous maximum 100 micrograms per liter (μg/l) of Total Residual Oxidizers (TRO as 

TRC). EPA requires analysis of TRO in ballast water effluent using either of two standard DPD 

colorimetric methods recognized in the international community: Standard Methods 4500-Cl G 

and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Method 7379/2. Although these 

methods were originally developed to determine residual chlorine, many oxidants used as 

disinfectants react directly with the colorimetric indicator, thereby allowing for the determination 

of total residual oxidizers. Examples of detected oxidants relevant to ballast water treatment 

technologies include chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone, bromine, hydrogen peroxide, and 

disinfectant by-products such as chlorite and chlorate. Because the photometric equipment 

compares the colorimetric response of the sample to its calibration developed based on chlorine, 

results are reported as Cl2/L.

EPA has established a limit of 200 micrograms per liter (μg/l) of Chlorine Dioxide for 

systems using Chlorine Dioxide as a biocide. The manufacturer of one chlorine dioxide based 

system provided information on aquatic toxicity tests performed in support of achieving 

discharge approval from the Washington State Department of Ecology and GESAMP. These 

data were submitted to EPA in response to EPA’s 2010 Federal Register notice seeking 

additional information for this permit. In its supporting documentation, the manufacture assessed 

chlorine dioxide effects on the survival and growth of silverside minnows (Menidia beryllina) 

and mysids (Americamysis bahia), survival and normal development for mussel (Mytilus sp.) and 

Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) embryos, germination and germ tube length for giant kelp 

(Macrocystis pyrifera) zoospores, 96- hour population growth for diatoms (Skeletonema 

costatum), and 96-hour survival for Pacific herring larvae. They documented EC50 

concentrations around 0.2 mg/L (equal to 200 μg/l) chlorine dioxide for the most sensitive test 

endpoints (i.e., mussel normal-survival, kelp germination, and kelp germ tube length). The 

manufacturer noted that the observed toxic thresholds were sharp and that the effects disappeared 

when concentrations reached 0.15 mg/L chlorine dioxide. Hence, based on these results, and to 

be consistent with recommendations made by GESAMP, EPA established the limit of 200 

micrograms per liter (μg/l) of Chlorine Dioxide.

Page 86 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

EPA has also included limits for Peracetic Acid at 500 micrograms per liter (μg/l) and 

Hydrogen Peroxide at 1000 micrograms per liter (μg/l) for systems using peracetic acid. Those 

limits were recently proposed by the GESAMP Ballast Water Working group for one ballast 

water treatment system which uses Peraclean (a peracetic acid based biocide). EPA notes that in 

low temperature, low salinity and/or low organic carbon concentrations, self-degradation of 

peracetic acid slows, maintaining ballast water effluent concentrations that are toxic to aquatic 

organisms (MEPC 54/2/12 Annex 5; de Lafontaine, 2006; MEPC 62.2). Effluent toxicity can be 

mitigated by using a chemical neutralization step (e.g., sodium sulfite addition) if natural 

degradation is not sufficient to reduce effluent concentrations of these active substances to the 

required limitations.

The permit further provides that in order to be eligible for coverage under the general 

permit, any other discharged biocides or derivatives (other than those listed above) may not 

exceed any recommended acute water quality criteria listed in EPA’s 2009 National 

Recommended Water Quality Criteria and subsequent revisions published prior to issuance of 

today’s permit. The 2009 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria can be found at 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/upload/nrwqc-2009.pdf and 

any subsequent revisions may be found at 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/ . Those numeric criteria were 

developed by EPA under authority of section 304(a) of the CWA based on the latest scientific 

information on the relationship that the effect of a constituent concentration has on particular 

aquatic species and/or human health. Normally, the CWA section 304(a) criteria are not 

regulations and do not impose binding requirements, but rather are information that EPA 

provides periodically to the states as guidance for use in developing numeric criteria for 

inclusion in State water quality standards under section 303 of the CWA. See 40 CFR 131.3(c). 

In this permit, however, EPA is using the CWA section 304(a) criteria as an end-of-pipe 

limitation because a variety of biocides might be proposed for use in ballast water treatments 

systems, and the section 304(a) criteria address a wide variety of chemicals, identifying numeric 

criteria intended to safeguard aquatic life and human health. Because the ballast water treatment 

systems subject to such limits are using biocides, which by definition are intended to be applied 

at levels that are toxic to organisms (in ballast water), EPA believes that such compliance is 

appropriate for use as a permit condition for coverage under this general permit.

Because an exceedance of the effluent limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of the permit is a permit 

violation, if vessel owner/operators are concerned that that their discharges from vessel 

discharges might exceed these limits, they are encouraged to first conduct land-based testing 

before installation on a vessel.

4.4.3.5.1.1.5 Residual Biocide or Derivative Monitoring 

While ballast water treatment technologies reduce the probability of invasion, such 

treatment may introduce other water quality impacts, such as toxicity. For example, the addition 

or in-process generation of disinfecting chemicals may result in an effluent with some residual 

toxicity. Depending on the predicted or measured oxidant levels in the ballast water, a chemical 

Page 87 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

neutralizing agent may be applied before ballast water discharge.15 Use of chemical biocides also 

has the potential for generation of disinfection by-products, such as trihalomethanes and 

haloacetic acids. Currently available technologies use chemical neutralization or other means to 

mitigate residuals, but are not able to reduce disinfection byproducts of concern once created. 

Based upon the potential discharge of residual biocides, EPA has incorporated 

monitoring requirements for both type approved ballast water treatment systems and 

experimental ballast water treatment systems which use an active substance in Part 2.2.3.5 of 

today’s permit. For vessels having ballast water treatment systems that either add or generate 

biocides for treatment (e.g., chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone, etc.) the vessel must conduct 

monitoring of the vessel ballast water discharge for any residual biocides to demonstrate 

compliance with the limits provided in Table 5. For example, if chlorine biocide is used in ballast 

water treatment, the vessel owner/operator must test four times per year for residual chlorine in 

the vessel ballast water discharge. All sampling and testing for residual biocides shall be 

conducted using sufficiently sensitive 40 CFR Part 136 methods or other methods if specifically 

listed. If methods for a particular residual biocide are not available in 40 CFR 136, then another 

method may also be used (e.g., ISO methods). Sensors or other test equipment that continuously 

monitor residual biocide in ballast water discharge must be sufficiently sensitive to measure 

biocide concentrations before and after any neutralization process to verify discharge 

concentrations and to control the neutralizer dose. 

If a ballast water treatment system uses a biocide not listed in Table 3, the residual 

biocide may not exceed acute water quality criteria listed in EPA’s 2009 National Recommended 

Water Quality Criteria, and any subsequent revision, at the point of ballast water discharge.16 

As with biological monitoring, EPA has required different monitoring frequencies for 

vessels utilizing a ballast water treatment system where high quality type approval data are 

available to the US EPA and the US Coast Guard. As previously discussed, EPA expects that the 

vast majority of vendors will either get their systems type approved by the US Coast Guard, or at 

minimum, will share their full type approval data packages with the US government during this 

permit term. For those systems, EPA has required that the vessel owner/operator must initially 

take at least three (3) samples on different days from different treatment episodes over a 180-day 

period that are representative of the treated ballast water discharge. This is required to 

demonstrate that residual biocides are in compliance with the permit effluent limits and/or to 

generate information for EPA which will assist the Agency in evaluating whether certain 

biocides or their byproducts are likely to cause or contribute to a violation of water quality 

standards. Each sample must be tested independently and the individual results must be reported 

and not averaged. Samples must be tested as soon as possible after sampling, and may not be 

held longer than recommended by the test method for each tested constituent. Thereafter, the 

vessel must conduct maintenance sampling and analysis for residual biocides at least two (2) 

times per year of the vessel ballast water discharge to demonstrate continued compliance with 

15USEPA, Science Advisory Board (SAB), Ecological Processes and Effects Committee, Efficacy of Ballast Water 

Treatment Systems, June 2011.

16 USEPA, National Recommended Water Quality Criteria , 2009. 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/upload/nrwqc-2009.pdf. 

Page 88 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

effluent limits and to produce information regarding the continuing performance of the systems 

and how they might impact the aquatic environment. 

For those systems for which high quality data are not fully available to EPA and the 

Coast Guard, EPA must receive a higher degree of assurance that the systems are functioning 

effectively so that they are not releasing harmful quantities of residual biocides or byproducts 

into the aquatic environment. As a result, EPA has required monitoring on a more frequent basis 

for any ballast water treatment system for which adequate data (e.g., full data packages 

submitted to flag administrations) are not available. Hence, vessel owner/operators employing 

these systems must initially take at least five (5) samples on different days from different 

treatment episodes over a 180-day period that are representative of the treated ballast water 

discharge. Each sample must be tested independently and the individual results must be reported 

and not averaged. Samples must be tested as soon as possible after sampling, and may not be 

held longer than recommended by the test method for each tested constituent. Thereafter, the 

vessel must conduct maintenance sampling and analysis for residual biocides at least four (4) 

times per year of the vessel ballast water discharge to demonstrate continued compliance with 

the effluent limits. 

For all ballast water treatment systems, the minimum time period between ballast water 

sampling events for residual biocides cannot be less than 14 days. EPA has required a minimum 

time of 14 days between sampling events to assure that the system is performing over time 

during a given a year. EPA is not requiring monitoring on specified schedule (e.g., once per 

quarter) because ballast water discharge events might be episodic for some vessel 

owner/operators, and EPA wanted to provide flexibility to vessel owner/operators as to when 

they could collect samples. For vessels that only enter U.S. waters on a limited basis (i.e., one 

time per year or less), the vessel must have conducted ballast water monitoring for residual 

biocides within the previous year and upon discharge into U.S. waters. If any of the initial or 

maintenance samples exceed the effluent limits specified in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 of the VGP, the 

vessel owner/operator must immediately cease discharging from the treatment system and 

undertake steps necessary to achieve compliance. 

Biocides can also generate derivatives in ballast water that have aquatic toxicity when 

released to the environment. For example, chlorine combined with organic material can generate 

short chain volatile hydrocarbons (e.g., trihalomethanes). In addition to monitoring for the 

biocide, vessels must also conduct ballast water effluent sampling for biocide derivatives on the 

same schedule discussed above. The minimum time period between sampling ballast water 

sampling events for biocide derivatives cannot be less than 14 days. 

4.4.3.5.1.1.6 Use of Biocides not Specifically Addressed in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.1 of the Permit

The list of specific biocides authorized in section 2.2.3.5.1.1.1 of the permit, including 

Table 5 of the permit and those listed in the 2009 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 

and subsequent revisions published prior to issuance of today’s permit, contains most biocides, 

and/or the derivatives from such biocides, currently in use or potentially to be used in ballast 

water treatment systems of which EPA is aware. If after permit issuance, a biocide and its 

derivatives used or produced by a BWTS are not listed in section 2.2.3.5.1.1.1 or found in 2009 

National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and subsequent revisions published prior to 

Page 89 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

issuance of today’s permit., the permit provides that a vessel owner or operation must notify 

EPA at least 120 days in advance of its use and provide any associated aquatic toxicity data for 

that biocide or its derivatives of which they are aware. EPA may impose additional limitations on 

a vessel specific basis, or require the owner/operator to obtain coverage under an individual 

permit, if necessary. EPA may inform the vessel owner / operator of specific requirements. You 

may not discharge the biocide at issue until you receive a response from EPA to your 

notification. 

EPA notes that the 2008 VGP included an alternative requirement for Whole Effluent 

Toxicity (WET) testing for experimental ballast water treatment systems using biocides, or 

which have derivatives from such biocides, for which there are not acute water quality criteria 

available. In today’s permit, EPA has removed the requirement for certain vessels that employ 

ballast water treatment systems to perform WET testing. This provision of the 2008 VGP was 

only used by one vendor to date, and EPA expects that such circumstances are expected to be 

similarly rare in the 2013 VGP. Given this, EPA believes a vessel-specific approach is more 

appropriate. 

4.4.3.5.1.1.7 Ballast Water Treatment System Recordkeeping and Reporting

Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.6 of the permit addresses recordkeeping and reporting for vessels 

utilizing shipboard ballast water treatment systems. These provisions were included to ensure 

that the vessel owner/operator complies with the limits previously discussed for section 4.4.3.5

of this fact sheet. 

Like all other records required by the VGP, all records of monitoring must remain onboard 

the vessel for a minimum of three years and be available for inspection. Documentation 

regarding ballast water treatment system sensor and other control equipment calibration must 

also remain on the vessel for a minimum of three years and be made available for inspection by 

EPA or USCG. Ballast water monitoring data (including treatment system monthly inspection 

records and equipment calibration records) may be kept in any form, including electronic form, 

provided they can be made available to the EPA and meet the requirements of Part 1.14 of the 

permit. Records of monitoring shall include: 

• The ballast water treatment system used, its type approval certificate, and records of 

whether the system is a vessel with type approved devices for which high quality type 

approval data have been made available;

• The individual(s) who performed the sampling, measurements, and/or inspections; 

• The date(s) analyses and/or inspections were performed,

• Any sensor or other control equipment calibration and functional tests conducted 

during the inspection as applicable; 

• The techniques or methods used for any sensor or other control equipment calibration 

and functional tests as applicable;

Page 90 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

• The date and time of all monitoring results (monitoring in Parts 2.2.3.5.1.1.1, 

2.2.3.5.1.1.2, 2.2.3.5.1.1.4, 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 as applicable);

• The analytical techniques or methods used as applicable, and 

• The results of such analyses.

Monthly sensor or other control equipment measurement records must be submitted to 

EPA as part of the vessel’s annual report on ballast water management. EPA found that monthly 

monitoring is necessary to assure that systems are functioning as designed. Due to the rigorous 

land based and shipboard testing these systems generally must undergo before they are installed 

onboard vessels, EPA believes that monitoring the functional parameters on a monthly basis 

provides a basic level of assurance that the systems are effectively treating the ballast water 

discharge and removing living organisms to the extent necessary to meet the effluent limits 

specified in this permit. The biological effluent monitoring of indicator organisms provides EPA 

added assurance (within the limits of what is feasible with today’s monitoring technologies) that 

these systems are effectively killing living organisms before discharge. Furthermore, considering 

the nature and effect of ballast water discharges, EPA has determined that annual reporting of 

these monthly and other monitoring results is appropriate. See 40 CFR 122.44(i). There is no 

need for EPA to require reporting of monitoring results more frequently than annually, as the 

monitoring requirements are primarily imposed to ensure that the owner/operator is aware of 

system malfunctions and, per section 3.2 of the permit, takes necessary corrective action.

17

4.4.3.5.2 Onshore Treatment of Ballast Water

For those vessels whose design and construction safely allows for the transfer of ballast 

water to a third party (which may be an onshore facility or on another vessel such as a treatment 

barge), if such treatment for ballast water is available, practicable and economically achievable, 

the vessel owner/operator may use this treatment for any ballast water discharges, and thus not 

discharge ballast water to waters of the US. 

Any vessel owner/operator covered by this permit discharging ballast water to a facility 

onshore or to another vessel must ensure that all vessel piping and supporting infrastructure up to 

the last manifold or valve immediately before the dock manifold connection of the receiving 

facility or similar appurtenance on a reception vessel prevents untreated ballast water from being 

discharged into waters subject to this permit. 

Discharges containing ballast water from a vessel covered by this permit by an onshore 

facility or from another vessel not covered by this permit, must be authorized by an NPDES 

permit issued by the NPDES permit authority responsible for the waters to which the discharge 

17 Information that a system is not running as designed would likely tell EPA nothing about how many living 

organisms were released during a given time period and thus their invasion potential and therefore would be of 

limited use to the Agency if such information were required to be submitted to the Agency on a more frequent basis. 

What is important here is that the Agency knows that when the system was found to be malfunctioning, the 

owner/operator took necessary corrective action. This is information that will be submitted to the Agency in the 

annual reports and thus could form the basis for any necessary enforcement action.

Page 91 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

occurs (i.e., the state in most cases18). EPA recommends that permitting authorities include 

conditions in the permit providing for treatment to remove living organisms at least as protective 

as the standards adopted in Part 2.2.3.5 or any subsequent VGP ballast water limits. EPA notes 

that it has the authority to object to proposed state permits if limits are not in compliance with the 

CWA (CWA section 402(d)) and intends to work with states, as appropriate, as they develop 

such permits. 

While EPA believes that shipboard treatment of ballast water is an essential part of the 

solution to ballast water management for much of today’s fleet, considering their operations, use 

of onshore treatment systems, if available (e.g., compatible with the vessel), could be a valid and 

effective form of ballast water treatment. EPA’s SAB concluded that “. . . use of reception 

facilities may enable ballast water discharges to meet a stricter standard.” (US EPA SAB, 2011, 

page 8). EPA is unaware of any such onshore treatment facilities capable of meeting the VGP’s 

2.2.3.5 ballast water standards currently available in the U.S. (US EPA SAB, 2011). 

The potential advantages of onshore treatment facilities over shipboard treatment include: 

fewer onshore facilities than shipboard systems would be needed; smaller total treatment 

capacity would be needed; and onshore facilities would be subject to fewer physical restrictions, 

and would therefore be able to use more effective treatment technologies and processes than 

those used for shipboard treatment (US EPA SAB, 2011). Some studies conclude that onshore 

treatment facilities are a technically feasible option for either the industry as a whole or for some 

part of the industry (Pollutech, 1992; NAS, 1996; Oemke, 1999; CAPA, 2000; California 

SWRCB, 2002; Brown and Caldwell, 2007, 2008). Others conclude that cost or other factors 

could limit their use to part of the industry (Victoria ENRC, 1997; Dames & Moore, 1998, 1999; 

Rigby & Taylor, 2001a, b; California SLC, 2009, 2010). 

Implementing a national U.S. and international network of onshore reception facilities 

presents many challenges. The most significant challenge is ensuring the availability of onshore 

treatment facilities at all ports of call, because if even one anticipated port location for a vessel 

does not have onshore treatment, that vessel may need to install a shipboard treatment system, 

defer the discharge of ballast water, or decline to call at that port. Another critical challenge is 

retrofitting vessels with the appropriate pipes and pumps to move ballast water up from tanks 

and off the ship at a rate fast enough that the vessel can perform cargo operations without 

significant and costly delays. Finally, onshore treatment facilities may not provide a complete 

solution to ballast water treatment. For example, some vessels may need to discharge part of 

their ballast water before arriving at berth so they can conduct cargo operations as soon as 

possible following arrival at the dock (AQIS, 1993a; Oemke, 1999; Cohen & Foster, 2000; 

CAPA, 2000; Rigby & Taylor, 2001a); some vessels need to discharge ballast water to reduce 

draft before arriving at berth (Cohen, 1998; Dames & Moore, 1998, 1999; Oemke, 1999; CAPA, 

2000, Rigby & Taylor, 2001a; California SWRCB, 2002; California SLC, 2010); and lightering 

vessels may need to discharge ballast as they load cargo at designated anchorages or lightering 

18 As explained more fully in sections 3.1 and 3.5.2.1 of this fact sheet, while EPA retains the authority to permit 

discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels formerly subject to the exclusion from NPDES permitting at 

40 CFR 122.3(a) regardless of the NPDES authorization status of a state, onshore treatment facilities and treatment 

barges were never within the scope of that exclusion, as onshore facilities are not “vessels” and treatment barges 

operate in a capacity other than as a means of transportation.

Page 92 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

zones (CDR Gary Croot, U.S. Coast Guard, pers. comm.; National Ballast Information 

Clearinghouse data). 

However, onshore treatment of ballast water has been used in the past to remove oil from 

certain ballast water discharges from certain vessels (e.g., to prevent the discharge of oily ballast 

water from single hull tanker vessels). Use of these facilities, with modifications made 

specifically to remove living organisms (e.g., filtration with second stage disinfection) might 

make operational sense for vessels sailing dedicated routes. For example, an oil tanker engaged 

in the Coastwise trade which only deballasts in the same Alaskan waters, may elect to utilize 

onshore treatment if a facility is available. However, should this vessel be shifted to a different 

route and need to deballast, they will be responsible for finding onshore treatment in the new 

port in the U.S, need to rapidly install a shipboard ballast water treatment system, or likely will 

be unable to discharge their untreated ballast water in compliance with this permit’s applicable 

requirements. 

4.4.3.5.3 Use of Public Water Supply Water

EPA has addressed in the permit the use of water from US or Canadian public water 

supplies as a ballast water treatment method for vessels required to complete ballast water 

treatment. For the 2009 US Coast Guard proposed ballast water discharge standard rulemaking, 

twenty commenters19 urged the Coast Guard to exempt vessels from having to treat their ballast 

water if the water was obtained from a municipal water supply. The commenters stated that this 

is a common practice for inland towing vessels and/or barges and offshore energy services. 

Based in part on these comments (available in the docket for today’s permit) and comments on 

the 2011 draft VGP, EPA believes that public water supply water is an option for certain vessels 

to use in their ballast water management approaches. Furthermore, EPA believes that water 

which satisfies the standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 300f-300j) or 

Canada’s “Guidance For Providing Safe Drinking Water in Areas of Federal Jurisdiction” should 

be acceptable for use as ballast water without posing a significant threat of introducing or 

spreading ANS. Drinking water treatment processes require a high degree of disinfection and in 

many cases, filtration, which would make the likelihood of loading ANS into a vessel’s ballast 

tank highly unlikely. EPA notes that it has imposed several BMPs in the permit, pursuant to 40 

CFR 122.44(k)(4), to ensure that the applicable effluent limits are achieved. In particular, the 

permit provides that a vessel owner/operator must certify that it exclusively uses public water 

supply water in order to utilize this management measure to meet the treatment requirements of

this permit. Any mixture of water obtained from a source other than a facility meeting the 

requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act will negate acceptability of potable water as 

discharged ballast water. 

4.4.3.5.4 No Discharge of Ballast Water

A fourth option available to vessel owner/operators is to not discharge ballast water. For 

many vessel types and routes, this is a feasible option which is available, practicable and 

economically achievable.

19 See docket number USCG-2001-10486 for all comments submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard as part of their 

proposed rulemaking. 

Page 93 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Ballast water is treated to mitigate the risk posed by potential ANS contained within the 

ballast water tank. If a vessel does not discharge any ballast water, the risk associated with such 

discharges is nil.

Examples of vessels which may not need to discharge any ballast water include some 

cruise ships, container ships, and utility vessels. These vessels often have numerous ballast tanks 

onboard with internal piping which connects those tanks. Hence, they can internally shift ballast 

water between tanks as needed to adjust the trim and stability of the vessel. Other vessels, such 

as some tugboats, use permanent ballast and never discharge that water (AWO, 2009). In the 

case of offshore supply vessels, these transport potable water to offshore facilities and do not 

need to discharge ballast water to receiving waters (see comments submitted in response to US 

Coast Guard rulemaking; e.g., USCG-2001-10486-0440 and USCG-2001-10486-0457). Finally, 

though generally in a concept stage, some large vessels, such as tankers, have been designed to 

be ballastless vessels (Mouawad, 2011; Parson and Kotinis, 2008); some of these designs do not 

substantially increase the exposed area of the hull (e.g., Mouawad, 2011) (which would increase 

hull fouling and might not actually reduce the transport of ANS). Though likely not appropriate 

for all vessel designs and operations, a ballastless design might result in the elimination of ballast 

water discharges from these vessels. 

4.4.3.5.5 Schedule for when Ballast Water Treatment Becomes BAT (and Therefore 

Required) 

In today’s permit, EPA has determined that when technology capable of meeting the 

numeric concentration-based effluent limits in Part 2.2.3.5 becomes available and economically 

achievable (i.e., when it becomes BAT) is a function of a vessel’s construction date, size, and 

class. Thus, those numeric effluent limits will become applicable as a vessel’s technology-based 

effluent limits according to the schedule specified in the permit. This schedule is based on a 

determination by EPA that ballast water treatment technology to meet the numeric limits is or 

will be available and economically achievable for a vessel by the specified date. Pending 

installation of ballast water treatment or other methods to meet the numeric effluent limits, 

ballast water discharges must comply with the other BAT requirements (i.e., non-numeric 

BMPs) outlined in today’s permit. 

a. New Vessels

At the time the draft VGP was made available for comment in December 2011 (76 FR 

76716), the USCG had proposed, but not finalized, its ballast water discharge standard and typeapproval rulemaking (74 FR 44632, August 28, 2009). The draft VGP schedule for achieving 

compliance with its technology-based numeric limits for ballast water was consistent with the 

USCG proposal. As discussed in more detail in the Fact Sheet for the draft VGP, available 

information and analyses indicated that at least five different types of treatment technologies had 

been shown to be safe, reliable and effective at reducing viable living organisms in ballast water 

discharges so as to meet the limits in the IMO’s BWM Convention Regulation D-2 and the 

USCG’s proposed phase 1 standard. Furthermore, the available information demonstrated that 

such technologies were commercially available for shipboard installation and their use was 

economically achievable if they were installed on an appropriate implementation schedule. In 

light of that, based upon a BPT/BCT/BAT determination as discussed in section 4.4.3.5.1 of the 

Page 94 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

draft 2011 VGP Fact Sheet, EPA proposed to establish numeric ballast water discharge limits 

consistent with the USCG Phase I proposed discharge standard/IMO standard, with a rolling 

implementation schedule similar to that contained in the USCG proposal and IMO BWM 

Convention. As explained in this Fact Sheet, and in the response to comments document, EPA 

continues to believe that the draft VGP’s technology-based ballast water numeric limits are 

appropriate for inclusion in the final VGP. 

Since publication of the draft VGP, the USCG has finalized its ballast water discharge 

standard and type-approval rulemaking (77 FR 77 17254, March 23, 2012). That final rule, like 

today’s permit, retains the USCG’s proposed phase 1/IMO BWM Convention Regulation D-2 

numeric limits. However, due to concerns that there would not be an adequate number of 

approved BWMS , the final rule delayed the date for which a vessel would be considered a new 

build vessel by 23 months -- from January 1, 2012, to December 1, 2013 (77 FR 17259; 17266; 

17271). Under both the USCG and EPA requirements, “new build” vessels must comply with the 

ballast water discharge standards immediately upon entering into service.

The USCG does not anticipate completing its type approval of any system prior to 2015 

(77 FR 17259). In light of that, the USCG March 2012 final rule contains a process (“Alternate 

Management System” or “AMS”) under which, subject to approval by the USCG, a foreign typeapproved treatment system may be temporarily used while operating in waters subject to the 

USCG rule. 33 CFR 151.2026; see 77 FR 17259. As a result, a vessel owner/operator may 

comply with USCG regulations by using an AMS system and would no longer need to conduct 

ballast water exchange if previously required to do so. However, even with the AMS process, the 

USCG anticipates there will not be an adequate number of USCG-approved BWMS to allow 

vessel owners to meet the compliance date for new vessels as was proposed in their rulemaking 

(and which was also included in the 2011 draft VGP) (77 FR 17259). 

The USCG’s final rule’s schedule for compliance for existing vessels remained 

unchanged from their proposal, and, consistent with the December 2011 draft VGP, today’s final 

VGP also leaves the schedule for existing vessels unchanged. However, with respect to new 

vessels, EPA believes that it is appropriate to revise the VGP schedule for meeting the 

technology-based ballast water numeric limitations in a manner consistent with the USCG final 

rule. Based upon comments received on the proposed VGP, and consistent with the changes 

made in the final USCG rulemaking with respect to new build vessels’ compliance dates, EPA

has defined “new build” vessels as those constructed (as defined in Appendix A of the VGP) 

after December 1, 2013 and, like the Coast Guard, has required compliance with the technologybased ballast water numeric limitations upon delivery. 

The USCG is responsible for administering and implementing the BWMS type-approval 

and AMS approval programs and has concluded that for new vessels, such an extension of the 

schedule is necessary in light of the time it will take to implement its type-approval and AMS 

process. EPA believes that it is not advisable to in effect require installation of treatment systems 

that have not undergone required review and quality control under the USCG regulations. The 

potential consequences of installation of systems which do not function as designed would be 

less effective treatment than provided by ballast water exchange alone and additional economic 

costs for vessel operators required to reinstall systems on a short schedule (i.e., if installed 

systems ultimately proved non-compliant with EPA standards or failed to obtain USCG approval 

Page 95 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

in the required timeframes). As explained further in the economic analysis for today’s final VGP, 

requiring installation of systems before either AMS or type approval has been granted, thereby 

increasing the potential that treatment systems unable to meet the technology based numeric 

limits in today’s final VGP would have to be torn out and replaced, would raise additional issues 

of the economic achievability regarding the immediate installation of ballast water treatment 

systems for vessels built between Jan.1 2012 and Dec. 1 2013. In light of the above, we have 

revised the Final 2013 VGP schedule to reflect the schedule now contained in the USCG final 

rule.

b. Existing Vessels

As described more fully above, ballast water treatment technologies have been 

developed that have been demonstrated to meet the IMO D-2 standard within the context of 

typical marine vessel constraints, including restrictions on size, weight, and energy demands. 

While practicable for newly constructed vessels, integrating such technologies on a retrofit basis 

may be challenging for some vessels (US EPA SAB, 2011). Hence, based upon additional 

challenges associated with retrofitting the large number of vessels that will need to install 

treatment technologies to meet the numeric ballast water effluent limits in the permit (see

Bacher, 2011; Hintzsche, 2011), EPA has included a rolling implementation schedule that 

requires the installation of BWTS by the first drydocking after 2014 or 2016 (dependent upon 

vessel size), which may extend beyond the permit term for certain vessels. This time schedule is 

consistent with the timelines in the IMO treaty and the Coast Guard’s March 2012 rulemaking. 

EPA’s adoption of this schedule reflects the fact that the BW treatment system industry 

will need the additional time provided by the schedule to produce the required units, and vessel 

owners will need that additional time to do the advance work necessary to ensure that they 

choose and secure the appropriate system for their vessels and, to make arrangements for 

drydocking or other time out of service and inspection and approval necessary to properly install 

the technology. Until all of this is accomplished, treatment technology meeting the standards set 

out in section 2.2.3.5 of this permit will not be “available” within the meeting of the Clean Water 

Act. Because it is well-known that the IMO standards will imminently come into effect (and 

USCG ballast water rulemaking has been finalized), manufacturers and vessel owners have been 

engaging in the multi-year planning necessary to implement the IMO standards on the IMO 

schedule. Thus, the industry as a whole should be on track to have treatment technologies 

installed on that schedule. Although EPA did consider accelerating this, the Agency decided 

against doing so, since, as noted above, the BW treatment system industry needs the additional 

time reflected in the VGP’s schedule to produce the required units. In addition, the Agency is 

concerned that altering the anticipated schedule at this late a date would disrupt the industry’s 

prior planning and that efforts to establish additional production capacity could distract 

manufacturers’ resources from meeting existing demand, and thus perhaps even result in further 

delays. Given the magnitude of the task for manufacturing and installing ballast water treatment 

systems, EPA believes that the timeframes for when treatment technology becomes “available” 

to meet the limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP is reasonable. Further discussion of the 

factors that informed EPA’s adoption of the IMO timeline follows:

Manufacturing capacity: The ballast water treatment system industry is relatively young 

and currently has a limited production capacity. As of February, 2010, Lloyds Register (2010) 

Page 96 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

estimated that there were 119 ballast water treatment systems installed worldwide. As of June 

2011, Lloyds Register (2011) estimated that a total of 200 systems have been installed on vessels 

worldwide. The government of Japan estimates that more than 70,000 vessels worldwide will 

need to be fitted with ballast water treatment systems (MEPC 61/2/17); see Figure 1 below. King 

(2010) notes that even on the IMO schedule, 20,000 to 30,000 systems may need to be installed 

on vessels per year. If EPA were to require all systems be installed within a 1-2 year period, even 

only on vessels operating in US waters, it would be highly unlikely that vendors could meet 

production demand for the large number of vessels operating in US waters during that time. 

Furthermore, by spreading the production of systems over several years, vendors will have the 

opportunity to perfect and improve systems, such that any defects or shortcomings observed in 

the first systems produced and installed can be corrected.

Figure 1. Installation Schedule of Ballast Water Treatment Systems Estimated by the 

Government of Japan (MEPC 61/2/17). 

Drydock availability and time out of service: It is not feasible to expect all existing 

vessels which operate within U.S. waters to install ballast water treatment systems within a short 

period of time (e.g., one or two years). EPA expects that many existing vessels will need to enter 

drydock or make arrangements for time out of service to install a ballast water treatment system 

and have that installation inspected and approved by their class society and/or flag 

administration. It is EPA’s understanding that vessels drydock on a three to five year cycle and 

vessels typically arrange for drydocking many months to years in advance. Drydocking must 

take place no less than once every five years (US EPA SAB, 2011 citing ABS SVR 7/2/1-11), 

meaning that vessel owner/operators cannot put off installation of ballast water treatment 

systems indefinitely. Furthermore, worldwide drydocking capacity is limited, and all vessels 

would not be able to enter drydock within the same year. 

Page 97 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Retrofitting: Installation of ballast water treatment systems on existing vessels is more 

complicated than installation on new-build vessels (ABS, 2010; GLBWC, 2010). Whereas 

owner/operators of new build vessels have known about ballast water treatment systems and 

potential requirements, and so could design vessels for their ultimate inclusion, previously 

constructed vessels are likely to have additional design challenges (Bacher, 2011; Hintzsche, 

2011). For instance, many vessels have space or energy limitations, which reduce a vessel’s 

options for which systems they select (Albert and Everett, 2010). Additionally, many vessels will 

have to install additional ballast system access points and sampling ports; all of which must be 

designed before installation. Hence, for existing vessels, installation of a ballast water treatment 

system is not a turn-key operation, and owners will need some time to identify, procure and 

install the appropriate system for their vessel and its operating circumstances. 

Economic Impacts: Please see the discussion above under “Ballast water treatment 

requirements in the 2013 VGP are economically practicable and economically achievable” for a 

discussion of what a more rapid implementation schedule might mean economically. 

EPA believes that a less rapid implementation schedule than that in today’s permit is also 

not reflective of BAT. Vessel owner/operators have had many years to prepare for the 

installation of ballast water treatment systems, and as discussed earlier in this fact sheet, 

numerous ballast water treatment systems are available today. Installation deadlines (e.g., when 

installation of a treatment system becomes BAT) for existing vessels begin more than 1 year 

after the anticipated finalization of the next VGP and treatment system requirements phase in 

over a multi- year period. Additionally, the U.S. Coast Guard finalized the ballast water 

discharge standard rulemaking with the same schedule for existing vessels as contained in 

today’s permit. If vessel owner/operators anticipate complications with installing ballast water 

treatment systems during the 2016 to 2019 time period due to high demand and treatment system 

manufacturer backlog, EPA strongly advises these owner/operators to begin planning and, as 

appropriate, taking concrete steps, to avoid these complications today. This may include 

installing ballast water treatment systems before a drydocking before January 1, 2016 in those 

cases where vessel owner/operators can plan, design, and procure a ballast water treatment 

system for one or more of their vessels in this shortened time period. 

EPA also notes that the CWA requires that BAT be required no later than July 1, 1989 or 

for entities permitted for the first time after that date, BAT must be achieved immediately upon 

permit effectiveness. CWA section 301(b)(2). When EPA issued the first VGP in 2008, it 

established BAT for all vessels, and thus satisfied the statutory timeframe obligation. In this next 

iteration of the permit, EPA is ratcheting down to a more stringent BAT numeric effluent 

limitation for certain vessels over time, based upon when technological advancements will make 

these more stringent limits available and practicable and economically achievable. For certain 

dischargers, EPA has determined that the technology will be available, practicable and 

economically achievable at time of permit issuance, and therefore the numeric limit constitutes 

BAT at that time. For other dischargers, EPA has determined that the technology will be 

available, practicable and economically achievable over time, and therefore the numeric limits 

constitute BAT on the dates specified in the implementation schedule.

Page 98 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

4.4.3.5.6 Vessels Not Required to Meet Part 2.2.3.5 Treatment Standards 

The numeric concentration-based treatment limits do not apply to all vessels subject to 

this permit. Separate technology-based effluent limitations, in the form of BMPs under 40 CFR 

122.44(k)(3) (e.g., Part 2.2.3.3 and 2.2.3.4 of the permit), apply to the vessel classes discussed 

below: 

4.4.3.5.6.1 Vessels Engaged in Short-Distance Voyages 

The following vessels, regardless of size, build date and type are not required to meet the 

ballast water discharge standards found in Part 2.2.3.5 of this permit: 

• Vessels which stay within a single US Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) zone; 

and 

• Vessels which do not travel more than 10 nm and cross no physical barriers or 

obstructions (e.g., locks), whether or not they operate within one US Coast Guard 

COTP zone. 

EPA has not mandated that vessels meet the numeric ballast water effluent limits in 

Part 2.2.3.5 for these vessels operating on generally short routes to minimize other non waterquality environmental impacts. 40 CFR § 125.3(d)(3). Such limits are based on the application of 

certain technologies, and as discussed below, use of ballast water treatment systems results in 

some non- water quality environmental impacts, including increased energy usage and increased 

carbon emissions. Vessels which operate on short routes may discharge ballast water more 

frequently than vessels on longer routes, and as such, would have higher non-water quality 

impacts (e.g., higher energy usage, increased greenhouse gas emissions) per distance travelled. 

Furthermore, many existing ballast water treatment systems use biocides (see Albert et 

al., 2010 for a list of ballast water treatment systems using biocides as of June 2010; Lloyd’s 

2011 estimates approximately half of all ballast water treatment systems installed to date use a 

biocide). These biocides often need minimum contact time to be effective – short distance 

voyages might not provide this necessary time. Additionally, the discharge of ballast water 

treated with biocides may contain residuals or byproducts from that treatment, and short voyage 

times may not permit adequate decay or neutralization. 

EPA has included a definition which makes use of US Coast Guard COTP zones and 

distance travelled. For the first definition of a short voyage, EPA chose the US Coast Guard 

COTP zone as the boundary within which vessels might voyage without having to meet the 

limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP, as this is a well known administrative district for vessel 

owner/operators. For example, the US Coast Guard (and the US EPA in the 2008 VGP) does not 

require ballast water exchange if vessels stay within the COTP zone. 

The second definition of a short voyage under the VGP is for vessels such as cross river 

ferries that might cross a US Coast Guard COTP boundary. Though EPA is not aware of any 

specific vessels which currently meet these criteria, EPA did not want to inadvertently require 

ballast water treatment systems for vessels that would result in result in other environmental 

impacts (e.g., more biocides added to the aquatic environment, more fuel consumed and 

Page 99 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

greenhouse gasses released). If a vessel crosses a US Coast Guard COTP boundary, however, 

EPA limited the maximum distance which could be voyaged to no more than 10 miles to be 

considered a short voyage. Additionally, to be considered a short voyage, the vessel cannot cross 

a physical boundary (e.g., lock, falls). EPA included this upper bound to limit the dispersal of 

ANS across Coast Guard COTP boundaries (e.g., from one estuary to a nearby coastal estuary) 

or across potential obstructions to the dispersal of invasive species. 

Finally, EPA notes that vessels which travel short distances and do not cross physical 

barriers are less likely to pose risk in widely dispersing living organisms.

4.4.3.5.6.2 Unmanned, Unpowered Barges

Unmanned, unpowered barges generally move in the inland and coastal waterway system 

to transport low-value bulk items such as grain, coal, or iron ore. These vessels are roughly 

equivalent to a maritime railway car and are not manned with crew and do not have 

infrastructure that allows for complex or energy intensive operations. EPA understands that 

ballasting for barges is typically done in limited locations to pass under bridges and that the 

ballast intake and discharge occur immediately before and after transit under the bridge. In other 

cases, these barges ballast to improve stability in stormy conditions or other rough water. The 

vessels typically do not have dedicated ballast water tanks but can use wing tanks (void space) in 

the hull when ballasting is necessary. Minimal water is used for ballasting and EPA does not 

believe that barges are a significant discharger of ballast water.

Unmanned, unpowered barges have been recognized as posing unique challenges for 

managing ballast water. For instance, EPA’s SAB board notes: 

Inland waterways and coastal barges are not self-propelled, but rather are moved by 

towing or pushing with tugboats. Because these vessels have been designed to transport 

bulk cargo, or as working platforms, they commonly use ballast tanks or fill cargo spaces 

with water for trim and stability, or to prevent excessive motions in heavy seas. However, 

the application of [Ballast water management systems] on these vessels presents 

significant logistical challenges because they typically do not have their own source of 

power or ballast pumps and are unmanned (US EPA SAB, 2011, 40). 

Due to the complexities of operating existing type approved ballast water treatment 

systems, EPA has determined that treatment technologies are not currently available for 

unmanned, unpowered barges which meet the IMO discharge limit. As a result, EPA has not 

included numeric treatment limits for unmanned, unpowered barges. 

4.4.3.5.6.3 Vessels That Operate Exclusively on the Laurentian Great Lakes (Commonly 

Known as Lakers) Built Before January 1, 2009 

Vessels that operate exclusively on the Laurentian Great Lakes are not subject to the 

numeric limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP. The Laurentian Great Lakes means “upstream 

of the waters of the St. Lawrence River west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap de Rosiers to West 

Point, Anticosti Island, and west of a line along 63 W. longitude from Anticosti Island to the 

north shore of the St. Lawrence River and includes all other bodies of water within the drainage 

basin of such lakes and connecting channels).), 

Page 100 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

As discussed by EPA’s SAB, existing Lakers face unique operational and design 

constraints: 

In addition to specific environmental and vessel applications, vessel type and vessel 

operations can dictate [Ballast Water Management System] applicability. Although a 

multitude of vessel designs and operation scenarios exist, a few important examples of 

specific constraints can greatly limit treatment options. Perhaps the most dramatic 

limitations are found with the Great Lakes bulk carrier fleet that operates vessels solely 

within the Great Lakes with large volumes of fresh, and often cold, ballast water 

(“Lakers”). The vessels in this fleet have ballast volumes up to 50,000 m3, high pumping 

rates (up to 5,000 m3/hour), uncoated ballast tanks (older vessels), and some vessels have 

separate sea chests and pumps for each ballast tank. A further confounding issue is that 

voyages taken by Lakers average four to five days, with many less than two days. Given 

these characteristics, a number of limitations are imposed. . . US EPA SAB 2011, 40. 

Due to the challenges of installing ballast water treatment systems currently available on 

the many vessels in the Laker fleet, the cost of installing those systems at this time due to 

Lakers’ unique designs, and the lack of currently available ballast water treatment systems 

appropriate for the largest Lakers, alternative technologies are being researched. For example, 

ongoing research by the Great Ships Initiative (GSI), American Steamship Company (ASC), the 

National Park Service (Isle Royale National Park) and the United States Geological Survey 

(USGS) is being conducted to test the efficiency of various biocide introduction scenarios into a 

ship's ballast tanks. Bench-scale and land-based tests of various biocides and neutralizing agents 

have been conducted by GSI (Cangelosi, 2011), and in August 2011, GSI conducted the first ship 

board test of a sodium hydroxide biocide with carbon dioxide neutralizing agent onboard the 

ASC’s vessel M/V Indiana Harbor, a large Laker confined upstream of the Welland Canal. This 

technology is in the experimental testing stage, and thus there are many unresolved issues, 

including: the efficacy of this or other biocides; whether the active substance used to kill the 

organisms in the ballast water can be sufficiently neutralized prior to or during discharge so as to 

not cause toxic effects to the aquatic life of the surrounding water; whether there are other 

parameters of concern (such as dissolved solids, chlorides, sodium, salts, acidity, etc.) in such a 

discharge that may have deleterious environmental effects; as well as potential for such systems 

and chemicals to pose harm to the ship’s crew or the ship itself. Nonetheless, if these issues can 

be appropriately addressed, such as if an active substance and disinfection regime can be 

identified, such technology might be a potentially useful treatment technology for some Lakers 

in the future. Additionally, EPA notes that there are questions about whether there is an adequate 

supply of ballast water treatment systems designed to operate exclusively in cold, freshwater 

environments, and that the availability of ballast water treatment systems built to operate under 

these scenarios may lag the development of ballast water treatment systems designed for oceangoing and coastal vessels. Hence, EPA will closely follow the state of technologies currently 

being tested for all Lakers, including the largest Lakers confined upstream of the Welland Canal.

EPA will consider revising permit requirements during the term of the permit if such 

technologies do become available.

In Today’s permit provides that existing vessels operating exclusively on the Laurentian 

Great Lakes are not be subject to the requirement to meet the effluent (and related) limits in 

section 2.2.3.5 during the term of this permit. However, EPA is including a permit reopener 

Page 101 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

condition that addresses EPA’s ability to modify the permit to require installation of ballast water 

treatment systems if such systems become available. EPA advises Laker owner/operators that 

EPA intends to promptly exercise the permit reopener to initiate the process to modify the permit 

if such systems become available during the permit term. These requirements may include 

requiring that effluent meet levels achievable by treatment with an IMO type approved device or 

requiring an alternative technology-based ballast water effluent limit. 

EPA further notes that this requirement is generally consistent with the recently finalized 

Coast Guard ballast water rulemaking. In that rulemaking, USCG states that: “For the reasons we 

have discussed in th[e] preamble, we are not requiring vessels that operate exclusively in the 

Great Lakes to comply with BWDS in this final rule” (77 FR 17260). 

New Lakers

All Lakers built after January 1, 2009 must meet the ballast water treatment limits found 

in Part 2.2.3.5 of the permit. EPA selected January 1, 2009 as the cutoff date because this is the 

date that IMO originally first required treatment for some new build vessels. Any vessel 

owner/operators building or contracting vessels after this date were well aware of the need to 

design their systems to meet ballast water discharge limits and EPA therefore assumes that such 

vessels were so designed. EPA notes that the IMO schedule was extended for vessels with less 

than 5,000 cubic meters of ballast water, from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2011 via 

Assembly Resolution A1005[25].20 However, EPA notes that any owner/operator constructing 

vessels by the 2009 date were well aware of impending ballast water management requirements, 

and hence, should have appropriately designed their vessels to accommodate retrofitting a ballast 

water treatment system onboard.

Additionally, existing Lakers must meet all other ballast water requirements found in 

Part 2.2.3.3 of the VGP and Laker specific requirements found in Part 2.2.3.4 of the VGP. These 

supplemental requirements were developed to reduce the number of living organisms in ballast 

water, and the risk of their dispersal within the Great Lakes ecosystem.

4.4.3.5.6.4 Inland and Seagoing Vessels less than 1600 Gross Registered Tons (3000 Gross 

Tons)

Inland and Seagoing Vessels less than 1600 gross registered tons (3000 gross tons) are not 

required to meet the numeric treatment limits in Section 2.2.3.5 of today’s permit. A seagoing 

vessel means “a vessel in commercial service that operates beyond the boundary line established 

by 46 CFR Part 7. It does not include a vessel that navigates exclusively on inland waters.” 

(From 151.2005). An inland vessel means a vessel that operates exclusively on inland waters.

EPA encourages vessels in this size class to use alternate measures to reduce the number of 

20 Assembly Resolution A1005[25] recommends that States henceforth ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding 

to the Convention should accompany their instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, as 

appropriate, with a declaration or otherwise communicate to the Secretary-General their intention to apply the 

Convention on the basis of the following understanding, also taking into account paragraph 3:

“A ship subject to regulation B-3.3 constructed in 2009 will not be required to comply with regulation D-2 until its 

second annual survey, but no later than 31 December 2011.”

Page 102 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

living organisms in their ballast water discharges, including use of those measures found in Part 

2.2.3.5 of this permit and use of onboard potable water generators. 

The draft VGP would have required any vessel (not otherwise exempt) that carries greater 

than 8 cubic meters of ballast water to meet the numeric ballast effluent limitations for ballast 

water. Several commenters, however, argued that technologies are currently not available and/or 

economically achievable for the smaller size of non ocean-going vessels (e.g., tugboats) that may 

carry more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water. In response to these comments, EPA took a 

closer look at the record for the proposal and reassessed whether it demonstrated that ballast 

water treatment technologically is available and economically achievable for smaller vessels. 

Based upon that review, EPA concluded that ,though technologies are promising for future 

development, the record at proposal did not support the conclusion that numeric ballast water 

treatment limits for small inland and seagoing vessels represents BAT at this time or over the life 

of the permit. For example, most ballast water treatment systems have been designed for larger 

vessels and/or vessels which only uptake or discharge ballast water on either end of longer 

voyages and the record at proposal contained no evidence that any vessels smaller than 1600 

GRT had successfully installed a treatment systems on their vessel. Supplemental analysis by the 

Agency confirmed the conclusion that the ballast water numeric limits did not reflect BAT for 

this class of vessels.

21 EPA further notes that though meeting numeric limits does not represent 

BAT for these small inland and coastal vessels as a class, ballast water management measures to 

minimize the discharge of untreated ballast water might be available for some individual vessels 

in this class of vessels. For example, some smaller vessels because of their unique designs and 

operations might be able to use potable water for ballasting. For these reasons, EPA 

reemphasized the requirement for these vessels to meet existing ballast water minimization 

management measures in Part 2.2.3.3 of the permit and the agency strongly encourages all vessel 

owner/operators in this size class to take whatever measures they are able to reduce or eliminate 

the discharge of untreated ballast water into waters subject to this permit. 

Other than for the vessel types and voyage patterns discussed above, EPA found no basis 

for differentiating BPT/BAT solely based on age of equipment and facilities, process, process 

changes, or other engineering factors. 

4.4.3.5.7 Data Sources used in generating today’s numeric ballast water limits 

In developing today’s numeric effluent limits, EPA considered data from numerous peer 

reviewed publications, literature produced by the federal government, other technical reports and 

publications, public comments, and comments from experts working in the field (see US EPA 

SAB, 2011; Albert et al., 2010; CSLC, 2010; GLBWC, 2010; Lloyd’s List, 2010; WDNR, 2010). 

The data sources from which EPA derived information for decision-making purposes are 

included in the docket for the permit and/or referenced in this fact sheet (any material referenced 

in the fact sheet but not included in the docket is generally available published material). These 

21 Commenters addressed this issue in terms of “small” vessels generally or with respect to certain small vessel 

types, such as tugboats, without suggesting a specific threshold for applicability. EPA’s evaluation of the data led 

the Agency to conclude that the 1600 gross registered ton threshold for applicability of the US Coast Guard ballast 

water rule to inland and seagoing vessels (see 17304, Mar. 23, 2012) accurately reflected the class of vessels for 

which proven technologies are not yet available or economically achievable. 

Page 103 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

data sources discuss ballast water discharges, technologies available for the treatment of these 

discharges, and the effectiveness of the technologies. EPA considered these data and how to 

design a permit that included the best practicable technology and best available technology 

economically achievable in formulating the permit. 

As an important source used by EPA in setting the technology-based ballast water limits 

for today’s VGP, EPA’s SAB (2011) found that systems which meet the IMO D-2 standard are 

available. The EPA SAB also stated: Regarding the discharge standard 10x more stringent than 

the IMO D-2/ Phase 1, the criterion used was whether the number of living organisms in all size 

classes was consistently low following testing (below the detection limit, often reported as zero, 

or not more than twice the standard). However, as described in the response to charge question 4 

(section 6), current testing methods do not provide the resolution required to conclude that 10x 

standards can be met” (EPA SAB, 2011, p. 32). The SAB further noted that systems “may have 

the potential to meet [a standard 10 times IMO] with reasonable/feasible modifications to the 

existing BWMS.” 

EPA has finalized the numeric concentration based limit contained in the 2013 VGP 

based on these analyses and had concluded that these limits are reflective of BAT. 

4.4.3.6 Interim Requirements for Vessels Not Required to Meet the Ballast Water 

Management Measures in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP 

EPA has found the following interim management measures for vessels not meeting the 

requirements of Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP to be available, practicable and economically 

achievable. You must meet the interim management requirements as applicable until you meet 

the numeric treatment limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP. 

4.4.3.6.1 Requirements for Oceangoing Voyages While Carrying Ballast Water

In the United States, the U.S. Coast Guard has requirements for the management of 

ballast water listed in 33 CFR Part 151, Subparts C and D. These regulations generally require 

that prior to vessels being mandated to comply with the numeric ballast water effluent limits in 

Part 2.2.3.5 of the permit, if they transit to U.S. waters with ballast water that was taken on 

within 200 nautical miles of any shore into waters of the United States after operating beyond the 

U.S. EEZ, they must conduct one of the following ballast water management practices: 

• Conduct mid-ocean ballast water exchange further than 200 nm from any shore prior 

to entering U.S. waters or use an AMS; 

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

• Install and operate a USCG type-approved ballast water treatment system; or

• Use only water from a U.S. public water system. 33 CFR 151.1510(a) and 

151.2025(a). 

The regulations also contain exceptions to these requirements in extraordinary 

circumstances such as where there are safety concerns and do not require vessels will not be 

Page 104 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

required to deviate from, or delay, their voyage in order to conduct exchange. 33 CFR 151.1515 

and 151.2040. 

The 2013 VGP incorporates these requirements and allows for most vessels which meet 

the treatment requirements found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP to not also conduct ballast water 

exchange (except for certain vessels entering the Great Lakes as discussed in Part 4.4.3.9 of this 

fact sheet). Please see the BAT/BPT discussion in Parts 4.1 and 4.2 of this fact sheet for 

additional discussion regarding the basis for these requirements. 

4.4.3.6.2 Vessels Carrying Ballast Water Engaged in Pacific Nearshore Voyages

As in the 2008 VGP, EPA has required ballast water exchange as an interim requirement 

for vessels engaged in Pacific Nearshore voyages. Vessels engaged in Pacific nearshore voyages 

include: 

• Vessels engaged in the Pacific Coastwise trade that cross more than one Captain of 

the Port Zone and that will discharge ballast water into waters subject to this permit.

• All other vessels that sail from foreign, Atlantic, or Gulf of Mexico ports, which do 

not sail further than 200 nm from any shore, and that discharge or will discharge 

ballast water into the territorial sea or inland waters of Alaska or of the west coast of 

the continental United States.

Numerous studies and reports by NOAA and others have shown that mid-ocean ballast 

water exchange significantly reduces the presence of living organisms adapted to surviving in 

coastal, estuarine, and freshwater environments (Gray et al., 2007; Locke et al., 1993; McCollin 

et al., 2007; Ruiz & Reid, 2007). In a NOAA technical memorandum authored by Ruiz and Reid 

(2007), the authors made seven recommendations, one of which is that “B[allast] W[ater] 

E[xchange] should be considered a useful and beneficial ballast management practice to reduce 

species transfers and invasion risk. It is a valuable measure, especially because it is available 

now for immediate use on many vessels and shipping routes, in the absence of proven alternative 

treatment methods.” Hence, ballast water exchange is an appropriate interim step toward 

mitigating the risk from the spread of ANS until effective treatment technology is available. 

There has also been considerable discussion about establishing alternate ballast water exchange 

areas (ABWEA) within areas closer to the coast. Participants in a 2006 workshop (Phillips, 

2006) on establishing alternate exchange zones on the Pacific coast made three 

recommendations, two of which are applicable for the permit:

• In general, ABWEAs should be established no closer than 50 nm from shore and in 

waters at least 1000 m in depth. 

• Establishment of ABWEAs should avoid major estuary and oceanic river plumes, 

subsurface physical features (e.g. seamounts), and known fishery habitats.

For the most part, the continental shelf along the Pacific coast is narrow along both North 

and South America. Deep water environments beyond the continental shelf typically support 

ecosystems that are quite different than those which exist closer to shore. Due in part to this short 

width of the continental shelf, relatively deep waters beyond 50 nm from the Pacific shore, and 

Page 105 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

existing and pending regulation and statutes in California, Oregon, and Washington that require 

ballast water exchange for vessels engaged in the coastwise trade, EPA is requiring ballast water 

exchange under the permit for vessels engaged in Pacific nearshore voyages that will discharge 

ballast water into waters subject to this permit. If these vessels travel more than 50 miles from 

shore, they must conduct ballast water exchange while: 

• In the Pacific Ocean,

• As early as practicable in the voyage,

• More than 50 nm from shore, and 

• Preferably where the vessel is not near major estuary and oceanic river plumes, 

subsurface physical features (e.g. seamounts), and known fishery habitats. 

Based on reasons discussed above and elsewhere and this factsheet (e.g., see sections 4.1

and 4.2), EPA determined these requirements are technologically practicable and achievable, can 

be widely implemented, and will reduce the discharge of constituents of concern in ballast water 

streams. Furthermore, with implementation of existing and pending state regulation requiring 

similar practices, the incremental economic costs are relatively low (see the economic analysis 

prepared for this permit). However, EPA does not believe that vessels engaged in voyages that 

take them further than 200 nm from any shore should be allowed to exchange ballast water 

between 50 and 200 nm from the Pacific shore for the following reasons: 

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

• Ballast water exchange 200 nm or more from shore generally is more likely to 

mitigate the risk for the spread of ANS than ballast water exchange closer to shore. 

4.4.3.6.3 Mandatory Saltwater Flushing 

Mandatory saltwater flushing is required by this permit for all vessels carrying 

unpumpable ballast water and residual sediment that operate outside the US EEZ which are not 

required to meet the treatment requirements found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP, travel more than 

200 nm from shore, and will subsequently discharge ballast water to waters subject to this permit 

and for vessels that engage in Pacific nearshore voyages that will discharge ballast water in 

waters subject to this permit. This requirement is the same as to that found in the 2008 VGP. The 

permit states that “saltwater flushing means the addition of mid-ocean water to ballast water 

tanks containing only unpumpable residual ballast water; the mixing of the added water with 

residual ballast water and sediment through the motion of the vessel; and the discharge of the 

mixed water until loss of suction, such that the resulting residual water remaining in the tank has 

either a salinity greater than or equal to 30 parts per thousand (ppt) or a salinity concentration 

equal to the ambient salinity of the location where the uptake of the added water took place” (see 

Parts 2.2.3.7 and Part 7 of the permit). This process of flushing out empty ballast water tanks 

with mid-ocean saltwater is also commonly referred to as “swish and spit”. The vessels subject to 

this requirement are either those which have any ballast water tank that is empty or contains 

unpumpable residual water or those that certify, consistent with the Coast Guard’s regulations, 

that they have “No Ballast on Board” (“NOBOB” vessels). As previously noted, the Coast Guard 

currently has a voluntary saltwater flushing policy in place for all vessels entering the Great 

Page 106 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Lakes, and defines NOBOB vessels as “those vessels that have discharged ballast water in order 

to carry cargo, and as a result, have only unpumpable residual water and sediment remaining in 

tanks.” 70 FR 51832 (August 31, 2005). The purpose of mandatory saltwater flushing is to 

prevent the spread of ANS in ballast water tanks that appear empty, but often have unpumpable 

ballast water and/or residual sediment at the bottom of the tanks that may contain organisms 

which can become ANS. 

Saltwater flushing has been shown to be effective in preventing the introduction of ANS 

from vessels with residual ballast water and sediment in their ballast water tanks. In a NOAA 

technical memorandum, another of Ruiz and Reid’s (2007) concluding recommendations is that 

“[t]he use of high-salinity water to flush NOBOB ballast tanks should be considered a useful and 

beneficial management practice to reduce species transfers and invasion risks associated with 

NOBOB ships entering the Great Lakes. In the absence of proven alternatives, this practice 

provides some level of protection against some adult and larval life stages.” Additionally, 

saltwater flushing reduces the concentrations of sediment, a conventional pollutant, in ballast 

water discharge and, therefore, generally improves the quality of the ballast water discharge. 

Transport Canada has mandatory saltwater flushing requirements in its regulations for all 

vessels that discharge ballast water in Canadian Great Lakes ports. Furthermore, the Saint 

Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) recently published a final rule amending 

joint regulations at 33 CFR Part 401.30. The amendment is an effort to harmonize the ballast 

water requirements for vessels transiting the U.S. waters of the Saint Lawrence Seaway System 

with the saltwater flushing requirements already in place for vessels entering the Canadian 

waters of the Seaway System. The amendment, which went into effect on March 26, 2008, 

requires vessels that operate outside the EEZ to conduct saltwater flushing of ballast water tanks 

containing residual amounts of ballast water and sediment at least 200 nautical miles from any 

shore. The saltwater flushing must occur prior to entering either the U.S. or Canadian waters of 

the Seaway System. See 33 CFR 401.30(f); 73 FR 9950 (February 25, 2008). Hence, all vessels 

entering the Great Lakes must already use saltwater flushing for their tanks with unpumpable 

ballast water and residual sediment, and this permit reinforces these requirements. 

As with the 2008 VGP, today’s permit extends saltwater flushing requirements for 

vessels that travel more than 200 nm from shore and vessels engaged in Pacific nearshore 

voyages because EPA believes saltwater flushing is a widely-used low-cost approach that 

minimizes the risk that ANS will be successfully introduced from unpumpable ballast water and 

residual sediment. Saltwater flushing is most effective at eliminating organisms adapted to 

freshwater and low salinity environments due to the combined impacts of saltwater shock and 

physical dilution. However, saltwater flushing should also reduce viable living organisms 

adapted to estuarine, coastal and marine environments. First, saltwater flushing may reduce 

viable living organisms in residual ballast water through dilution. Secondly, saltwater flushing 

reduces the number of viable living organisms and organisms in resting stages in the residual 

sediment. Resting stages of ANS often inhabit the sediment in ballast water tanks: reducing the 

numbers of these organisms with both physical flushing and saltwater shock when applicable 

will likely reduce the propagule pressure of these potential invaders. Hence, the requirements for 

mandatory saltwater flushing are available, practicable and economically achievable. 

Additionally, the permit applies saltwater flushing on a tank-by-tank basis, and does not just 

limit this practice to vessels that declare they carry only unpumpable residual ballast water. This 

Page 107 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

is because the empty ballast water tanks in vessels that have a mixture of empty tanks and tanks 

containing pumpable ballast water still pose a risk of introducing ANS when the empty tanks are 

subsequently filled and discharged, and saltwater flushing of those tanks will help reduce this 

potential. However, vessels that seal empty tanks and will not use them to discharge ballast water 

in waters subject to this permit do not need to conduct saltwater flushing. 

4.4.3.6.4 Vessels that Complete Ballast Water Exchange Must Do So as Early as 

Practicable

As in the 2008 VGP, EPA has included a requirement for vessels to exchange ballast 

water as early as practicable. For those vessels that carry ballast water that was taken on in areas 

less than 200 nautical miles from any shore and will discharge into the waters subject to this 

permit after operating beyond the EEZ, EPA has included a requirement that all vessels that 

conduct ballast water exchange must do so as early as practicable, so long as the exchange 

occurs more than 200 nm from shore. This requirement will directly contribute to increased 

mortality of remaining living organisms in ballast water tanks. Increased mortality will result in 

the discharge of fewer viable living organisms, which will consequently reduce the likelihood of 

the risk of the establishment of ANS. 

4.4.3.6.5 Requirements for Tankers Engaged in the Coastwise Trade 

Section 1101(c)(2)(L) of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 4711) 

generally exempts crude oil tankers engaged in the coastwise trade from ballast water 

management requirements. There is no counterpart exemption for such vessels in the CWA, nor 

does it appear that such vessels are inherently unable to perform the ballast water exchange and 

other ANS management practices that their non-exempt vessel counterparts can and do routinely 

carry out. Additionally, EPA expects these vessels to be able to meet the treatment requirements 

in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP. Hence, as in the 2008 VGP, the NPDES permit would not exempt 

crude oil tankers in the Coastwise trade from its ballast water management requirements, and 

such tankers must either seek coverage under the permit and comply with its applicable terms or 

seek alternative NPDES permit coverage as discussed under the alternative permits section in 

Part 1.8 of the permit. 

4.4.3.7 Vessels Entering the Great Lakes

EPA has included additional permit conditions requiring all vessels that are equipped to 

carry ballast water and that enter the Great Lakes to comply with Coast Guard regulations 

mandating ballast water exchange (33 CFR Part 151, Subpart C). Also, vessels that operate 

outside the EEZ and more than 200 nm from any shore, and then enter the Great Lakes via the 

Saint Lawrence Seaway System must comply with St. Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation regulations that mandate saltwater flushing of ballast tanks (33 CFR part 401.30). 

These requirements constitute technology-based effluent limits for ballast water discharges from 

these vessels; additional requirements on vessels entering the Great Lakes are imposed as water 

quality-based effluent limits in Part 2.2.3.7 of the permit: see section 4.4.3.9 of this fact sheet for 

additional discussion. 

Page 108 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

4.4.3.8 Vessels in the U.S. Coast Guard Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP) 

A vessel equipped with ballast water tanks is not required to meet the requirements found 

in Parts 2.2.3.5 (except 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 and 2.2.3.5.1.1.6) and 2.2.3.6 of the VGP if the vessel is 

accepted by the U.S. Coast Guard into the Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP) as 

long as the vessel meets all of the requirements of such program. EPA believes that the STEP 

program has played, and will continue to play, a critical role in the development of effective 

ballast water treatment systems, as may other related or similar programs the Coast Guard might 

implement in the future. The program has encouraged pioneering vessel owner/operators to 

install ballast water treatment systems, has contributed to the development of effective sampling 

methods, and allowed for the collection of valuable shipboard ballast water treatment data 

needed to evaluate the efficacy of ballast water treatment systems. Furthermore, as systems are 

developed and refined, such programs will play a valuable role in supporting the development of 

technologies which exceed the performance of the IMO standard. EPA believes that STEP and 

other such programs will play a key role in the development of a greater range of systems which 

can meet the limits in today’s permit, and will also allow a venue for treatment vendors to 

develop systems to meet more stringent standards such as the previously proposed U.S. Coast 

Guard phase II standard. Finally U.S. Coast Guard programs (such as or similar to STEP) 

provide a mechanism for vessels to use not-yet approved BWMS during the testing required for 

type approval. 

EPA is requiring that vessel owner/operators of vessels enrolled in STEP must meet the 

requirements of Parts 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 and 2.2.3.5.1.1.6 of the permit. These requirements contain 

authorization, effluent limits, and basic monitoring for active substances from ballast water 

treatment systems. They also include recordkeeping and reporting requirements specific for 

vessels utilizing ballast water treatment systems (vessels enrolled in STEP are using ballast water 

treatment systems). 

Vessel owner/operators enrolled in the STEP program must complete a rigorous 

application process and undergo extensive review. Additionally, vessels involved in STEP are 

utilizing ballast water treatment technologies which share similarities in capabilities (and in 

many cases are the same systems) as those described in section 4.4.3.5.1 of this fact sheet or the 

technical reports EPA used to inform its decision making (e.g., EPA SAB, 2011). Therefore, 

EPA has determined that vessels enrolled in STEP and utilizing their ballast water treatment 

systems are effectively applying ballast water treatment and are meeting BAT. EPA notes that 

these vessels are utilizing ballast water treatment technologies designed to meet or exceed the 

permit limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP, and vessels enrolled in STEP are playing and will 

continue to play a key role in improving our understanding of the efficacy of ballast water 

treatment systems.

4.4.3.9 Narrative Water Quality Based Effluent Limit Applicable to Ballast Water Discharges 

Under CWA section 301(b)(1)(C) and its implementing regulations, in addition to the 

technology-based effluent limitations discussed above, EPA must include in NDPES permits any 

more stringent effluent limits “necessary to meet water quality standards.” In determining what 

additional effluent limitations, if any, must be included in a permit, EPA first assesses whether, 

after application of the technology-based effluent limits, the discharge has the “reasonable 

Page 109 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

potential to cause or contribute to” an exceedance of water quality standards. If EPA finds such 

reasonable potential exists, the permit must contain effluent limits that are as stringent as 

necessary to meet water quality standards (i.e., water quality-based effluent limits or 

“WQBELs”). 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1). Such limits may be expressed non- numerically where 

numeric limits are “infeasible to calculate.” 40 CFR 122.44(k)(3). 

As described more fully below, recognizing that the Agency’s understanding of the 

relationship between numbers of living organisms in ballast water discharges and probability of 

successful establishment by invasive species was extremely limited, EPA (with the US Coast 

Guard) commissioned the National Academies of Science to draft a report on the issue. The goal 

was to provide the Agency with the best science upon which to make both its reasonable 

potential determination and, should reasonable potential be found, the Agency’s determination as 

to what constitutes a limit that is necessary to protect water quality standards (Hanlon et al., 

2010). After examining the results of the NAS report, as well as other available information, 

EPA has determined that, after application of the required TBELs, reasonable potential to cause 

or contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards exists. However, because of data 

limitations, EPA has determined that calculation of a numeric WQBEL is infeasible at this time. 

EPA thus has imposed a narrative WQBEL for ballast water discharges.

In this section, we discuss the charge given by the Agency to the NAS and how the 

findings of the NAS, as well as other expert sources, informed the Agency’s views on whether 

application of the TBELs would be sufficient to meet applicable water quality standards. We also 

discuss the basis for the Agency’s findings that there is “reasonable potential” and that a numeric 

WQBEL is “infeasible to calculate.” Finally, we discuss the WQBELs for ballast water imposed 

by this permit.

4.4.3.9.1 EPA’s Charge to the NAS

In June of 2011, the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science 

(NAS) issued their report entitled “Assessing the Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and 

Invasion Risk in Ballast Water” (NAS, 2011). EPA, in close collaboration with the US Coast 

Guard, commissioned this Report to inform the development of appropriate water quality-based 

effluent limits for ballast water discharges. The NAS was asked to:

1. Evaluate the state of the science of various approaches that assess the risk of 

establishment of aquatic nonindigenous species given certain concentrations of living 

organisms in ballast water discharges. 

2. Recommend how these approaches can be used by regulatory agencies to best inform 

risk management decisions on the allowable concentrations of living organisms in 

discharged ballast water in order to safeguard against the establishment of new 

aquatic nonindigenous species and to protect and preserve existing indigenous 

populations of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and other beneficial uses of the nation’s 

waters. 

Page 110 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

3. Evaluate the risk of successful establishment of new aquatic nonindigenous species 

associated with a variety of ballast water discharge limits that have been used or 

suggested by the international community and/or domestic regulatory agencies. 

EPA developed NAS charge question #2 as a general narrative description of what would 

be necessary to protect all applicable state WQS. EPA’s review of applicable state water quality 

standards revealed no provisions that specifically address aquatic nuisance species. No states 

have established numeric water quality standards for living organisms (or ANS); therefore, the 

focus of EPA’s evaluation was on protection of designated uses, narrative criteria, and relevant 

anti-degradation and general policies of applicable state WQS. While State WQS do not 

specifically address ANS, many narrative criteria and anti-degradation and general policies of 

applicable state water quality standards do seek to prevent the types of degradation that is 

associated with the introduction of ANS into receiving waters. For example, the State of 

Minnesota has narrative standards which state that “the aquatic habitat...shall not be degraded in 

any manner...the normal fishery and aquatic biota upon which it is dependent and the use thereof 

shall not be seriously impaired or endangered, the species composition shall not be altered 

materially, and the propagation or migration of the fish and other biota normally present shall not 

be prevented or hindered by the discharge of any sewage, industrial waste, or other wastes to the 

waters.” Minn. Admin. Rules Ch. 7050.0150 subpart 3. New York’s narrative water quality 

standards require no impairment of “best usages” for pollutants such as toxic and other 

deleterious substances, suspended solids, and phosphorus. 6 NYCRR section 703.2. Michigan’s 

water quality standards state that “all Great Lakes and their connecting waters...are designated 

and protected for coldwater fisheries.” NREPA Part 31 R. 323.1100(5). “Coldwater fishery use” 

is defined as “the ability of a waterbody to support a balanced, integrated, adaptive community 

of fish species which thrive in relatively cold water.” NREPA Part 31 R. 323.1043(r). Similarly, 

although their language does not specifically address aquatic nuisance species, protection of 

states’ designated uses also require safeguarding against aquatic nuisance species introductions, 

as ANS are commonly associated with impairment of all of the various designated uses in state 

water quality standards, including industrial uses, public health and welfare uses, and aquatic and 

wildlife uses (e.g., in Wisconsin, “All surface waters shall be suitable for supporting public 

health and welfare” Wisc. Admin. Code NR sec. 102.01(7)(a); in New York, most waters “shall 

be suitable for fish propagation and survival “6 NYCRR § 701.10; Alaska has classes of 

designated uses for “Growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life and wildlife” 18 

AAC § 70.020; California’s designated uses provide for “preservation and enhancement of 

marine habitats” Cal Water Code § 1243; Louisiana has a designated use for “Fish and wildlife 

propagation” that “includes the maintenance of water quality at a level that prevents damage to 

indigenous wildlife and aquatic life species associated with the aquatic environment and 

contamination of aquatic biota consumed by humans” LAC 33:IV.1111; Michigan’s “Other 

Indigenous Aquatic Life” designated use requires that, “At a minimum, all surface waters of the 

state are designated and protected for other indigenous aquatic life” Mich. Admin. Code R 

323.1100.) 

4.4.3.9.2 Effectiveness of the TBEL at Addressing Water Quality Impacts

As the NAS concluded, “[i]t is abundantly clear that reducing propagule pressure (i.e., 

the quality, quantity, and frequency with which living organisms are introduced into a given 

location) will reduce the probability of invasions, when controlling for all other variables,” 

Page 111 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

noting that “[t]here is both strong theoretical and empirical support for this, across a diverse 

range of habitats, geographic regions, and types of organisms.” (NAS, 122). The NAS 

recommended that “[a]s a logical first step, a benchmark discharge standard should be 

established that clearly reduces concentrations of coastal organisms below current levels 

resulting from ballast water exchange (such as the IMO D-2 standard). This will serve to reduce 

the likelihood of invasion in coastal ecosystems beyond that of the present time.” (NAS, p130).. 

EPA is in this permit establishing numeric effluent limitations at the IMO D-2 standard (the 

permit’s numeric TBEL). EPA concurs with the NAS study that such limitations will result in 

significant reductions in concentrations of living organisms beyond current management 

practices (i.e., ballast water exchange and the other management practices described in the 

permit). The numeric discharge limitations for ballast water in the permit are expected to be 

effective in reducing the risk from untreated or exchanged ballast water discharges. 

A suite of studies have examined the increased environmental protection offered by the 

IMO discharge standard, and all of them indicate a reduction in risk associated with that 

standard. Several approaches for evaluating the risk of invasion associated with ballast water 

discharges are discussed in Lee et al. (2010). Of those approaches, the population viability 

analysis, per capita invasion probabilities approach, and reaction diffusion models all indicate 

that reduction of inoculum densities should significantly reduce the risk (either relative or 

absolute) of invasion from ballast water discharges. 

EPA also notes that treatment to the IMO discharge standard will result in a significant 

decrease in the concentration of living organisms discharged from ballast tanks for the vast 

majority of vessels applying treatment. Several studies have looked at the composition of living 

organisms found in ballast water tanks for some or all organisms greater than 50 μm; comparing 

the results of today’s permit limit for this size class to the values presented in the studies 

illustrates that there would be a substantial decrease in inoculum density after treatment. For 

example, for each of the studies discussed below, EPA derived the percentage that the discharge 

concentration would be reduced from the mean, median, or mode values (dependent on the study 

and how the authors present the data). This percent reduction is 99.67% to 99.94% from mean 

and mode values presented in Minton et al. (2005),22 99.63% from median values presented in 

Bailey et al. (2011),23 99.994% from mean values presented in David et al. (2007),24 95.15% 

from mean values presented Murphy et al. (2002),25 and 99.93% from mean values presented in 

22 Minton et al. (2005) counted the total number of zooplankton collected from the ballast tanks of 354 ships using 

80 μm mesh netting. Hence, as many organisms smaller than 80 μm are not captured, this is likely a underestimate 

for the total numbers of organisms greater than 50 μm found in the tank. The values presented here were derived by 

EPA from either those presented by the authors (as the mode values for the density of zooplankton ) or based on the 

density of zooplankton identified in unmanaged ballast water based on visual estimates of Figure 2 of Minton et al. 

(2005). 

23 Bailey et al. (2011) notes the mean abundance of invertebrates recorded from ballasted ships using 53 μm mesh 

plankton nets.

24 David et al. (2007) notes the mean abundance of microzooplankton (20-200μm), macroalgae (200-20,000μm), and 

zooplankton (200-2000μm) recorded from ballasted ships using unfiltered counts, 50um mesh plankton nets and 

100um mesh plankton nets, respectively. 

25 Murphy et al. (2002) determined the average bivalve larvae and crab zoea concentration in ballast tanks of the MV 

Iron Stuart during 2 voyages at three depths using a 100 μm mesh net. The derived value presented here indicates 

Page 112 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Verling et al. (2005).26 The maximum values presented by the authors show considerably more 

notable reduction; this is noteworthy because EPA assumes that these high concentration 

discharge events pose more risk. The discharge concentration would be reduced from the 

maximum value presented by 99.98% to 99.99% from the range of mean27 and upper 1.1% of 

density values presented in Minton et al. (2005),28 99.96% from the range of median values 

presented in Bailey et al. (2011),29 99.999% from the range of mean values presented in David et 

al. (2007),30 99.41% from the range of mean values presented Murphy et al. (2002),31 and 

99.97% from the range of mean values presented in Verling et al. (2005).32

One specific study, Bailey et. al. (2009) evaluated the efficacy of such limitations through 

the use of mesocosm experiments and modeling of certain parthenogenetic taxa (i.e, organisms 

that reproduce asexually) that are of significant concern for invasion to the Great Lakes. In this 

study, the authors concluded that the proposed IMO standards for >50 micron organisms would 

reduce the probability of establishment of certain parthenogenic species by three fold. Even 

taking a “precautionary approach by deliberately investigating establishment success under 

favourable physical, and chemical, and biological conditions (e.g., reduced competition and 

predation inside enclosures)” results in “best fit estimates of establishment probabilities for 

inocula less than 10 individuals m-3 [that] are nil, indicating that the proposed ballast water 

discharge standards [the IMO standard] will be very effective even for parthenogenetic taxa” 

(Bailey, 2009, 271). 

In short, this clear reduction in inoculum density reduces risk – EPA expects those 

reductions in risk to be substantial. Hence, EPA believes that requiring treatment to the IMO 

standard may be protective of water quality standards. However, EPA has nonetheless 

the density of both bivalve larvae and crab zoea identified in ballast water tanks based on visual estimates of Figure 

3 and 4 of the publication. EPA notes that this study only looked at a small range of organisms that could be 

expected to be found in ballast water tanks, and that the value presented is likely significantly conservative (low), 

and therefore notably underestimates the percent reduction of organisms.

26 Verling et al. (2005) counted the zooplankton concentration in ballast tanks of vessels during 25 voyages using 

80 μm mesh netting. The value EPA used as a basis for calculating the reduction is taken from authors’ presentation 

of the density of zooplankton identified in ballast water immediately before deballasting activities,

27 When EPA uses the expression “range of” mean, median, or values, this indicates evaluation of all of the mean, 

median or upper values given by the authors in their respective papers from their results sampling a ballast tank or 

ballast water discharge. EPA did not pool or average values presented by each respective author. EPA notes that 

there are challenges in comparing the results of each of these papers with each other because of variations in 

methods used (e.g., in some studies, all species are enumerated while in others, only target species from select phyla 

are examined) and differences in how data is presented.

28See Footnote 22. Additionally, the max value is the number of zooplankton in the upper 1.1% density of all 

samples collected in unmanaged ballast water. 

29See Footnote 23. Additionally, the maximum density of zooplankton identified in unmanaged ballast water based 

on visual estimates of Figure 2 of Bailey et al. (2011)

30See Footnote 24. 

31See Footnote 25. Additionally, the maximum density values presented here are from both bivalve larvae and crab 

zoea identified in ballast water tanks. 

32See Footnote 26. Additionally, the value used to derive percent reduction here is based on the maximum density of 

zooplankton identified in ballast water among Transatlantic, Atlantic, and Pacific voyages.

Page 113 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

determined that the discharge of ballast water has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute 

to an exceedance of water quality standards, for the reasons discussed below. 

4.4.3.9.3 Reasonable Potential Determination for Ballast Water Discharges 

In determining that ballast discharges have reasonable potential to cause or contribute to 

a water quality standards exceedance after imposition of the TBELs imposed by today’s permit, 

EPA looked at existing controls on ballast water discharges (such as ballast water exchange) and 

the variability of living organisms in the effluent after imposition of this permit’s numeric 

TBELs (the IMO standard after installation of treatment technology). Examination of existing 

controls is important because the permit’s implementation schedule means that not all existing 

vessels will meet the numeric TBEL at permit issuance. During the time prior to imposition of 

the numeric limit, and for those vessels not subject to the numeric limit, the other TBELs, such 

as narrative BMPs in Parts 2.2.3 of the permit and corrective actions in Part 3 of the permit to 

promptly correct shortcomings, will apply. 

As discussed above, the risk of invasion will significantly decrease after installation of 

treatment technology to meet the permit’s numeric TBELs, which are designed to reduce 

propagule pressure. However, “while inoculum density (e.g., propagule pressure) is a key 

component of invasion probability, it is but one of scores of variables that can and do influence 

invasion outcome.” (NAS, p4). These variables “include the identity (taxonomic composition), 

sources, and history of the propagules; their frequency of delivery; and their quality. Further 

influencing the outcome of propagule release is a host of factors that include both species traits 

and the recipient region’s environmental traits.” (NAS, 5). The NAS noted that there are 

“significant differences between source regions; the diversity, abundance, and density of 

entrained organisms; and the compatibility of source and recipient regions” (NAS, 5). In 

evaluating the risk of successful establishment of new aquatic nonindigenous species associated 

with a variety of ballast water effluent limits, including ballast water exchange and treatment to 

the IMO standard, the NAS concluded that there is “a profound lack of data and information to 

develop and validate models,” and “it was not possible with any certainty to determine the risk of 

nonindigenous species establishment under existing discharge limits.” (3). EPA expects that 

compliance with the permit’s numeric effluent limitations will likely result in discharges that are 

controlled as necessary to result in a very small absolute risk of invasion and thus are controlled 

as necessary to achieve applicable water quality standards. Nonetheless, EPA also finds that the 

variety of other factors that influence invasion outcome should not be completely ignored, and 

therefore, even at the IMO level of discharge, reasonable potential exists for such discharges to 

cause or contribute to violations of applicable water quality standards pursuant to 

122.44(d)(1)(ii). Because the reductions in concentrations of living organisms in ballast water 

achieved by technology meeting the IMO standard are generally superior to that which would be 

achieved by the application of BMPs either during the time prior to imposition of that limit, or 

for vessels not subject to the limit, EPA concludes that there is reasonable potential for 

discharges subject to those limits as well.33 

33 As discussed above, in evaluating whether ballast water discharges subject to the technology-based effluent limits 

in this permit would cause, or have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any water 

quality standard, EPA assessed whether the TBELS were sufficient to “safeguard against the establishment of new 

Page 114 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

4.4.3.9.4 Ballast Water WQBELs

4.4.3.9.4.1 WQBELs are Infeasible to Calculate 

EPA has determined that pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(k)(3), it is infeasible to calculate 

numeric water quality-based effluent limit for ballast water discharges. While “[i]n principle, a 

well-supported model of the relationship between invasion risk and organism release could be 

used to inform a ballast water discharge standard,” (NAS, 5) the “current state of science does 

not allow a quantitative evaluation of the relative merits of various [numeric] discharge standards 

in terms of invasion probability.” (NAS, 130) Therefore, the lack of available data and 

information prevents an accurate quantification or estimation of the risk associated with ballast 

water discharges Though EPA believes that the work done by numerous scientists (Lee et al., 

2010, USCG 2008, Drake et al., 2005) has greatly improved our understanding of the risk posed 

by ballast water discharge events, and some have clearly quantified a relative reduction in risk by 

using various standards versus ballast water exchange (USCG 2008), EPA agrees with the NAS 

panel that establishing a precise, quantified ballast water discharge standard more stringent than 

the numeric TBELs contained in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP at this time is not possible with 

available data and information, and thus, numeric water quality-based effluent limits are 

infeasible to calculate.

34 

4.4.3.9.4.2 WQBELs in Today’s Permit

The narrative WQBEL applicable to all vessel discharges is found in Part 2.3 of the VGP 

and discussed in section 4.5 of this fact sheet. For ballast water discharges, this narrative 

WQBEL addresses situations in which reasonable potential exists after application of narrative 

and numeric TBELs and is included in the permit to meet 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)’s requirement 

that the permit include any additional or more stringent requirements than those in the applicable 

TBELs necessary to “achieve water quality standards established under section 303 of the CWA, 

including State narrative criteria for water quality.” For those vessels which do not have to 

immediately comply with the permit’s numeric TBEL, and those vessels for which the numeric 

TBEL is inapplicable, the narrative WQBEL is included for the same reason. In deriving 

appropriate water quality-based effluent limits for ballast water discharges for today’s permit, 

EPA made every effort to identify generally applicable BMPs beyond those already imposed on 

a technology basis for ballast water discharges, but except as discussed below for vessels that 

aquatic nonindigenous species and to protect and preserve existing indigenous populations of fish, shellfish, and 

wildlife and other beneficial uses of the nation’s waters.” As mentioned, after surveying and evaluating the wide 

array of state water quality standards, EPA concluded that this characterization accurately captures what would be 

necessary to protect all water quality standards. 

34 Though EPA believes that each of these approaches has merit, particularly for informing the Agency about 

relative risk, the Agency acknowledges that a profound lack of data has impaired the Agency’s ability to calculate a 

numeric WQBEL based on existing information alone. EPA believes that the models highlighted by Lee et al. 

(2010), USCG (2008), and others may present a viable option for calculating numeric water quality based effluent 

limits in the future. However, the Agency notes that, as the NAS panel found, sufficient data to input, calibrate, and 

validate those models is lacking. Hence, EPA is working with our federal partners to fill many of the data gaps 

identified by the 2011 NAS ballast water study for use in future iterations of this permit as needed. As additional 

data are gathered, modeling inputs are further explored and refined, and the state of the science further developed, 

EPA will reexamine whether numeric water quality based limits for the numbers of living organism in ballast water 

are feasible to calculate.

Page 115 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

uptake ballast water in freshwater and then voyage across the open ocean prior to discharging in 

the Great Lakes, was unable to do so. EPA thus has determined that it is appropriate to impose 

the site-specific narrative WQBEL on ballast water discharges. 

In Part 2.2.3.7 of the VGP, EPA maintains the existing ballast water exchange 

requirement for vessels that uptake ballast water in freshwater or brackish water, then voyage 

across the open ocean before discharging in the Great Lakes. In addition to meeting the effluent 

standards contained in the Part 2.2.3.5 of the permit, these vessels must also continue to conduct 

mid-ocean BWE when they have taken on ballast water from a freshwater or brackish water port 

in the previous month.35 For purposes of this permit, the brackish water requirements apply when 

the water taken in is from oligohaline or mesohaline portions of estuaries or other waters (i.e., 

the intake water has a saltwater concentration of less than 18 ppt36). The purpose of this 

requirement is to add another measure of protection against invasive species to reduce the 

compatibility of source and recipient regions when freshwater or brackish water is transported 

via ballast tanks into the Great Lakes. Due to an environmental mismatch, any freshwater species 

being taken up in the ship’s ballasting in fresh or brackish waters, will be shocked by saline 

water during ballast water exchange before being discharged into the freshwater of the Great 

Lakes. This BWE exchange requirement, in combination with the treatment requirements, is 

designed to address the factors other than inoculum density that influence invasion outcomes 

described above, thus creating additional protection for the Great Lakes freshwater ecosystem. 

EPA recognizes that the Great Lakes are a unique and valuable resource and that those water 

bodies have been particularly impacted by the introduction of various invasive species. EPA also 

recognizes that mid-ocean ballast water exchange is most effective for minimizing risk of 

invasions for discharges into freshwater ecosystems. Considering these issues, EPA included 

existing ballast water exchange practices as WQBEL requirements for certain vessels entering 

the Great Lakes. 

EPA believes requiring BWE in addition to the application of effluent limits that reflect 

available treatment technologies (with the added assurance provided by the narrative WQBEL in 

Part 2.3 of the permit) will achieve applicable water quality standards, as we expect continued 

BWE to further decrease the probability that non-native organisms will be introduced into and 

establish themselves in the Great Lakes. EPA expects such a practice will reduce the number of 

organisms adapted to freshwater and lightly brackish conditions, (i.e., “high risk” organisms) 

discharged into the freshwater ecosystem of the Great Lakes, which consequently will result in 

further reduction in propagule pressure and invasion risk to the Great Lakes. Additionally, for 

the unique Great Lakes large freshwater ecosystem where BWE is particularly effective, such a 

practice serves as a back-up in the event that a ballast water treatment system fails. This is 

important for the Great Lakes where some entities have noted that existing treatment systems 

have not been widely tested specifically for lentic freshwater environments.

35 EPA notes that regulation of the discharge of ballast water mid-ocean is beyond the scope of this permit.

36 EPA established the limit at 18 ppt because this is a widely scientifically accepted differentiation between salinity 

levels within estuarine ecosystems. Scientists generally classify estuarine waters as limonitic (freshwater) (salinity 

less than 0.5 ppt), oligohaline (salinity between 0.5 and 5 ppt), mesohaline (less than 18 ppt), polyhaline (between 

18 and 30 ppt), euhaline (between 30 and 40 ppt), and hyperhaline (more than 40 ppt).

Page 116 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

As discussed elsewhere in this factsheet, there is considerable uncertainty when it comes 

to quantifying invasion risk (NAS 2011). However, it is also quite clear that the lower the 

propagule pressure, the lower the risk (NAS 2011). Furthermore, EPA limited the exchange plus 

treatment requirement to focus on vessels whose voyage patterns are more likely to result in 

ballast water discharges which may pose a higher risk of invasion (i.e., those vessels that have 

recently taken on ballast from freshwater or brackish waterbodies). Because of the current 

uncertainty with quantifying the invasion risk associated with the IMO standard, and the unique 

vulnerabilities of the Great Lakes ecosystem, EPA has required the exchange plus treatment 

requirement as a way to enhance protection for these water bodies. Expert analyses and 

preliminary experimental research supports use of BWE in addition to treatment as an enhanced 

means to reduce invasion risks to freshwater ecosystems such as the Great Lakes (Reid, 2012; 

Briski et al, 2013). The most significant additional “treatment effect” from the exchange would 

be the biocidal effect of the osmotic shock delivered to freshwater organisms. Such saline 

biocidal effects would be considerably lower for saline waters exchanged when coupled with the 

already present treatment effects from the treatment systems37; hence, EPA does not believe this 

is an appropriate additional practice to reduce risks to marine ecosystems where treatment is 

already imposed. Please see Reid (2012) for significant additional discussion regarding osmotic 

shock. 

EPA notes that it did receive comments from the shipping industry expressing the view 

that it would be operationally preferable to discontinue ballast water exchange on ships where 

treatment systems are in place. Based on discussions with U.S. Coast Guard, EPA also notes the 

international maritime community under the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has 

adopted the Ballast Water Management Convention which phases out the use of exchange as a 

ballast water management practice under an implementation schedule. EPA recognizes the 

desire for international consistency in regulating the maritime industry to avoid disruption of 

trade and economies. EPA assures the shipping industry that the Agency expects and intends that 

the practice of ballast water exchange plus treatment requirements contained in today’s permit 

will not be necessary in perpetuity, and may not extend beyond the current permit. As discussed 

elsewhere in this fact sheet, the numeric TBELs in today’s permit, which are consistent with the 

IMO D-2 standard, are a significant step towards reducing the risk of biological invasions. EPA 

recognizes that ideally, a single, technology-based method of managing invasion risks from 

ballast water discharges is preferred to achieve consistency in ship operations, and to avoid the 

potential complications associated with conducting ballast water exchange. For these reasons, 

EPA views ballast water exchange plus treatment as an interim strategy that adds an additional, 

yet currently unquantified, measure of protection against invasive species being introduced into 

the Great Lakes until understanding of both the performance of first generation treatment 

37 As discussed elsewhere in this fact sheet, ballast water exchange has been shown to be effective in reducing risk 

of invasion; however, that risk is more prominent for reducing the risk posed by freshwater ANS. Ballast water 

exchange works for two reasons: increased mortality from osmotic shock for most freshwater and many brackish 

water organisms and the physical flushing process removing potential ANS from ballast water tanks. For potential 

marine ANS, EPA believes that dilution alone would not notably reduce the numbers of living marine organisms 

once that water has been treated with a treatment system to justify its environmental risks, including risks to water 

quality. The low levels of beneficial effect, if any, are offset by environmental costs include a potentially shorter 

holding time for the biocides to reduce the numbers of living organisms in ballast tanks before discharge (therefore 

possibly increasing the concentration of potential marine ANS in the discharge), increased carbon emissions, and

increased biocide byproduct and residual discharge. 

Page 117 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

technology and the relationships between ballast water discharges and risk of biological 

invasions improve. Technological innovations in both treatment systems and measurement 

methods will likely improve over time, allowing more stringent standards to be set as appropriate 

to reduce risks of invasions to the Great Lakes. 

EPA is committed to working with DOT and USCG to further study ballast water 

exchange in addition to treatment as it impacts water quality in the Great Lakes. EPA, DOT, 

USCG, the Canadian Government, and other entities are currently engaged in significant 

research activities to better understand the relationship between the risk of invasion and ballast 

water discharge concentrations and the efficacy of BWTS. Prior to the issuance of the 2018 

VGP, the agencies intend to further examine the efficacy of exchange plus treatment. The 

requirement for treatment plus exchange will be retained in future VGPs only if the 

administrative record supports a decision that use of a BWTS alone is not sufficiently protective 

Under those circumstances, the requirement for treatment plus exchange can be eliminated. In 

making these findings and determinations, EPA will coordinate with DOT and USCG. Though 

beyond the scope of the permit, the Agencies will invite the Canadian government to coordinate 

on these research endeavors in reducing risks of biological invasions. 

The EPA and the USCG will consider adopting standards more stringent than the IMO 

standard, as appropriate and consistent with each agency’s statutory responsibilities to protect the 

aquatic environment of the U.S. (this Fact Sheet, 77 Federal Register 17254). As treatment 

systems improve and are able to treat to lower discharge concentrations, the decreased propagule 

pressure will reduce the risk of invasion to all waters, including the estuarine and marine waters 

for which exchange plus treatment offers little incremental environmental benefit. Hence, it is 

the Agency’s desire that treatment systems continue to develop, become more effective, and 

become more efficient, and the Agency supports such actions. 

4.4.4 Antifouling Hull Coating Leachate (Part 2.2.4) 

The primary constituent of concern in most antifouling coatings is copper, although zinc 

may also be used as an ingredient. While the rate at which the metals leach from coatings is 

relatively slow (4 – 17 μg/cm2/day in controlled testing), these coatings can account for 

significant accumulations of metals in receiving waters of ports where numerous vessels are 

present. Tributyltin (TBT), a metal based biocide, was historically applied to vessel hulls as an 

antifouling hull coating. TBT causes deformities in aquatic life, including deformities that 

disrupt or prevent reproduction. Numerous studies and several peer reviewed publications 

((Bentivegna & Piatkowski, 1998; Haynes & Loong, 2002; Negri et al., 2004; Negri & Heyward, 

2001; Ruiz et al., 1995; V. Axiak et al., 1995) examine the environmental impacts of anti-foulant 

paint leachate containing TBT. TBT is also stable and persistent, resisting natural degradation in 

water bodies. Thus, due to its acute toxicity, TBT is a pollutant of concern to be addressed in this 

permit. There is a zero discharge standard for TBT and all other organotin compounds under this 

permit. Furthermore, if there are any vessels with existing exposed TBT coatings, those vessels 

must either seek individual NPDES permit coverage consistent with Part 1.8 of the permit or 

overcoat the existing TBT coating. EPA expects that 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 anti-foulant coating 

Page 118 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

options (e.g. copper and silicon) and feasible and economically achievable because few, if any, 

vessels still utilize TBT as an anti-foulant. 

In the United States and many other countries, the use of antifouling paints containing 

TBT has been phased-out due to concerns about its environmental impacts. The last TBT 

antifouling paint registration in the United States was voluntarily cancelled in 2005. 

Furthermore, the use of TBT antifouling paints or entry to port of vessels with TBT coatings is 

already prohibited by a large number of other countries, including many countries in Europe (see

Regulation (EC) No 782/2003 of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 April 2003 on 

the prohibition of organotin compounds on ships). In addition, the VGP’s zero discharge 

standard for TBT is consistent with the requirements of the Clean Hulls Act of 2010, P.L. 111-

281, section X, which implements the Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling 

Systems on Ships.38 The treaty, adopted at the IMO in October 2001, prohibits the use of 

organotins, like TBT, in anti-fouling paints. The treaty entered into force on September 17, 2008. 

The United States deposited its instrument of ratification with the IMO on August 21, 2012, and 

will become a contracting party to the Convention on November 21, 2012. 

EPA clarifies that for the purposes of this permit, EPA has prohibited the use of 

antifouling paints containing TBT or any other organotin compounds (for purposes of a biocide 

on hulls). In cases where TBT antifouling coatings have been applied to a ship, all residual TBT 

must be removed from immersed surfaces or a sealer-coat must be applied to prevent any 

residual TBT leaching into the environment. EPA is unaware of any nonbiocidal use of TBT 

which would result in a residual presence in antifouling paints; hence, EPA reaffirms that there 

must be zero discharge of TBT from vessel hulls. Other less toxic organotin compounds such as 

dibutyltin oxide are used in very small quantities as catalysts in some biocide-free coatings. One 

class of biocidal-free coatings, which are sometimes referred to as fouling release coatings, 

produce a low-energy surface (i.e., non-stick) to which fouling organisms cannot firmly adhere. 

To function properly, the coating surface must remain smooth and intact, and not leach into the 

surrounding water. Because these less toxic organotins are used as a catalyst in the production of 

biocide free coatings, such production may result in trace amounts of organotin in anti-foulant 

coatings. Part 2.2.4 of the VGP authorizes the use of non-biocidal coatings which contains trace 

amounts of catalytic organotin (other than TBT) under the following conditions: 

1) The trace amounts of organotin are not used as a biocide. When used as a catalyst, an 

organotin compound is not to be present above 2500 mg total tin per kilogram of dry 

paint. 

2) The coating is not designed to slough or otherwise peel from the vessel hull. 

Incidental amounts of coating may be released by abrasion during cleaning or after 

contact with other hard surfaces (e.g., moorings). 

EPA has identified three types of BMPs for control of other antifouling hull coating 

leachate. The first type of BMP addresses the contents and application of the coating. EPA 

recognizes that different coatings options are available and believes that the types of active 

agents in hull coatings should be selected to minimize potential effects. The practice of applying 

38 The Clean Hulls Act of 2010 replaced the 1988 Organotin Anti-Foulant Paint Control Act. 

Page 119 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

coatings according to the instructions on the coating’s FIFRA label should currently be a BMP 

for all vessels. Label instructions, or “Directions of Use,” provide information about how to 

apply antifouling coatings so they are efficacious. Coatings applied in an improper manner may 

contribute to environmental loading without providing the intended protection. Product labels 

may also provide information on proper disposal of antifouling wastes and wait-times for 

returning a vessel to the water to optimize coating longevity and performance. This helps to 

assure that excess amounts of toxins are not applied, that they are not applied too frequently, and 

that ships are not reintroduced to the aquatic environment before the manufacturer has 

recommended, providing adequate environmental protection. 

In addition, should a vessel operator choose to use a hull coating that does not have a 

FIFRA label, they must ensure that the coating does not contain biocides or toxic materials that 

are banned in the U.S. Vessel operators are always encouraged to select the least 

environmentally harmful coating possible (e.g., use of lower biocide content coatings, lower 

biocide release rate, non-persistent biocides, or non-biocidal alternatives). 

The second type of BMP addresses the need for particular coatings and selection of the 

type of coating to apply. The selection of an antifouling system for a particular vessel must be 

made in consideration of the vessel’s operational profile, including operating speed, drydocking 

requirements, and the waters in which the vessel will be operating, because such factors affect 

the fouling rate of the hull and other underwater areas of the vessel. Fouling on vessels that 

typically operate at high speeds may be effectively managed with non-stick, low surface energy, 

antifouling coatings. Vessels traveling in waters with lower fouling pressure (i.e., reproduction 

and growth of hard- and soft-fouling organisms) and those that spend less time at dock are 

expected to have a lower fouling rate; consequently, such vessels should be able to use either 

non-biocidal coating or antifouling coatings with lower biocide release rates. The permit requires 

that vessel operators minimize the use of antifouling coatings that are designed to control fouling 

in higher fouling-pressure environs than those in which the vessel is expected to operate. EPA 

believes these options should be used where feasible rather than opting for more environmentally 

damaging coatings.

The third type of BMP is accomplished by matching the coating’s abilities or strength to 

drydock cycles. Larger vessels, particularly those used in trade and cargo transport, must adhere 

to requirements for safety inspections and maintenance activities that dictate how frequently they 

must be drydocked. The major manufacturers of hull coatings for this industry will typically 

guarantee the effectiveness of their products for a certain period of time based on ship and 

operational characteristics, so the owner/operator should match the hull coating choice to the 

appropriate drydocking interval. By factoring this schedule into the hull coating selection, EPA 

believes that vessel operators will make better decisions regarding the use of coatings that will 

sufficiently protect the vessel for the period of time needed without creating additional leachate 

or wastes. 

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

The constituents of AFFF can vary by manufacturer, but can include ingredients that are 

persistent, bioaccumulative, and nonbiodegradable. However, EPA recognizes the desirability of 

using this type of fire fighting agent for certain classes of fires. Therefore, the permit 

Page 120 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

requirements for AFFF do not apply when the discharge occurs during a fire emergency. If such 

an emergency discharge occurs, an explanation of the emergency and the need to discharge 

AFFF must be written in the ship’s log or other recordkeeping documentation, as long as it is 

consistent with Part 4.2 of this permit. 

While EPA recognizes that the ability to properly maintain and train personnel on 

firefighting equipment is an important safety requirement for vessels, EPA believes that there are 

available practices for maintenance and training which can be conducted in a fashion that is not 

deleterious to the environment. In addition, vessel owner/operators may decide where they 

conduct the maintenance, and thus, have the ability to limit where they will discharge. Therefore, 

BMPs for reducing AFFF discharges focus on maintenance- and training-related discharges of 

AFFF. EPA believes BMPs that result in any reduction in discharges of AFFF have 

environmental benefits. For vessels that do not regularly leave waters subject to the permit, EPA 

has determined that due to the potential environmental effects caused by certain AFFF 

constituents, maintenance and training discharges must be minimized and should be collected 

and disposed of onshore. Furthermore, EPA also has found that a less toxic (non-fluorinated), 

substitute foam is available for use for training purposes. Owner/operators must use these nonfluorinated substitutes for training when practicable and achievable. Because these activities are 

planned and occur on an infrequent basis (annually or semi-annually), vessel operators can 

arrange to conduct the activities according to the BMPs required in the permit and in a location 

that poses the least environmental threat. Hence, if these vessel owner/operators will be using 

these substances in waters subject to this permit, AFFF must be collected and stored for onshore 

disposal if technologically feasible unless the vessel uses non-fluorinated or alternative foaming 

agent. For those vessels for which it is not technologically feasible to collect and store the 

fluorinated AFFF foam, vessel owner/operators must limit the discharge to that amount 

necessary to conduct legally required tests. Lastly, if a vessel will discharge, they should do so as 

far from shore as practicable.

For vessels that regularly leave the territorial sea, discharge of fluorinated AFFF for 

maintenance and training purposes into waters subject to this permit is prohibited. EPA has 

determined that the most effective BMP is to conduct maintenance and training activities as far 

from shore as possible. Discharge amounts for regulatory certification and inspection should still 

be minimized; and within waters subject to this permit, a non-fluorinated foaming agent must be 

substituted if practicable and achievable, for the regular foaming agent found in the AFFF. To 

meet this goal, permittees should use an alternative AFFF formulation that does not contain 

perfluorinated surfactants. 

For all vessels, discharges of AFFF may not occur in or within 1 nm of waters subject to 

this permit referenced in Part 12.1 of the permit, unless they are discharged for emergency 

purposes, by rescue vessels for firefighting purposes, or by vessels owned or under contract to do 

business exclusively in or within 1 nm of these waters. If an emergency discharge occurs in these 

waters, an explanation of the emergency and the need to discharge AFFF must be written in the 

ship’s log or other recordkeeping documentation, consistent with Part 4.2 of this permit. Those 

vessels owned or under contract to do business exclusively in or within 1 nm of areas protected 

either federally, or by a state, must use non-fluorinated AFFF or collect it and dispose of it 

onshore to the extent feasible. 

Page 121 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

EPA provided these exceptions to discharges of AFFF to waters listed in 12.1 so that this 

permit would not interfere with essential emergency management operations. The provision for 

vessels that are owned or under contract to do business exclusively in or within 1 nm of these 

waters was provided so that vessels will not have to divert in order to conduct necessary training 

and maintenance, which would result in additional cost for these vessels and cause other 

environmental impacts (increased fuel usage and air emissions). However, in order to protect 

these higher quality waters, these vessel owner/operators must use less environmentally 

damaging non-fluorinated AFFF. 

4.4.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown (Part 2.2.6) 

The constituents of boiler blowdown discharge vary according to the types of feedwater 

treatment used, but may include priority pollutants such as antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper, 

chromium, lead, nickel, selenium, thallium, zinc, and bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. Discharge 

volumes are typically less than 300 gallons but the discharge, which consists of steam, water, and 

sludge, occurs under high pressure (≤1200 psi) and at a high temperature (>325o F) below the 

water line.

BMPs to reduce impacts from boiler/economizer blowdown additives are based on 

minimization of their discharge to nearshore or port receiving waters, thus allowing for more 

mixing. To further mitigate potential impacts, EPA has specified that vessels greater than 

400 gross tons that leave the territorial seas at least once per week cannot discharge within 3 nm 

of shore, except when the vessel remains in waters subject to this permit for longer than the 

necessary duration between blowdowns, the vessel needs to conduct blowdown immediately 

before entering drydock, or for safety purposes. EPA selected once per week as the threshold 

because the necessary frequency of boiler blowdown can vary from approximately once in two 

weeks to once in a couple of months for many vessels. For these vessels, it is therefore practical 

and achievable for these vessels to only discharge boiler blowdown further than 3 nm from 

shore. EPA included the caveat that vessels which remain in waters subject to this permit for 

more than a week can discharge if a week is longer than the necessary duration between 

blowdown cycles because the Agency became aware that some vessels need to discharge boiler 

blowdown more often than once a week. In all cases, boiler/economizer blowdown should be 

discharged as far from shore as practical. No vessel may discharge boiler/economizer blowdown 

in waters listed in Part 12.1 of the permit, except for safety purposes. 

4.4.7 Cathodic Protection (Part 2.2.7) 

The constituents of cathodic protection discharges include ionized zinc, magnesium, or 

aluminum. As an alternative method, Impressed Current Cathodic Protection (ICCP) systems use 

direct current from a ship-based source in lieu of current supplied from an oxidizing anode (i.e., 

sacrificial anode). The discharge from either method of cathodic protection is continuous 

whenever the vessel is waterborne. 

EPA believes that ICCP systems are the environmentally preferable method because 

these systems eliminate or reduce the need for sacrificial anodes. EPA recommends the use of 

Impressed Current Cathodic Protection (ICCP) in place of or to reduce the use of sacrificial 

electrodes when technologically feasible (e.g. adequate power sources, appropriate for vessel 

Page 122 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

hull size and design), safe, and adequate to protect against corrosion, particularly for new 

vessels. Cathodic protection may be considered technologically feasible if there is an adequate 

onboard power supply and the vessel hull size and design can be adequately protected by ICCP. 

For sacrificial anode systems, EPA believes that requiring vessel operators to utilize the 

BMP of selecting the least toxic anode material that is practicable, in the order of preference of 

magnesium, aluminum, then zinc, represents a practicable and achievable approach to reducing 

impacts from this necessary hull protection operation. Additionally, sacrificial anodes should be 

used in conjunction with corrosion control coatings to minimize the release of dissolved metals. 

Furthermore, sacrificial anodes must not be used more than is necessary to adequately prevent 

corrosion of the vessel’s hull, sea chest, rudder, and other exposed vessel areas.

If the vessel owner/operator considers and rejects use of electrode devices with metals 

that are less toxic, EPA requires that they document why use of the less toxic metal is not 

technologically feasible and/or economically practicable and achievable. EPA expects such 

documentation to be a brief explanation, such as “The vessel classifications society mandates 

that if my vessel type uses a sacrifical anode, it must be zinc, and therefore less toxic options are 

not available.” In addition, EPA is specifying that vessel operators utilize proper BMPs for 

cleaning and replacing anodes during drydock to reduce excessive flaking or releases from the 

oxidizing anodes or the dialectic coating from ICCP systems. 

4.4.8 Chain Locker Effluent (Part 2.2.8) 

When an anchor is onboard and not in use, the anchor chain is stored in the chain locker, 

which is often equipped with a sump that can accumulate marine organisms as well as residue 

from the inside of the locker itself, such as rust, paint chips, grease, and zinc. The chain locker 

sump is emptied either directly overboard or is drained into the bilge tank for later disposal. 

BMPs to reduce or eliminate chain locker effluent discharge require the vessel operator to 

ensure the chain itself is properly cleaned when brought out of the water to reduce the likelihood 

of transporting marine organisms and sediment. This practice is currently performed by vessels, 

using their firemain system, to remove sediments and other material. However, EPA believes 

vessel operators should use this practice routinely and be advised to perform more thorough 

wash downs to effectively prevent the transport of marine organisms between water bodies. 

Additionally, EPA is requiring ocean-going vessels to clean out, rinse, or pump out chain 

lockers in open waters (greater than 50 nm from shore), if technically feasible, to reduce the 

chances of transporting organisms to other water bodies where they may cause potential harm. 

Vessels that leave waters subject to this permit at least once per month are not allowed to rinse or 

pump chain lockers in waters subject to this permit, unless not doing so would compromise 

safety. Because these practices are or can be implemented easily by these vessels, EPA believes 

this BMP is reasonable for this general permit. The requirement to clean chain lockers as part of 

scheduled drydock maintenance provides additional protection from discharges resulting from 

chipped paint or oily leaks from machinery. 

Page 123 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

4.4.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller (CPP) and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and other Oil to 

Sea Interfaces including Lubrication Discharges from Paddle Wheel Propulsion, 

Stern Tubes, Thruster Bearings, Stabilizers Rudder Bearings, Azimuth Thrusters, 

and Propulsion Pod Lubrication and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment 

Subject to Immersion (Part 2.2.9). 

Vessel owner/operators often use lubricants to maintain the functionality and structure of 

equipment such as wire rope and other mechanical equipment. This permit requires vessel 

owner/operators to use environmentally acceptable lubricants for oil to sea interfaces unless 

technically infeasible. Based on public comment received, EPA added the “unless technically 

infeasible” provision for new vessel owner/operators to account for those instances in which 

technical limitations may prevent use of an EAL in an oil-to-sea interface. In addition, all vessel 

owner/operators must apply lubricants and maintain all seals so that discharges do not result in 

quantities of oil that may be harmful. In the final permit, EPA has clarified that, for purposes of 

using EALs in oil-to-sea interfaces, technical infeasibility means that no EAL products are 

approved for use in a given application that meet manufacturer specifications for that equipment, 

that pre-purchased lubricated products (e.g., wire ropes) have no available alternatives 

manufactured with EALs, that products meeting a manufacturers specifications are not available 

within any port in which the vessel calls, or that change over and use of an EAL must wait until 

the vessel’s next drydocking. 

For all applications where lubricants are likely to enter the sea, environmentally 

acceptable lubricant formulations using vegetable oils, biodegradable synthetic esters or 

biodegradable polyalkylene glycols as oil bases instead of mineral oils can offer significantly 

reduced environmental impacts across all applications (EPA 2011c). Other formulations of EALs 

are also available. 

The final permit retains the requirement that before being placed in service, and after 

periodic lubrication, wire ropes or cables and other equipment must be thoroughly wiped down 

to remove excess lubricant. However, the final permit clarifies that this is not required if doing so 

is deemed unsafe by the Master of the vessel.

Constituents of hydraulic and lubricating oils will vary by manufacturer but may include 

copper, tin, aluminum, nickel, and lead. Up to 20 ounces of oil may be released for every CPP 

blade that is replaced, with blade replacement occurring several times per month on average. 

When the blade replacement includes removal of the blade port cover (generally occurring 

infrequently, less than once per month), it is possible that, in a worst case scenario, five gallons 

of oil might be discharged into surrounding waters. Normal blade replacement is typically done 

in drydock unless the blade has been damaged. 

The permit includes BMPs to reduce or eliminate CPP hydraulic fluid discharge and 

require that the seals be maintained in good working order to reduce leakage. In addition, 

maintenance activities should be conducted while the vessel is in drydock to prevent accidental 

spillage of oil. 

BMPs to reduce or eliminate stern tube oily discharge require that the seals or fittings be 

maintained in good working order to prevent leakage. Furthermore, except in emergency 

Page 124 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

situations, major maintenance should occur in drydock where oils cannot be released to the 

environment. If emergency maintenance must occur in the water, the permittee must use an oil 

boom, or other appropriate spill response resource, to contain any potential oil discharge and 

must have appropriate spill cleanup materials on hand. 

Depending on the type of rudder bearings in use, this discharge can cause oil or grease to 

be released into the water column. Oil-lubricated bearings are kept at a slightly positive pressure 

in relation to the outside ambient water pressure and will only discharge into the surrounding 

water if a leak occurs around the rudder mechanism. Vessels can install hull seals where the 

rudder penetrates the hull to prevent the type of leaks that could lead to oil discharges. 

EPA has determined that discharges of lubricants should generally not occur if vessels 

are properly maintained. Vessel operators should employ all necessary control measures such as 

regular maintenance and inspections to ensure that leaks do not occur. 

As noted above, today’s permit mandates the use of environmentally acceptable 

lubricants (EALs) in a wide variety of applications. The market for EALs continues to expand, 

particularly in Europe, where the use of such lubricants is being encouraged through a 

combination of tax breaks, purchasing subsidies, and national and international labeling 

programs, which are based on well-defined criteria. Those criteria include the lubricant’s 

toxicity, biodegradability, bioaccumulation rates, and renewable content. Examples of National 

Labeling programs include Germany’s Blue Angel Program, The Swedish Standard, Nordic 

Swan, and the European Eco-Label Program.

The German Blue Angel Program has criteria for several classes of lubricants, including 

hydraulic fluids, lubricating oils, and greases. In order to qualify for certification, a lubricant 

must possess the following characteristics: biodegradability; low toxicity to aquatic organisms; 

not bioaccumulative; and not containing dangerous components, such as carcinogens or toxic 

substances as defined by Germany’s Ordinance on Hazardous Substances. A product must also 

pass technical performance characteristics appropriate for its use.

The Swedish Standard has standards for hydraulic fluids (SS 155434) and greases (SS 

155470). Evaluation of a lubricant under the Swedish Standard involves evaluation of 

biodegradability and aquatic toxicity, as well as sensitizing properties of a lubricant formulation 

and its components (Habereder et al. 2008). The Swedish Standard evaluates biodegradability 

using ISO test methods (e.g., ISO 9439), and has varying requirements, depending upon class, 

for renewable resources content (SP 2010). The Swedish Standard is unique because it was 

conceived and developed as a collaborative project between government and industry. The 

program has more listed lubricant products, particularly hydraulic fluids, than any national 

labeling program (IENICA 2004). 

The first international labeling program for EALs was the Nordic Swan program, 

encompassing Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Denmark, which was initially introduced 

for hydraulic oil, two-stroke oil, grease, and transmission and gear oil (IENICA 2004). The 

Nordic Swan certification addresses biodegradability, aquatic toxicity (OECD 201&202) and 

technical performance, as well as renewability. The renewability requirement are the highest of 

Page 125 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

all the labeling programs (e.g., at least 65% renewable content for hydraulic fluid, transmission 

fluid, gear oil, or grease, and at least 50% for two-stroke oil). 

Eco-label is considered to be the first major advancement towards creating a single

international standard, and is becoming the most generally accepted label. The Eco-label for

lubricants was established in 2005, and includes hydraulic fluids, greases, and total loss 

lubricants, such as two-stroke oils. This labeling scheme consists of seven criteria encompassing

biodegradability, aquatic toxicity, bioaccumulation, and the presence of certain classes of toxic 

substances (Habereder et al. 2008). A complete list of all lubricants that carry the European 

Eco-Label can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/ecat/. 

Additionally, EPA's Design for the Environment Program (DfE) has launched a new 

initiative to label environmentally friendly lubricants to assist vessel operators in selecting more 

environmentally friendly products. EPA's DfE program is a voluntary labeling program that 

works in partnership with industry, environmental groups, and academia to reduce risk to people 

and the environment by finding ways to reduce or prevent pollution. The DfE program office has 

worked to ensure that any products meeting their labeling requirements would, at a minimum, 

meet the requirements of today’s VGP. The DfE logo on a product means that the DfE scientific 

review team has screened each ingredient for potential human health and environmental effects 

and that—based on currently available information, EPA predictive models, and expert 

judgment—the product contains only those ingredients that pose the least concern among 

chemicals in their class. Manufacturers of marine lubricants can partner with EPA DfE to have 

products tested to ensure that they meet the DfE Standard for Safer Products and ingredient 

criteria which define the characteristics and toxicity thresholds for ingredients that are acceptable 

in DfE-labeled products. DfE evaluates bioaccumulation, fate and aquatic toxicity, renewability 

and technical performance for each ingredient of the product. More information on the DfE 

program may be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/formulat/saferproductlabeling.htm.

The new requirements in this permit will increase the use of EALs by vessels operating in 

waters of the United States. Part 7 of the permit defines environmentally acceptable lubricants to 

denote a lubricant that is biodegradable, exhibits low toxicity to aquatic organisms and has a low 

potential for bioaccumulation. This iteration of the VGP will further increase the use of these 

products, which will result in decreased environmental impact from the operational discharges of 

oil. Because the majority of a lubricant is composed of the base oil, the base oil used in an EAL 

must be biodegradable. The three most common categories of biodegradable base oils are: 1) 

vegetable oils, 2) synthetic esters, and 3) polyalkylene glycols. Traditional mineral oils have a 

small biodegradation rate, a high potential for bioaccumulation and a measurable toxicity 

towards marine organisms. In contrast, the base oils derived from oleochemicals (vegetable oils 

and synthetic esters) degrade faster and have a smaller residual, do not bioaccumulate 

appreciably and have a lower toxicity to marine organisms. Polyalkylene glycol-based lubricants 

are also generally biodegradable and do not bioaccumulate; however, some PAGs are more toxic 

due to their solubility. Lower environmental impacts will occur when a greater proportion of 

base oils are manufactured from non-mineral based oils. 

If a vessel owner/operator finds it is technically infeasible to use an environmentally 

acceptable lubricant for their vessel, the owner/operator must explain why they cannot do so in 

Page 126 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

their recordkeeping documentation, and must note the use of a non-environmentally acceptable 

lubricant in the vessel’s Annual Report. 

The information to be documented is intended to be simple, basic, and straightforward. A 

vessel owner/operator need only keep one brief record of their determination that use of EALs is 

technically infeasible. For example, if the vessel owner/operator or his authorized representative

determines that there is a lack of supporting equipment or use of EALs is incompatible with the 

operations and/or operating environment of the ship and loads on the system (including faster 

degredation of the lubricant caused by exposure to seawater in systems designed to allow 

seawater infiltration). Technical infeasibility may also be determined if a class society says 

EALs are not appropriate for a particular use, or the vendor has not specified that EALs are 

appropriate for that piece of equipment (e.g., if a vendor only allows the vessel operator to use 

approved products and there are no approved EALs), the owner/operator can note that it is not 

technically feasible to use EALs on this basis. 

EPA has found that use of EALs in all oil-to-sea applications on existing vessels (unless 

technically infeasible) represents BAT. EALs are available and their use is economically 

achievable (see US EPA, 2011a). In establishing different requirements for new build vessels 

versus existing vessels, EPA considered the processes employed and potential process changes 

which might be necessary by some existing vessels to use EALs. If the performance of EALs 

does not meet the needs of existing equipment onboard existing vessels, the cost of substituting 

new equipment might be substantial. However, many existing vessels can use EALs which are 

compatible with their existing equipment. Hence, it is technically feasible for many existing 

vessels to use EALs, but might not be technically feasible for some existing vessels to use EALs 

with existing equipment. For these vessels, EPA does not believe it is economically achievable to 

require those vessels to install new equipment so that they can use these more environmentally 

friendly lubricants. Using similar reasoning, EPA believes the use of EALs for most oil to sea 

interfaces for all new build vessels it is less likely to be technically infeasible and would be

economically achievable. New build vessels can select equipment during design and construction 

which is compatible with EALs. Furthermore, vessel owner/operators can design additional 

onboard storage area for EALs if they choose to use traditional mineral based oil for engine 

lubrication (thereby needing two types of oils on-hand). Extra storage area needed would be 

minor. Nonetheless, in the event specific vessel oil-to-sea applications do not allow for use of 

EALs, EPA has included a “unless technically infeasible” provision. 

Use of an environmentally acceptable lubricant does not authorize the discharge of any 

lubricant in a quantity that may be harmful as defined in 40 CFR Part 110 as these oils still cause 

many undesirable environmental impacts, though these impacts are potentially less severe than 

those caused from petroleum based oils. 

Lastly, any discharge of oil, including oily materials, from any of these oil to sea 

interfaces may not result in a discharge that may be harmful as defined by 40 CFR Part 110 or 

result in the production of a visible sheen. 

Page 127 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

4.4.10 Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine (Part 2.2.10) 

Onboard distillation and RO systems discharge brine is essentially concentrated seawater 

with the same constituents of seawater, including dissolved and suspended solids and metals. 

Anti-scaling treatments and anti-foaming and acidic cleaning compounds may be injected into 

the distillation system. The effluent constituents from distillation and RO discharge were found 

to exceed water quality criteria for several metals, nitrogen, and phosphorus but did not exceed 

thermal mixing zone standards. These constituents are generally present in the receiving water 

used in the distillation or reverse osmosis process and are merely concentrated in the distillation 

or osmosis process. 

The BMPs EPA has included in the permit require vessel operators to keep the reject 

water from coming into contact with materials, products, or wastes which may contaminate the 

discharge with potentially environmentally harmful substances. The Agency believes that 

returning the concentrated seawater back to the marine environment should not cause 

environmental harm if done in areas where the brine can be appropriately diluted by the 

receiving water. 

4.4.11 Elevator Pit Effluent (Part 2.2.11) 

Elevator pit discharge will have constituents similar to those found in deck runoff and 

firemain water, which may include lubricants, cleaning solvents, soot, and paint chips. Tests 

conducted by EPA and DOD (US EPA, 1999) on Armed Forces vessels discovered that some 

detected constituents from elevator pit effluent exceeded the most stringent state water quality 

standards, including total nitrogen, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, copper, iron, and nickel. 

The permit does not authorize the discharge of untreated elevator pit effluent except in 

emergency situations or when managed with the ship’s bilge water. The emergency situation 

must be documented in the ship’s log or other recordkeeping documentation consistent with 

Part 4.2. The information in today’s permit demonstrates that the discharge of untreated elevator 

pit effluent is not generally essential to the safe operation of a vessel and that it can easily be 

held for proper disposal or treated with the vessel’s bilgewater. Further, the Agency feels that the 

limited amount of effluent generated and the high likelihood of its contamination at harmful 

levels can best be addressed by storage of the effluent for treatment and disposal onshore. 

However, if elevator pit effluent must be managed with the ship’s bilgewater, it may be 

discharged provided the bilgewater/elevator pit effluent meets the requirements of Part 2.2.2. 

4.4.12 Firemain Systems (Part 2.2.12) 

Firemain water can contain a variety of constituents, including copper, zinc, nickel, 

aluminum, tin, silver, iron, titanium, and chromium. Many of these constituents can be traced to 

the corrosion and erosion of the firemain piping system, valves, or pumps. Discharges from the 

firemain system are allowed under the permit in case of emergency, when necessary to ensure 

the safety of the vessel and crew, as well as for testing purposes to ensure the system will be 

operational in an emergency. However, when feasible, the maintenance and training discharges 

of the firemain should occur outside ports or other shallow waters and outside waters subject to 

this permit. In addition, EPA believes that the use of firemain systems for anchor chain 

Page 128 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

washdowns is likely to result in benefits by reducing the potential transport of invasive species. 

Therefore, the discharge of firemain systems is allowed under the permit when pulling the 

anchor and anchor chain from protected waters in accordance with the anchor washdown 

requirements of the permit.

4.4.13 Freshwater Layup (Part 2.2.13) 

Discharges of freshwater layup effluent include the constituents of the potable water 

along with residual seawater, any residue that may leach from the condenser while the water is 

being held, and disinfectants like chlorine or chloramine. The Agency recognizes that 

disinfectants are necessary to reduce aquatic growth within the condenser system. Therefore, the 

permit requires that vessel operators reduce the potential for harmful impacts by minimizing the 

use of these treatment chemicals to the lowest effective level that will meet the needs of the 

system. EPA believes that this can be accomplished by following the application rate suggestions 

provided by the treatment manufacturers to keep the discharge of the disinfectants as low as 

possible. 

4.4.14 Gas Turbine Wash Water (Part 2.2.14) 

Rates and concentrations of gas turbine wash water discharge vary according to the 

frequency of washdown with some Navy vessels conducting washdowns as frequently as every 

48 hours with over 100 gallons of washwater being generated. Discharges resulting from gas 

turbine washdown may include cleaning solvents and substances such as naphthalene and other 

hydrocarbons. Furthermore, due to the nature of the materials being cleaned, there is a higher 

probability of heavy metal concentrations. Washdown water from gas turbines may not be 

discharged into waters subject to this permit unless it is infeasible to separately collect this 

washwater or only conduct washes outside 3 nm. If it is infeasible to separately collect the water, 

the washwater must be treated by an oily water separator before discharge. Under most 

circumstances, EPA believes the water generated is of small enough volume that either 1) it can 

be collected and held for onshore disposal or disposal in waters not subject to this permit 

provided the discharge meets all other applicable law or 2) vessel operators can wash down gas 

turbines when they are not in waters subject to this permit.

4.4.15 Graywater (Part 2.2.15) 

The volume of graywater generated by a vessel is dependent on the number of passengers 

and crew. It is estimated that, in general, 30 – 85 gallons of graywater is generated per person per 

day (Copeland, 2008). Estimates of graywater generation by cruise ships that can accommodate 

approximately 3,000 passengers and crew range from 96,000 to 272,000 gallons of graywater per 

day or 1,000,000 gallons per week. Navy designers use a generation standard of 50 gallons per 

person per day when constructing graywater collection systems.

Graywater discharges can contain bacteria, pathogens, oil and grease, detergent and soap 

residue, metals (e.g., cadmium, chromium, lead, copper, zinc, silver, nickel, mercury), solids, 

and nutrients. Of these constituents EPA has found ammonia, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, 

silver, and zinc concentrations that exceed water quality criteria in the discharge.

Page 129 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Several BMPs are practicable and available for control of graywater impacts. First, vessel 

operators are required to minimize the production and discharge of graywater while in port. 

Producing less graywater while in port will result in less volume of graywater discharge in those 

areas. Secondly, for large vessels that regularly leave waters subject to the permit with the 

capacity to store graywater for a sufficient period, graywater must be discharged greater than 

1 nm from shore while the vessel is underway unless the vessel meets the treatment standards 

and other requirements contained under Parts 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 or 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of the permit 

along with any vessel specific requirements. Releasing large volumes of untreated graywater in 

nearshore environments, estuarine environments, or in waters with limited circulation is more 

likely to cause negative environmental impacts. This is because these environments are likely to 

have higher vessel traffic and, therefore, greater graywater generation and discharge, are more 

likely to be stressed by other anthropogenic forces, and are likely to have less ability for dilution 

and assimilative capacity. The provision limiting the discharge of untreated graywater within 

1 nm of shore when the vessel has holding capacity is a limit that will help protect these 

ecosystems. Additional conditions apply to vessels which do not travel more than 1 nm from 

shore in order to help reduce the discharge of untreated graywater to these environments. EPA 

does not expect existing vessel owner/operators to install graywater treatment storage capacity. 

Vessels which have sufficient graywater storage capacity but do not currently treat their 

graywater to the standards listed in the permit, must utilize onshore treatment when available and 

economically practicable and achievable. These requirements will reduce their discharges of 

untreated graywater.

Additionally, soaps and detergents used in any capacity that will be discharged as 

graywater must be minimally-toxic and phosphate-free, and should be biodegradable where 

possible unless there is evidence that they would be harmful to the aquatic environment. Not all 

biodegradable soaps are appropriate for all aquatic environments, but EPA believes that nonharmful varieties will be available in most situations and should be used when they are available. 

EPA expects that minimally-toxic cleaners and detergents will contain little to no nonylphenols. 

Phosphate free soap is considered to contain 0.5% by weight or less of phosphates or derivatives 

of phosphates. Reducing use of these products will reduce acute and chronic impacts of vessels 

that generate graywater on aquatic waterbodies and will limit eutrophication in all waters that are 

phosphorus limited ecosystems. Products meeting these standards are currently commercially 

available. Changes in cost associated with using these products are estimated in the economic 

analysis.

Vessels that do not travel more than 1 nm from shore shall minimize the discharge of 

graywater and, provided the vessel has available graywater storage capacity, must dispose of 

graywater on shore if appropriate facilities are available and such disposal is economically 

practicable and achievable unless the vessel meets the treatment standards and other 

requirements contained under Parts 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 or 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of this permit. Minimize 

the discharge of graywater when the vessel is not underway. 

4.4.15.1 Additional Graywater Requirements for Vessels Operating in the Great Lakes

As discussed above, vessels that are commercial vessels as defined in CWA section 

312(a)(10) are not subject to this section. All other vessels subject to this permit must hold all 

graywater for onshore discharge to an appropriate shoreside facility or must treat the graywater 

Page 130 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

prior to discharging, in accordance with the standards listed in Part 2.2.15.1(ii) when operating 

on the Great Lakes. These vessels must also conduct monitoring in accordance with Part 2.2.15.2 

of the permit, including keeping records. 

EPA has included this requirement because the Agency determined that treatment of this 

waste stream by VGP vessels represents the appropriate level of control. EPA had previously 

believed that any non-recreational vessel greater than 79 feet treated or otherwise held their 

graywater when operating on the Great Lakes. However, EPA heard from vessel owner/operators 

who believe that their vessels do not meet the definition of “commercial vessel” in section 

312(a)(10). (The Agency takes no position on whether any individual vessel discussed by these 

commenters falls within the “commercial vessel” definition.) EPA therefore believes it is 

appropriate to set limits for any such vessels. 

Numerous vessels operating on the Great Lakes currently either hold their graywater for 

onshore disposal at a sewage treatment plant or treat that graywater using an existing Marine 

Sanitation Device meeting the 40 CFR Part 140 standards. Hence, holding capacity is present on 

vessels or treatment devices are available and used for managing graywater from vessels 

operating on the Great Lakes, and EPA believes most, if not all VGP eligible vessels operating 

on the Great Lakes should already be meeting these conditions. 

Therefore, EPA believes that meeting these standards represents a BPT/BCT level of 

control. At this time, unlike with Cruise Ships (see sections 7.1 and 7.2 of this fact sheet for 

discussion), EPA does not have the information necessary to require a more stringent 

technology-based graywater discharge limit for these vessels. 

4.4.15.2 Graywater Monitoring 

The requirements in Part 2.2.15.2 of the permit apply to vessels constructed on or after 

December 19, 2013 which provide overnight accommodation to at least 15 crew, and apply to 

“non-commercial” vessels operating on the Great Lakes, pursuant to Part 2.2.15.1 of the permit. 

EPA is requiring monitoring for vessels subject to 4.4.15.1 above to assure they are 

meeting the effluent limits in that part. New build vessels which provide overnight 

accommodation to at least 15 crew are required to monitor, whether they use treatment or not, to 

help the Agency better characterize the effluent from these permittees, and for those permittees 

that use treatment, to better understand the efficacy of that treatment. EPA will use this 

information in the development of the next VGP. EPA has not required monitoring for existing 

vessels so as to not require the retrofitting needed for graywater systems to install petcock valves 

or similar sampling ports. Likewise, EPA has not required vessels with fewer than 15 crew and 

overnight accommodation to monitor because 1) these vessels tend to produce less graywater and 

2) these vessels tend to have lower revenues than larger vessels and the costs imposed might be 

more burdensome for these vessel owner/operators at this time. 

Each vessel subject to these requirements must conduct and analyze two samples per year 

and report the results as part of the vessel’s Annual Report. Part 2.2.15.2 states that samples must 

be taken for BOD, fecal coliform, suspended solids, pH, and total residual chlorine, and that 

sampling must be conducted in accordance with the 40 CFR Part 136 methods. Fecal Coliform 

Page 131 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

(or e. coli as collected) must only be analyzed once per year if vessels have difficulty analyzing 

the results within recommended holding times. EPA reduced the minimum monitoring frequency 

for this biological parameter to ease difficulties associated with analyzing the sample in a tight 

window after collection for one sampling event. Samples taken from non-commercial vessels 

operating on the Great Lakes must meet the standards specified in Part 2.2.15.1 of the permit. 

Records of monitoring information must include the date, exact place, and time of 

sampling/measurements, the individual(s) who performed the sampling/measurements, the 

date(s) the analyses were performed, the individual(s) who performed the analyses, the analytical 

techniques/methods used, and the results of such analyses. 

All records of the sampling and testing results must be retained onboard in the vessel’s 

recordkeeping documentation for 3 years. If a vessel does not enter waters subject to this permit 

for the calendar year, the owner/operator does not need to conduct monitoring for that year. 

However, the vessel’s Annual Report must clearly state that the vessel did not enter waters 

subject to this permit during that year. 

4.4.16 Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge (Part 2.2.16) 

Ambient water is added to fuel tanks as the fuel is used. When gasoline is reloaded to the 

tanks while in port, the water is discharged. The discharged ambient water may contain traces of 

gasoline constituents, which generally will contain alkanes, alkenes, aromatics (e.g., benzene, 

toluene, ethylbenzene, phenol, and naphthalene), metals, and additives. Analyses of 

compensating discharge have shown that benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, phenol, and 

naphthalene may exceed water quality criteria in the discharge.

EPA has included BMP limitations in the permit based on a vessel’s ability to treat the 

compensating discharge using an oil water separator to meet oil limitations of less than 15 ppm. 

The permit also requires that this discharge be minimized while the vessel is in port, which can 

be accomplished by disposing of the wastewater onshore where practicable and available. 

4.4.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater (Part 2.2.17) 

Non-oily machinery wastewater discharge rates vary by vessel size and operation type, 

ranging from less than 100 gallons per hour (gph) to over 4,000 gph. Constituents of non-oily 

machinery wastewater discharge include a suite of conventional pollutants, metals, and organics. 

Many of the specific constituents in the discharge can exceed water quality criteria, including 

copper, nickel, silver, zinc and a collection of nutrients. Mercury also may be present, but 

reported concentrations did not exceed the standards. 

EPA has determined that non-oily machinery wastewater can be discharged if control 

measures are instituted to keep the waste stream free of oils and additives that are toxic and 

bioaccumulative. Alternatively, non-oily machinery wastewater can drain to the bilge. 

4.4.18 Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge (Part 2.2.18) 

This discharge may contain metals from the refrigeration/air conditioning coils and 

drainage systems, including aluminum, copper, iron, lead, nickel, silver, tin, and zinc. Traces of 

detergent also may be found in this discharge from the cleaning of refrigerated spaces, as can 

Page 132 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

seawater and freshwater. This waste stream can easily be kept segregated from oily wastes and 

safely discharged, channeled and collected for temporary holding until disposed of onshore, or 

drained to the bilge. The permit prohibits refrigeration and air condensate from coming into 

contact with oily or toxic materials if it is discharged directly overboard. However, if the 

condensate is collected for internal recycling, it may be subsequently commingled with other oily 

discharges provided that the combined discharge meets the requirements of Part 2.1.4 and, if 

applicable, Part 2.2.2. 

4.4.19 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (Including Non-Contact Engine Cooling 

Water; Hydraulic System Cooling Water, Refrigeration Cooling Water) (Part 

2.2.19) 

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. Based on existing research 

conducted for the UNDS program, seawater cooling discharge rates can reach as much as 

170,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for an in-transit aircraft carrier with copper, nickel, and silver 

concentrations in the discharge that exceed water quality criteria. 

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 its discharge. However, the Agency believes if 

vessel operators institute the BMP of reducing discharges to ports or enclosed water bodies, 

impacts from the heated waters will be reduced. Discharges of seawater can be reduced by using 

shore based power when electrical systems on board vessels are compatible with the available 

shore power. 

In addition, mud, biota, and other debris can stick to the strainer plates and require 

periodic clearing. The permit requires that vessel operators incorporate the regular removal of 

fouling organisms from seawater piping and cooling systems to prevent possible transport of 

species to other water bodies. The risk of introducing invasive species is reduced considerably 

when vessel owner/operators remove fouling organisms while at sea (greater than 50 nm from 

any shore). Hence, vessel owner/operators should clean piping while at sea in lieu of cleaning 

these systems in waters subject to this permit if they frequently sail far from the coast.

4.4.20 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention (Part 2.2.20) 

To prevent biofouling of seawater cooling systems, small amounts of biocidal substances 

are sometimes injected near the seawater intakes to prevent biofouling by any organisms that 

may have been drawn in along with the cooling water. Seawater that has been discharged after 

being treated with chlorinating substances will contain free chlorine and reaction products 

(halamines, free bromine, and halogenated organics). 

The requirements of the permit reinforce current environmental regulations established 

under FIFRA. Under the permit, biofouling chemicals for seawater piping must be used 

Page 133 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

according to their FIFRA label and are prohibited from discharge if they are banned for use in 

the U.S. A banned pesticide does not simply mean one that is unregistered under FIFRA. 

Vessel owner/operators must use the minimum amount of biocide needed to keep fouling 

under control. Using visual observations, vessel operators can determine if they are achieving the 

desired level of biofouling prevention with lower concentrations of biocide. If an organic biocide 

is used, it should have a short half-life. If an oxidizing biocide is being used, the total residual 

oxidant concentration of the effluent should be monitored periodically to ensure that excessive 

amounts of biocide are not being released into the environment. 

4.4.21 Boat Wet Engine Exhaust (Part 2.2.21) 

Large vessels may have one or many smaller vessels onboard that serve purposes ranging 

from lifeboats to landing craft. These auxiliary vessels may have engines which produce wet 

exhaust. Wet exhaust can contain nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, hydrocarbons and other 

organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and particulates. The amount of wet engine exhaust 

depends on the size of the marine engine, the diameter of the water pump's impeller, and the 

engine speed, measured as revolutions per minute (RPM). For smaller motors such as outboards, 

EPA estimates wet engine exhaust discharge rates can range from 5 to 10 gpm when operated 

between 1,500 and 3,000 rpm. For inboard diesel engines, flows can range from 20 gpm to 

30 gpm when the engine operates between 1,500 and 2,000 rpm (Shirwood Pumps, 2011) to 

more than 100 gpm for larger engines operating above 2,500 rpm. In comparison, for naval 

vessels, EPA estimates that outboard engines discharge wet exhaust at a rate of 20 gpm while 

inboard diesel engines have an estimated discharge rate of 150 gpm. The constituents discharged 

by outboard engines differ from those discharged by inboard engines, due to the different fuel 

and engine types. For these outboard engines, a handful of organic constituents are estimated to 

exceed water quality criteria in the discharge. Inboard engines may produce discharges that 

exceed water quality criteria for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). EPA believes that 

well maintained engines are less likely to cause these exceedances, and is therefore, requiring 

operators to implement control measures to ensure their engines are maintained in proper 

working order. Furthermore, vessel owner/operators should use low sulfur or alternative fuels for 

their vessels to reduce the concentration of pollutants in their discharge. 

Vessels that generate wet exhaust must be maintained in good operating condition and 

functioning according to manufacturer specifications. Vessel operators are encouraged to 

consider four-stroke engines in lieu of two-stroke engines to minimize the discharge of pollutants 

to waters subject to this permit. Vessels that use two-stroke engines must use environmentally 

acceptable lubricants, if feasible. EPA has included this requirement because two-stroke engines 

tend to release more oil to receiving waters than 4 stroke engines. Use of environmentally 

acceptable lubricants will reduce the environmental impact of those oils when discharged. 

4.4.22 Sonar Dome Discharge (Part 2.2.22) 

Sonar domes are typically found on research vessels and may sporadically be found on 

other vessels covered by this permit. Maintenance on the sonar dome, while typically (but not 

always) done while a vessel is in dry dock, can involve the release of the inner sonar dome water. 

In addition, the components of the outside of the sonar dome can leach into the surrounding 

Page 134 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

waters, including antifouling agents, plastic, iron, and rubber. Along with these materials, tin, 

zinc, copper, nickel, and epoxy paints may be found on the inside of sonar domes. Some of the 

discharge concentrations of these components can exceed water quality criteria. Discharge rates 

are estimated at as little as 300 gallons and as much as 74,000 gallons from inside the sonar 

dome with every repair event. 

Because EPA has not identified any available BMP or feasible treatment technology 

other than zero discharge, this permit requires that water from inside the sonar dome may not be 

discharged. In addition, vessel operators should not use bioaccumulative biocides on the exterior 

of sonar domes when other viable alternatives are available. 

4.4.23 Underwater Ship Husbandry and Hull Fouling Discharges (Part 2.2.23) 

Extensive hull repair that requires the use of significant raw materials or other potentially 

toxic chemicals should be conducted while the vessel is in drydock when feasible. 

Owner/operators must take all precautions to minimize the discharge of raw, toxic, or oily 

materials while doing any underwater vessel repairs, and these discharges must comply with all 

applicable federal laws. EPA recommends that extensive hull cleaning be conducted when the 

vessel is in drydock or when the byproducts of the cleaning can be contained and disposed of 

properly, especially when cleaning hulls using water pressure based systems. This BMP 

encourages all waste to be collected and disposed of properly to ensure that it is not washed into 

nearby waters. While these practices do not specifically address the release of antifouling 

materials from hulls during vessel operations (i.e., hull coating leachate), they are critical to 

controlling levels of contaminants that result in the same type of environmental degradation. In 

addition, these same practices will reduce the potential for release of introduced species during 

hull cleaning and paint preparation activities. 

Some vessels are too large to be regularly removed from the water and any repair or 

maintenance required on the hull or hull appendages must occur while the vessel is pier-side 

between drydockings. Hull cleaning and repair activities conducted on the water can cause the 

release of a wide range of constituents, including elements of the vessel hull; hull coatings; 

cleaning agents; and species that are attached to and are associated with the hull and other 

submerged areas of the vessel and were transported to non-native waters. Use of minimally-toxic

paints (e.g., low surface energy paints) will reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the water 

column during any cleaning. If cleaning and repair activities on hulls coatings with biocidal 

activity must take place when the vessel is in the water, certain practices can reduce the potential 

risks associated with those activities.

EPA has not identified an alternative to underwater ship husbandry, a viable treatment 

technology, or specific practices that will eliminate all releases of contamination. To limit such 

releases the Agency is requiring that vessel operators employ removal and cleaning methods that 

reduce the environmental impacts due to releases of biocides, hull coating materials, and 

invasive species. EPA has determined that use of soft brushes when cleaning hulls helps 

eliminate the release of paints and hull materials; hence, you must use the softest brush 

practicable to effectively remove living organisms from the vessel hull. Furthermore, when 

available, EPA recommends that vacuum cleaning technologies be employed in conjunction with 

mechanical scrubbing to reduce releases of environmental contaminants. Vacuum cleaning 

Page 135 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

allows the materials scrubbed from the vessel hulls to be collected and disposed of onshore. 

These approaches are not widely commercially available; hence, EPA has not required that they 

must be used in this permit. Dry dock cleaning is the preferred alternative to underwater ship 

husbandry whenever possible. Additionally, hull husbandry should be minimized in critical 

habitats for aquatic listed species. The list of critical habitat can be found at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/criticalhabitat.htm; and 

http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/. 

In addition, vessel hulls and hull appendages are a potential source for the spread of 

aquatic nuisance species. Vessel owner/operators must minimize the transport of attached living 

organisms when they travel into waters subject to this permit from outside the U.S. economic 

zone or when traveling between COTP zones. Minimization techniques include preventing the 

hull from fouling using appropriate anti-foulant paint (see 4.4.3.9.4 of this fact sheet) and 

frequently removing fouling organisms from the hull. In the final permit, EPA included further 

explanation of management measures necessary to minimize the transport of attached living 

organisms. Specifically, these measures include: selecting an appropriate anti-foulant 

management system and maintaining that system, in water inspection, cleaning, and maintenance 

of hulls, and thorough hull and other niche area cleaning when a vessel is in dry dock. This 

clarification language was incorporated to provide guidance to vessel owner/operators on how to 

minimize the transport of living organisms. Furthermore, the clarifying language, while giving 

vessel owner/operators concrete steps that reduce the risks from introducing new invasive 

species, maximizes consistency with management principles established in the international 

guidelines “2011 Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships’ Biofouling to Minimize 

the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species” (MEPC.207(62)).

4.4.24 Welldeck Discharges (Part 2.2.24) 

Potential constituents of welldeck discharges include fresh water, distilled water, firemain 

water, graywater, air-conditioning condensate, sea-salt residues, paint chips, wood splinters, dirt, 

sand, organic debris and marine organisms, oil, grease, fuel, detergents, combustion by-products, 

and lumber treatment chemicals. EPA has determined that control measures can reduce some of 

the potential impacts from welldeck discharges. The permit, therefore, distinguishes what types 

of waste may be discharged as welldeck discharges. 

Further, EPA is requiring that vessel operators practice good housekeeping to ensure that 

no garbage or wastes that can cause a visible sheen are discharged. Should these wastes be 

present, the vessel operator must retain the discharge for onshore disposal. 

4.4.25 Graywater Mixed with Sewage from Vessels (Part 2.2.25) 

Some vessel operators mix graywater with sewage discharges. Once these two discharge 

types are commingled, it is impossible to separate out which constituents within the effluent are 

from which discharge type. Therefore, although discharges of sewage from vessels are exempt 

from permitting pursuant to CWA section 502(6), all graywater discharges containing sewage 

are required to meet the relevant standards contained within this permit for graywater including 

discharge minimization requirements, prohibitions, standards, and other requirements applicable 

to graywater in Part 2 and Part 5 as appropriate. While not a requirement of this permit, vessel 

Page 136 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

operators should be aware that CWA section 312 and its implementing regulations contain 

requirements for discharges of sewage from vessels which also apply to sewage mixed with 

graywater.

4.4.26 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge (Part 2.2.26) 

On October 9th, 2008, the Parties to MARPOL adopted stringent new standards to 

control harmful exhaust emissions from the engines that power ocean going vessels. These 

engine and fuel standards are included in amendments to Annex VI of MARPOL. The United 

States ratified Annex VI on October 8, 2009, and the revised Annex VI entered into force on July 

1, 2010. 

Annex VI, among other things, requires vessels to reduce their air emissions of sulfur. 

The allowable sulfur content of fuel will fall in the Emission Control Areas (ECAs), including 

the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English Channel, from 1.5% to 1% in July of 2010 and to 

0.1% in January of 2015. A North American ECA (including waters adjacent to the Pacific, 

Atlantic and Gulf coasts and the 8 main Hawaiian Islands) will become enforceable in 2012 (US 

EPA, 2010b). Globally, the highest permitted sulfur content of fuel will fall from 4.5% to 3.5% 

in January of 2012 and to 0.5% in January of 2020. 

The IMO developed guidance criteria for the use of exhaust gas cleaning devices, such as 

SOx scrubbers, as an alternative to operating on low sulfur fuel. As a component of their 

analyses, the IMO also set out scrubber washwater criteria in section 10 of the guidelines for 

Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (Resolution MEPC. 170(57)). The IMO has subsequently 

updated their guidelines in the 2009 Guidelines for Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (IMO Annex 

9, Resolution MEPC. 184(59), adopted July 17, 2009). A byproduct of some exhaust gas 

cleaning technology is the washwater generated by the exhaust scrubbing. This washwater may 

include suspended solids, nitrates and sulfates (and nitric and sulfuric acids which impact pH), 

metals, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Before the washwater is discharged, it 

generally would need to be processed to remove numerous pollutants. 

Exhaust gas scrubbers can be classified as dry scrubbers, wet scrubbers, and hybrid 

scrubbers. Dry scrubbers do not use washwater to capture sulfur oxides from the exhaust gas and 

thus to not discharge wastewater into waters of the US. Instead, exhaust gas is passed through a 

bed of granular solid media such as calcium carbonate (CaCO3), burnt lime (CaO), or hydrated 

lime (Ca(OH)2), to which the sulfur oxides absorb and react to form gypsum (CaSO4) (Couple 

Systems, 2010). 

There are two main wet scrubber technologies. The first, referred to as seawater 

scrubbing, is an open-loop design which uses seawater to scrub the exhaust and then discharges 

the washwater back to the sea following treatment. In a seawater scrubber, the exhaust gases are 

brought into contact with seawater, either through spraying seawater into the exhaust stream or 

routing the exhaust gases through a water bath. The sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the exhaust gas 

dissolves in the washwater, where it is ionized to bisulphate and sulfite, which are then readily 

oxidized to sulfate (Karle and Turner, 2007). The ionization also produces acidity, as does the 

sulfuric acid formed from sulfur trioxide (SO3). The sulfuric acid in the water then reacts with 

carbonates and other salts in the seawater to form sulfates which are removed in the washwater 

Page 137 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

(US EPA, 2009). The washwater is then treated to remove solids and raise the pH prior to 

discharge back to the sea.

A second type of wet SOx scrubber is a closed loop system. Fresh water is used as 

washwater, and caustic soda is injected into the washwater to neutralize the sulfur in the exhaust. 

A small portion of the washwater is bled off and treated to remove suspended solids, which are 

held as sludge and disposed of ashore, as with the open loop design. The treated bleed-off 

washwater can be discharged at open sea or held on board. Additional fresh water is added to the 

system as needed. While this design is not completely closed loop, strictly speaking, it can be 

operated in zero discharge mode for a period of time (US EPA, 2009). 

Hybrid scrubbers can operate as either open or closed scrubbers. The hybrid systems can 

operate with either seawater (open loop) or freshwater (closed loop). At sea, the system operates 

with seawater and, in harbors and estuaries, the system can operate on freshwater in a closed 

loop system (Aalborg, 2010). 

The limits applicable in the VGP apply to wet scrubbers and hybrid scrubbers. Wet 

scrubbers have been designed to process and remove pollutants before they are discharged. 

Several trials have been conducted using wet SOx scrubbers aboard marine vessels, which have 

demonstrated the capabilities of this technology to remove sulfur emissions from exhaust gas 

(Entec 2005, EPA 2009). These trials have also provided limited data which characterize 

constituent concentrations in washwater discharges. The trials aboard three vessels, the 

Zaandam, Pride of Kent and Suula provided measurements of several washwater constituents 

including pH and pollutants removed from the exhaust gas (SOx and NOx, and the products of 

their transformation: acidity, SO4, NO3 and COD) and particulate matter (PM), (which may 

contain PAHs, hydrocarbons and metal oxides). Other constituents in seawater scrubber 

washwater (dissolved metals) were attributable to dissolution of scrubber system materials due to 

the high acidity of washwater in the open scrubber systems. Neutralization of washwater was 

achieved by blending with sufficient seawater “reaction water”. Washwater was also treated to 

remove the suspended solids that were attributed to PM removed by the scrubbers. This was 

accomplished using multicylones (alone or in combination with filtration), or more effectively 

using an advanced treatment system incorporating coagulation and filtration, floatation and 

adsorption. 

As provided in Part 2.2.26 of the VGP, EPA has a numeric BAT limit in this iteration of 

the permit which is consistent with the international guidelines established by the IMO. Though 

marine gas exhaust systems are in the early stages of development, EPA has found that all 

marine manufacturers are designing and testing systems with these IMO guidelines in mind.

Furthermore, these systems are generally based on technologies that have been used in land 

based applications, and these technologies generally transfer well to ship-based applications. 

Furthermore, EPA has found that use of these technologies is economically achievable 

for several reasons. First, as discussed above, the limits are fundamentally similar to an existing 

international standard; one to which treatment manufacturers are currently designing their 

equipment. By adopting these limits, EPA is applying no additional burden. Second, vessel 

owner/operators may realize cost savings when using lower grade fuel (which requires use of a 

scrubber) compared to the higher grade, lower sulfur content fuels. 

Page 138 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

EPA has also included several monitoring requirements for those vessels which use 

exhaust gas scrubber systems. These requirements are based on the IMO washwater discharge 

criteria, which are intended to act as guidance for implementing Exhaust Gas Cleaning System 

(EGCS) designs. The IMO Guidelines state that the criteria should be revised in the future as 

more data become available on the characteristics of the discharge and its environmental 

impacts, taking into account any advice given by the Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects 

of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP). Administrations (i.e., ship registry authorities) 

should therefore provide for collection of relevant data. To this end, IMO requests ship owners, 

in conjunction with the EGCS manufacturer, to sample inlet water (for background), water after 

the scrubber (but before any treatment system) and discharge water and to analyze these samples 

using EPA or ISO test procedures for the following parameters: 

• pH 

• PAH and oil (detailed GC-MS analysis)

• Nitrate and nitrite

• Metals (Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, As, Cr and V) 

EPA is supportive of the goals of gathering more information about the functioning of 

these systems. In order to ensure that the discharges are meeting the required effluent limits in 

Part 2.2.26 of the permit, EPA has required monitoring of any vessel’s exhaust gas scrubber 

system which discharges into waters subject to this permit. The standards and monitoring 

requirements listed in Parts 2.2.26.1 and 2.2.26.2 of the permit are consistent with IMO 

guidelines for exhaust gas cleaning systems in resolution Marine Environmental Protection 

Committee (MEPC) 184(59). The monitoring requirements require both continuous monitoring 

by probes, and periodic analytical monitoring. Continuous monitoring of pH, PAHs (when 

available), turbidity and temperature, the regular calibration of continuous monitoring 

equipment, and compliance with standard continuous monitoring equipment requirements will 

ensure that exhaust gas cleaning systems are appropriately operated and maintained. The 

analytical monitoring requirements are generally consistent with the IMO requirements, meeting 

IMO goals of generating more information about the functioning of these systems. These 

additional requirements assure that probes remain accurate, and they generate additional 

information about other pollutants in order to provide assurance to EPA that constituents within 

the discharge are not likely to cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards. 

EPA made changes to the analytical monitoring requirements between the proposed VGP 

and this final VGP. Namely, this provision has been amended to require that monitoring must 

happen 2 times during the first year, with each sampling event being no less than 14 days apart. 

This is to provide vessel owner/operators with flexibility when they sample, while generating the 

data needed to evaluate system performance. Vessels then need only sample one time per year 

thereafter. Furthermore, to better align with IMO, EPA has required the sampling of inlet water 

(for background), water after the scrubber (but before any treatment system) and discharge water 

and to analyze these samples Additionally, EPA has removed the analytical monitoring 

requirements for temperature and dissolved oxygen from the analytical monitoring requirements 

based on comments submitted on the proposed permit. 

Page 139 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Additionally, EPA notes that matrix interference is a known issue for monitoring 

selenium and arsenic in saltwater samples. During the ESA consultation process, one resource 

agency raised concerns that existing monitoring data indicated that selenium levels are elevated; 

however, EPA noted that these elevated levels are likely due to matrix interference. Selenium 

was only monitored in one of the three reports reviewed by EPA. We have the results from those 

studies, but do not have the raw laboratory data, including QA/QC information. The sampling 

method used was EPA 200.8, the same method for which EPA identified matrix interference for 

arsenic and selenium in EPA’s 2010 study on vessel discharges (EPA 2010). Bromines are 

found in high concentrations in seawater, with an average bromide concentration in typical 

seawater (35 ppt) around 65 ppm. Notable interference can be observed as low as 100 or 200 

ppb (personal communication, Terri White and Robin Costas, 2012). For further discussion, 

please see Albert and Piziali (2012). 

In order for vessel owner/operators to report results to EPA that are not elevated as a 

direct result of matrix interference, EPA strongly recommends that vessel operators utilize 

techniques and/or equipment known to reduce or eliminate this interference. These techniques, 

all of which are consistent with EPA methods 200.8 or 200.9, include Octopole Reaction Cell 

ICP-MS, Dynamic Reaction Cell ICP-MS, and hydride generation with a graphite furnace. 

Other ICP-MS approaches can also be taken which minimize such interference; however, as 

discussed above, owner/operators must use analytical methodologies which correct for this 

interference.

In respect to other monitoring results, EPA is particularly interested in the results from 

any PAH analysis. The group of 16 PAHs required by the 2013 VGP is customarily analyzed and 

measured as individual chemicals, but in the IMO Guidelines the washwater criteria for PAH is 

set in "phenanthrene equivalents". The rationale for this seems to be that measuring PAH is a 

surrogate for hydrocarbons and phenanthrene was found to be the most abundant PAH in the 

analysis of washwater during trials on vessel Pride of Kent. Hence, EPA is requiring analytical 

monitoring of all PAH compounds to ensure that the discharge of PAHs from these compounds 

does not pose unacceptable risks to receiving waters.

In order to maximize consistency with the IMO guidelines for exhaust gas cleaning 

systems, today’s permit includes a revised discharge standard for washwater from the exhaust 

gas scrubber treatment system for pH from that proposed in the draft VGP. EPA believes the 

revised limit is both technically feasible and will ensure the discharge does not pose an 

unacceptable risk to receiving water. The revised standard requires that the discharge washwater 

must have a pH of no less than 6.0 measured at the ship’s overboard discharge. The proposed 

limit of no less than 6.5 was modified to better align with the IMO guideline. The IMO guideline 

includes the following two provisions regarding discharge limits of pH from exhaust gas 

scrubber washwater: 

1. The discharge washwater should have a pH of no less than 6.5 measured at the ship’s 

overboard discharge with the exception that during maneuvering and transit, a maximum 

difference of 2 pH is allowed between the ship’s inlet and overboard discharge; or 

2. During commissioning of the unit(s) after installation, the discharged washwater 

plume should be measured externally from the ship (at rest in a harbor) and the 

Page 140 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

discharge pH at the ship’s overboard pH monitoring point will be recorded when the 

plume at a distance of 4 meters from the discharge point equals or exceeds a pH of 6.5. 

This discharge pH, which is found to achieve a minimum pH of 6.5 in the washwater 

plume 4 meters from the ship, will become the overboard pH discharge limit. 

(Resolution MEPC.184(59)).

In the proposed permit, EPA included the first provision of the IMO guideline but did not 

include the second provision. Several commenters had concerns with not including the second 

approach, claiming this was imposing a more stringent standard than is currently required 

internationally. When issuing NPDES permits, EPA typically, for the purposes of compliance 

monitoring, applies discharge limitations at either 1) the point of discharge into waters of the 

U.S. or 2) at some point within the control of the permittee. Furthermore, EPA typically requires 

that the sampling is representative of the monitored activity. Thus, the second provision of the 

IMO guideline, as written, is inconsistent with that approach. Additionally, EPA believes that it 

is impracticable to require vessel owner/operators to monitor four meters from their vessel hull 

on a regular basis – hence, assuring compliance with these numeric limits in the permit would be 

challenging. However, EPA is interested in maximizing consistency with international standards 

where the Agency believes that they are reflective of BAT and that those standards protect 

applicable water quality criteria.

Therefore, EPA has changed the pH limit from 6.5 to 6.0 applied at the point of discharge 

in order to maximize consistency with the IMO guideline by accounting for some pH buffering 

likely to occur within the 4 meter range. EPA notes that the lower bound limit of 6.0 is consistent 

with the BAT analyses developed in effluent guidelines for the vast majority of other industry 

sectors. These technology based limits provide an acceptable range of 6.0 – 9.0 for pH (e.g., see 

40 CFR parts 402, 419, 434, etc.). Also, the permit limit continues to include the additional 

provision, consistent with the IMO guideline, that the maximum difference allowed between 

inlet and outlet during maneuvering and transit is 2.0 pH units. 

Based on existing monitoring data provided from the trials conducted on the Zaandam, 

Pride of Kent and Suula, EPA believes it is reasonable to expect that a properly functioning 

system can achieve a pH of no less than 6.0 for their washwater discharger. The trial data 

indicates that the pH of the washwater discharge can range from 5.4 to 7.65 after treatment. The 

lower bound of the range was measured from the Zaandam where it was noted that problems 

with pumps reduced the flow rates in the scrubber system. The same system, however, also 

demonstrated higher discharge pH values while in Alaskan coastal waters in 2008 where the 

mean discharge pH was 6.3. The increase in pH was achieved by raising the volume of reaction 

water being blended with washwater and lower engine loads. The trial conducted on the Pride of 

Kent included samples taken downstream from the scrubbers, prior to blending with reaction 

water. The pH values from the untreated washwater ranged from 2.67 to 3.79. However, after 

blending the washwater with the reaction water, the lowest pH measured in the overboard 

discharge was 6.15.The trials conducted on the Suula, included the addition of sodium hydroxide 

(NaOH) to the scrubbing water circulation to maintain the process pH and the efficiency of SOx 

removal. The pH of the discharge was maintained at a value of 7.65. (US EPA, 2011f). Based 

upon these monitoring data, existing exhaust gas scrubber systems can meet a pH limit of 6.0 at 

the point of overboard discharge, and therefore, systems are available which can meet the limit. 

Page 141 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Therefore, the adjusted limit reflects best available technology and remains substantially similar 

to an existing international standard. 

EPA believes the revised limit will continue to ensure the discharge does not pose 

unacceptable risks to receiving waters. In addition, given the variability of pH between 

freshwater and saltwater, the maximum allowed difference of 2.0 units of pH will provide 

additional assurance that the washwater discharge does not have an adverse impact on the 

receiving water. For example, the mean pH of ocean surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3. 

(Bindoff, 2007). For discharges occurring in waters at the higher end of that range (8.3), the 

washwater discharge pH cannot be below 2.0 units less than the intake, in this case a pH of no 

less than 6.3. Discharges that occur in fresh or brackish water, which tends to have a lower pH, 

will be subject to the lower limit of no less than 6.0. For example, the Chesapeake Bay watershed 

has an ambient pH range of 7.0-8.5. (Waldbusser, 2011). In this case, a washwater discharge 

would be subject to a pH of no less than 6.0 to 6.5, depending on pH of the receiving water. 

Therefore, the pH discharge limitations established in this permit will provide reasonable 

assurance that the discharge will not pose an unacceptable risk to the water quality of the 

receiving water. 

Reporting of both continuous and periodic monitoring of parameters listed in 2.2.26.2.2 

and 2.2.26.2.3 is necessary to assure compliance with the permit’s limits for this discharge, and 

will provide EPA with data representative of the discharge being monitored. See 40 CFR 

122.48(b). Vessel owner/operators must submit all monitoring results to EPA annually through 

EPA’s e-Reporting system, unless exempted from electronic reporting consistent with Part 1.14 

of the VGP. 

Additionally, the 2013 VGP retains from the 2008 VGP other requirements to assure that 

exhaust gas scrubber discharges are consistent with existing US law. Vessel owner/operators 

must follow all existing regulations, including the prohibition against the discharge of oil, 

including oily mixtures, in quantities that may be harmful as defined in 40 CFR Part 110. In 

addition, sludge generated from exhaust gas scrubber washwater may not be discharged in waters 

subject to this permit. 

4.4.27 Fish Hold Effluent

Commercial fishing vessels use different methods to keep seafood fresh after catch. 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 

some trawlers, while chipped and slurry ice tanks are more common on trollers, longliners, 

gillnetters, and some other trawlers. 

Fish holds are also often cleaned or disinfected by vessel crews between catches. To rinse 

the tank, vessel crews use either dockside municipal water supply or surrounding ambient water. 

Cleaning may simply involve rinsing the tanks, or crews also sometimes add detergents or 

disinfectants. Crews often use scrub brushes to clean the walls and floor of the fish hold to 

maximize the removal of organic material. Therefore, fish hold cleaning results in a combination 

Page 142 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

of residual fish hold water and ambient or municipal water and often contains soaps or 

detergents.

In addition to the pollutants from fish hold cleaning, fish hold effluent also may contain 

waste fish parts or other materials generated by fish cleaning, unused bait, solids, oils, nutrients, 

bacteria, and viruses. Fish hold effluent may 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. 

EPA’s 2010 “Study of Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Commercial 

Fishing Vessels and Other Non-recreational Vessels Less Than 79 feet” concluded that impacts 

from individual small vessels and individual commercial fishing vessels likely have a minimal 

environmental impact. However, it concluded that “the impacts are potentially significant where 

there are high vessel concentrations, low circulation in waters, additional environmental 

stressors, or pollutant loadings from other sources” (US EPA, 2010a). Reducing fish hold 

effluent discharges when in port will reduce the amount of fish hold effluent discharged into 

these particular areas of concern, which might address some of the potential impacts EPA 

discussed above. 

The effluent limits in Part 2.2.27 in the 2013 VGP are common practices that are easily 

implemented by vessel owner/operators and are designed to reduce the volume of fish hold 

effluent discharged into sensitive water bodies and to reduce the adverse environmental impact 

fish hold effluent that is discharged. The requirement to physically separate excess fish waste 

from fish hold effluent prior to discharge is intended to reduce the volume and concentration of 

the discharge. Use of physical separation techniques or equipment is consistent with existing 

fishing vessel practices. For example, most vessels have coarse filters (with screens 1⁄2 inch or 

smaller) to keep solid fish waste from being discharged with liquid effluent (US EPA, 2011g). 

Another way that vessel operators remove solids is through use of a De-Watering Box (DWB) or 

Wetpump Separator, which serve as a physical separation barrier. A DWB is standard 

commercial fishing industry chamber-type separation equipment used by vessel owners and 

processing plants to separate fishery products from the vessel’s chilled seawater. The fish hold 

contents are pumped directly from the vessel into the DWB chamber by conveyor belt and across 

a screen grate to separate seawater and organic matter. Screening large solid material from any 

fish hold effluent discharged overboard will help protect water quality in nearshore waters by 

limiting the spread of ANS and reducing oxygen demand, odor, nutrients, and any pathogens in 

unused bait and fish solids. 

Discharging fish hold effluent to an available shore-based discharge facility when in port 

will reduce the amount of fish hold effluent discharged into these nearshore waters. When vessel 

operators are evaluating whether the facilities are available, factors they should consider include 

whether the facility has been designed to receive fish hold effluent; whether the vessel and the 

facility have the infrastructure to transfer the effluent; and whether the transfer would not unduly 

delay the departure of the fishing vessel. In the absence of available shore-based facilities, use of 

physical separation techniques or equipment, such as use of DWBs, will assist in protecting 

nearshore waters, and these approaches can be used to meet the requirements of the VGP. With 

use of a DWB, after physical separation and wherever possible, the chilled seawater is collected 

and re-circulated back to the vessel for disposal at sea, or is pumped into the plant’s waste water 

Page 143 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

system [At sea disposal, however, must be outside of harbors or other protected and enclosed 

coastal waters, and outside of other areas where EPA has found that such deposits could 

endanger health, the environment, or ecological systems in a specific location under the Marine 

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C 1412(d). At sea disposal of such fish wastes 

at such locations requires a permit under that statute.] When these alternatives are not available,

the fish hold effluent that passes through the separation barrier is discharged at the pier. For 

purposes of the VGP a vessel at a pier may discharge fish hold effluent and fish hold cleaning 

effluent consisting of refrigerated seawater, provided the water and fishery products (incl. 

organic matter) are physically separated using a de-watering box-type or similar separation 

technique, or by screening the outflow valve in the fish hold if shore based facilities are not 

available. 

The onshore treatment provisions are not applicable to discharges from pumped through 

holding tanks used for the sole purpose of keeping the catch alive before being immediately 

discharged (e.g., holding tanks on crabbing/lobster vessels). The effluent from this latter type of 

vessel, which involves the pumping of continuous “once through” ambient water, is less likely to 

have accumulated the type and volume of biological wastes that otherwise is removed under this 

permit limitation.

This permit also prohibits discarding unused live bait overboard, unless the bait was 

caught in that waterbody or watershed. The release of live bait is suspected as having introduced 

invasive species into new waters. For instance, both the European green crab (Carcinus maenas) 

and the rough periwinkle snail (Littorina saxatilis) may have been introduced to the San 

Francisco Bay as a result of the release of live bait (Cohen et al., 1995). The discharge of all 

other unused bait overboard is strongly discouraged unless the bait was caught in the same water 

body or watershed. For purposes of the VGP and this requirement, the term “fish hold” means 

the area on the vessel where both catch and/or bait are stored. Although the term “waterbody” is 

not defined in the permit, a rational understanding of the term may be implied, to include a lake, 

river segment, or reasonably proximate area of ocean. For purposes of these permits, the entire 

Pacific Ocean should not be considered one waterbody, but regions of an ocean where the 

ecosystem and species found are similar could be regarded as part of the same waterbody. The 

prohibition on the discharge of unused live bait will help to prevent the spread or dispersal of 

potentially invasive species if the bait are invasive species or are contaminated with invasive 

pathogens. Finally, in Part 5.1.1.1.3 of the 2013 VGP, EPA has required that any cleaners or 

detergents used to clean the fish hold must be phosphate-free, minimally-toxic, and 

biodegradable. This Part applies to the cleaning of fish holds. Use of these products will reduce 

the impacts from fish hold effluent cleaning into surrounding waters. 

4.5. ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS (PART 2.3) 

This permit includes water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) to control discharges 

as stringently as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. The provisions of Part 2.3 

of the permit constitute additional WQBELs for this permit, and supplement the permit’s 

technology-based effluent limits in Parts 2.1, 2.2, and 5 (where applicable). Where the 

implementation of the technology-based requirements in this permit are not sufficient to meet the 

applicable receiving water’s water quality standards, the permittee may be subject to further 

WQBELs. Prior to or after permit issuance and authorization to discharge, EPA may require 

Page 144 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

additional WQBELs on a site-specific basis, or require the permittee to obtain coverage under an 

individual permit, if information in the NOI, required reports, or from other sources indicates 

that, after meeting the technology-based limits in Parts 2.1, 2.2, and 5 (where applicable) and the 

WQBELs in Part 2.3, the facility is causing or contributing to an excursion above water quality 

standards.39

Part 2.3 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 BMPs are likely 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 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 most 

vessel discharges 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, 

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 2.3 affirms the 

permittee’s requirement to control its discharges as stringently as necessary to meet applicable 

water quality standards. EPA reserves the authority to require more stringent requirements where 

necessary to meet applicable standards, or, alternatively, to require the permittee to apply for an 

individual permit.

39 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 permit condition.

Page 145 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

The purpose of Part 2.3.2 is to include a definition for “impaired waters” so that the scope 

of the requirements in 2.3.2 can be more readily understood by permittees. Part 2.3.2 defines 

“impaired waters” as those which have been 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 2.3.2.1 reiterates that if a vessel discharges to an impaired water without an EPAapproved or established TMDL, EPA can provide the permittee with additional requirements 

with which to comply. EPA can also impose additional requirements on discharges that are not 

directly to an impaired water if they cause or contribute to an exceedance in another water body 

affected by the discharge. 

Part 2.3.2.2 outlines the process for imposing additional requirements on permittees when 

they discharge into waters that have a waste load allocation (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). 

5. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS (PART 3) 

5.1. PURPOSE OF CORRECTIVE ACTION SCHEDULES

The purpose of including a corrective action section in this permit is to assist permittees 

with effectively meeting effluent limits and implementing the best management practices in this 

permit. Corrective actions in this permit are follow-up actions a permittee must take to correct 

problems identified in an inspection; they are a requirement to review and revise control 

measures and vessel operations to ensure that any problems are eliminated and will not be 

repeated in the future. The permit makes clear that the permittee is expected to assess why a 

specific problem has occurred, and document what steps were taken to eliminate the problem. 

EPA believes this approach will aid vessel owner/operators in reaching compliance with the 

requirements of the permit quickly. Compliance with many of the permit’s requirements, for 

instance, those related to good housekeeping, reporting, recordkeeping, and some of those related 

to operation and maintenance requirements can be accomplished immediately, and therefore, are 

not considered problems that trigger corrective actions. 

The permit requires that a corrective action assessment be completed as soon as any of 

the listed problems are identified. Pursuant to provisions of the permit found in Part 4.2, any 

problems that constitute violations of permit requirements (instances of noncompliance) must be 

either noted as part of the vessel’s records or reported to EPA. As part of the corrective action 

assessment found in Part 3.2 of the permit, the owner/operator must give a detailed account of 

the problem(s) identified, take steps to discover the causes of the problem(s), and outline a 

Page 146 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

schedule for addressing the problem(s). The specific contents of the corrective action assessment 

are detailed in the permit. This corrective action assessment must be kept with the other 

recordkeeping documentation required by this permit. 

Part 3.3 of the permit outlines types of problems that trigger the need for corrective action 

and stipulates time periods for implementing actions to remedy deficiencies and violations. EPA 

emphasizes that these time frames are not grace periods within which an operator is relieved of 

any liability for a permit violation. When any of the listed problems are identified, such as 

discovery that effluent limits are being violated, the owner/operator must take steps to ensure the 

problems causing the violations are eliminated. If the original inadequacy constitutes a permit 

violation, then that violation is not excused by the time frame EPA has allotted for corrective 

action, although EPA will consider the timeliness and appropriateness of the corrective action in 

determining an appropriate response to the violation. EPA assumes that vessel owner/operators 

will need less time to make minor repairs or change shipboard practices than to make substantial 

renovation or repair. Time limits are included specifically so that problems are not allowed to 

persist indefinitely. Failure to take the necessary corrective action within the stipulated time limit 

constitutes an additional and independent permit violation. The three deadlines for corrective 

actions are based on how extensive the corrections are. For example:

• A minor adjustment may include altering practices for material or equipment storage 

that cause contamination during a precipitation or high wave event. Corrective actions 

to address the underlying cause of the noncompliance and return to compliance and/or 

complete necessary adjustments or repairs to prevent these effluent violations in the 

future must be implemented as soon as possible but no more than 2 weeks after the 

discovery of the problem. For example, if materials caused contamination of the deck 

washdown water, or bilgewater containing emulsifiers, detergents, or other additives 

was discharged, then violations have occurred. For a vessel that will leave waters 

subject to this permit within 2 weeks of discovering the problem, corrective actions 

must be taken either within 2 weeks after the discovery of the problem, or prior to reentering waters subject to this permit, whichever is later.

• A major adjustment may include drips or spills from leaky infrastructure, or 

operations that cause violations, but can be repaired or corrected without the vessel 

being put into dry dock. These adjustments or repairs could include fixing leaking 

pipe connections or seals that allow oil or other contaminants to reach discharges; 

installation of drip pans to prevent equipment spills or machinery area runoff from 

reaching deck washdown effluent; or requiring additional training of crew on correct 

compliance procedures if vessel activities are not in compliance with the permit.

Major adjustments must be made within 3 months. EPA believes that this allows 

sufficient time to locate the parts or personnel to make the repair or complete the 

correction. During the period immediately following the initial violation and before 

the corrective action has been completed, the vessel operator must make every effort 

to reduce potential environmental harm. If longer than 3 months is required, the 

appropriate EPA regional office must be notified of why the additional time is needed 

and a date when the correction is anticipated to be completed. This information must 

be recorded in the vessel’s recordkeeping documentation. For a vessel that will leave 

Page 147 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

waters subject to this permit within 3 months of discovering the problem, corrective 

actions must be taken either within 3 months after the discovery of the problem, or 

prior to re-entering waters subject to this permit, whichever is later.

• A major renovation is one that can only be performed in dry dock. This may include 

such modifications as replumbing waste lines, rerouting drains, or installation of 

additional holding capacity for select discharge types; or overcoating or removal of 

TBT on vessels previously coated with this anti-fouling hull coating.

Major renovations must be accomplished during the next available or scheduled 

opportunity for dry dock renovations. An owner/operator that has a vessel that is in 

dry dock after incurring a violation that does not take corrective action to alleviate the 

identified problem will be in violation of the corrective actions section of the permit 

for every occurrence or discharge after re-launching the vessel (in addition to any 

original violations prior to going into drydock). All vessels will need to begin 

complying with its terms on December 19, 2013; hence vessel operators should 

consider implementing plans as soon as possible to make necessary renovations or 

repairs part of their current dry dock scheduling. 

EPA will consider the appropriateness and promptness of corrective action in 

determining enforcement responses to permit violations. 

6. INSPECTIONS, MONITORING, REPORTING, RECORDKEEPING (PART 4)

Pursuant to CWA section 308 and 402(a)(2), 40 CFR 122.43(a), and other applicable 

implementing regulations, the following requirements have been included in the permit, as 

discussed below. 

6.1. SELF-INSPECTIONS AND MONITORING (PART 4.1) 

Vessel self-inspections are required as a means of identifying, for example, sources of 

spills, broken pollution prevention equipment, or other situations that are or might lead to permit 

violations and allow the owner/operator to correct the situation as soon as possible. The permit 

requires self-inspections so that the owner or operator can diagnose and fix problems to remain 

compliant with the permit. These self-inspections can and must be conducted while the vessel is 

underway as well as while in port, and are designed to fit easily into other, already established 

vessel routines. For instance, the permit allows the routine visual inspections to be conducted as 

part of an existing (or updated) international safety management (ISM) code safety management 

system (SMS) plan, as long as all the permit requirements are met. 

The routine visual inspections required by the permit are reasonable measures of good 

marine practice that the prudent mariner is already employing to ensure vessel, crew, and 

environmental health and safety. Inspections must be conducted at least once per week or once 

per voyage, whichever is more frequent, except that vessels that engage in multiple voyages per 

day are required to inspect daily, rather than on every voyage. If the vessel hull is not readily 

visible, it should be inspected when feasible, particularly the portions of the hull above the water 

line at any given time. During the implementation of the 2008 VGP, EPA developed a “Q & A” 

Page 148 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

to address the frequently asked question of what constitutes a “voyage” under this Part. We 

repeat the answer to that question below. 

For the purposes of VGP section 4.1.1 (including its routine visual inspection provisions), 

a voyage is generally considered to begin when the vessel departs a dock or other location at 

which it has loaded or unloaded (in whole or in part) cargo or passengers, and to end after it has 

tied-up at another dock or location in order to again conduct either of such activities. For 

example, for a barge on the Mississippi River, such voyage would begin when it departs a 

location at which it has cargo loaded onto it and end when cargo is unloaded at another location. 

EPA has made one substantive change to section 4.1, which is intended to provide some 

additional flexibility to vessel owner/operators while still meeting the objectives of the selfinspection requirements. Specifically, the permit provides that in situations where multiple 

voyages occur within a one week period, for example a barge that makes daily voyages (i.e., it 

conducts cargo operations at a different port every day), the vessel operator may employ a 

limited visual inspection that targets only those areas that may have been affected by activities 

related to docking and cargo operations that day. For example, for a vessel that only conducted 

cargo operations involving one compartment or hold onboard that vessel, the limited visual 

inspection need only be targeted to that compartment or hold and any appurtenant equipment, 

e.g., piping and pumps, used that day. The use of such targeted intra-week visual inspections 

does not in any way serve to relieve permittees of the VGP’s minimum requirement that a 

comprehensive visual inspection be conducted at least once per week. For vessels such as mobile 

oil and gas rigs, which are in a mode of transportation only when relocating between drill sites, a 

voyage for purposes of VGP section 4.1.1 is generally considered to begin when the rig departs 

one site and to end when it arrives at the new site to commence operations which are not 

transportation-oriented, such as drilling. 

For vessels such as harbor tugs, which may be in semi-continuous operation for up to a 

week within the same harbor and do not carry passengers or cargo, for purposes of VGP 

section 4.1.1, a voyage is generally considered to begin when the crew or master take charge of 

the vessel and to end when that crew or master are replaced by another crew or master, at which 

point a new voyage would begin due to the arrival of the new crew or master. For example, if 

crew changes occur every seven days on a harbor tug, the voyage begins with crew arrival, ends 

on day seven with departure of that crew, and a new voyage begins on day seven with arrival of 

the new crew. A routine visual inspection thus would be necessary during the tenure of the initial 

crew and also during tenure of the new crew.

Discussion

Section 4.1.1 of EPA’s Vessel General Permit (VGP) provides that at least once per week 

or once per “voyage,” whichever is more frequent (but not more than once per day), permittees 

must conduct a visual inspection of safely accessible deck and cargo areas and all accessible 

areas where chemicals, oils, dry cargo or other materials are stored, mixed, and used, as well as 

verifying that monitoring, training, and inspections are logged according to VGP requirements. 

The routine visual inspections under this VGP section were intended to be measures of good 

marine practice that the prudent mariner is already employing to ensure vessel, crew, and 

environmental health and safety (see VGP Fact Sheet section 6.1). 

Page 149 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

The term “voyage” was previously not defined in the VGP, nor does it have a single 

clearly understood meaning in the maritime context (see generally, discussion of maritime law 

“voyage” definitions at http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/V/Voyage.aspx). In general 

usage, the term voyage involves a trip by water of some duration (see Webster's New World

College Dictionary (4th Ed.), defining “voyage” as “a relatively long journey or passage by 

water or, formerly, by land”). The lack of a clear commonly understood definition has resulted in 

questions as to how VGP section 4.1.1 (which uses the term “voyage” as a trigger for some of its 

requirements) is to be interpreted. 

EPA has interpreted the term “voyage” for purposes of VGP section 4.1.1 in order to 

provide clarity as to when its obligations are triggered. For each situation addressed in the above 

answer, the analysis began with the general understanding of the term voyage to mean a trip by 

water of some duration, and for the need to provide easily recognizable discrete beginning and 

end points so as to clarify what constitutes a “voyage.” EPA’s interpretation was developed 

taking into account a variety of underlying vessel usages and the underlying purpose of the 

visual inspection requirement – to ensure that such inspection occurs when conditions on the 

vessel have changed in a way that might implicate vessel discharges.

Accordingly, the “general” interpretation, which addresses vessels used in carrying cargo 

or passengers, takes into account the movement of cargo or passengers onto or off the vessel in 

defining “voyage.” Such an approach ensures that an inspection occurs after a vessel departs 

following loading or unloading cargo or passengers, as those operations can result in, for 

example, spillage of cargo material or discarding of rubbish on deck or discharge into the water. 

For vessels that do not engage in such activities, we necessarily looked to other logical beginning 

and endpoints to use in defining “voyage,” as set out in the second and third paragraph of the 

answer above. While we generally interpret “voyage” as described above, there are certain 

classes of vessels where such a definition does not work and, therefore, EPA interprets the terms 

differently for such vessels as set out in the following paragraph. 

Vessels that shift in and out of use as a means of transportation (such as mobile drilling 

rigs) are operating in a capacity as a means of transportation when moving between sites, and 

therefore are covered by the VGP during that period, but not when operating in their industrial 

capacity as a drilling rig (see VGP Fact Sheet section 3.5.2.1 for further discussion). The 

transition from industrial mode to transportation mode is a change in operation that may affect 

the nature and characteristics of discharges such that a visual inspection is prudent. Thus, for 

such vessels we interpret “voyage” in paragraph 2 of the answer above in terms of departure 

from one site and arrival at a new site to commence non-transportation activities. Harbor tugs, 

which operate within harbor confines and also do not carry cargo or passengers, are addressed in 

paragraph 3 of the answer above, which uses the instance of a new crew or master taking over 

operation of the vessel to determine when a “voyage” begins and ends. This change was chosen 

as a trigger because, in addition to being a readily identifiable discrete event, it also will result in 

a visual inspection being performed by incoming sets of crew, thereby ensuring that they become 

familiar with conditions on the vessel that may implicate vessel discharges.

Lastly, we note the interpretation of “voyage” does not in any way serve to relieve 

permittees of the VGP’s minimum requirement that visual inspection be conducted at least once 

Page 150 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

per week. See VGP section 4.1.1 (stating visual inspections must be conducted at least once per 

week or per voyage, whichever is more frequent). 

Each routine visual inspection must be noted in the official logbook or other 

recordkeeping documentation, signed by the person conducting the inspection, and must include 

basic information relating to the inspection. For limited visual inspections, the person conducting 

the inspection need only initial that the inspections were conducted as an addendum to the 

documentation of the full “weekly” visual inspection, unless additional potential problems or 

contamination is found. This documentation establishes a record of inspections conducted for 

both the owner/operator and EPA to track compliance with the permit. The record can help the 

owner/operator track which areas of the vessel cause more permit violations or hold the most 

potential pollution problems. By being aware of and focusing on these areas, the owner or 

operator can change or establish onboard procedures to make permit compliance easier. 

For today’s permit, EPA has included provisions allowing for the use of Extended 

Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections in lieu of routine visual inspections and other monitoring 

requirements (e.g., ballast water treatment system functional monitoring) in limited 

circumstances. EPA included these provisions to better address the unique circumstances of 

owner/operators of unmanned barges. These inspections may also be used when a vessel enters 

an extended unmanned period. A vessel is considered to be in an EUP if the vessel is unmanned, 

fleeted, jacked-up, or otherwise has its navigation systems and main propulsion shut down (e.g., 

extended lay-up) for 13 days or greater. The EUP inspection is an alternative inspection for 

fleeted, jacked-up, or similarly situated vessels, which routinely go into temporary or extended

periods of lay-up. 

A vessel owner/operator or their authorized representative may conduct EUPs in lieu of 

routine visual inspections if they are up-to-date with all other inspection and reporting 

requirements found in Part 4 of this permit (including routine and annual inspections) and the 

vessel owner/operator must not have received any VGP related notices of violation from EPA or 

its authorized representative or faced any VGP-related enforcement action from EPA within the 

previous 24 months. EPA has included this provision so that it can ensure that vessel 

owners/operators previously cited for violations are appropriately implementing the terms of the 

permit. Self-reported violations do not disqualify a vessel for EUPs, unless EPA notifies the 

vessel owner to the contrary. 

The EUP inspection consists of three primary components: a pre lay-up inspection, a 

periodic external observation of the vessel and surrounding waters, and a post lay-up routine 

visual inspection. Additionally, while a vessel is in EUP, only the monitoring and inspection 

requirements specified in Part 4.1.1.2 will be applicable to the vessel. Once a vessel reenters 

service and is no longer considered to be in EUP, all applicable monitoring and inspection 

requirements apply. EPA designed the pre lay-up inspection so that the owner/operator can 

assure that vessel is in good operating order, there are no leaks or loose materials that may enter 

any waste stream or be discharged, and that the vessel does not pose an environmental risk while 

it is unmanned. The periodic external observation of the vessel and surrounding waters is to 

make sure the vessel continues to not pose an environmental risk, the vessel is adequately 

secured, and no pollutants (including oily mixtures) are present in surrounding waters which 

might have originated from that vessel. If any deficiencies are observed while the vessel is in 

Page 151 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

EUP, the vessel owner/operator must document those deficiencies and take corrective actions to 

resolve those deficiencies as appropriate. The post lay-up routine inspection is designed to be 

sure that all terms of the VGP continue to be met before the vessel re-enters active service. As 

part of this inspection, the owner/operator must document the date the EUP ended, whether 

fluids (e.g., fuel, ballast water) are at their pre EUP levels, and whether any spills or leaks of oily 

materials are observed. Any noted deficiencies must be corrected before the vessel re-enters 

service.

The comprehensive annual inspection requirements include a more detailed, thorough 

inspection of areas of the vessel that are difficult to inspect on a more regular basis, such as the 

vessel hull. However, the annual inspection does not require the vessel be placed into drydock. 

Areas of the vessel that cannot be safely inspected without placing the vessel in drydock should 

be inspected and documented during the next scheduled drydocking period. The owner/operator 

should note in the annual inspection report which areas are able to be inspected during drydock 

only. Annual inspection of these areas ensures they are inspected frequently enough to identify 

and correct problems. In addition, the annual review of all inspection and monitoring data 

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. Additionally, the annual 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. Based on 

public comments, the annual inspection requirements were revised to specify that the areas of 

inspection include the “vessel hull, including niche areas, for fouling organisms...” The term 

“niche areas” was included to be consistent with the international inspection guidelines “2011 

Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships’ Biofouling to Minimize the Transfer of 

Invasive Aquatic Species” established in resolution MEPC.207(62). 

Owners/operators may use applicable portions of the results from the annual inspections 

conducted by the Coast Guard or the classification society to meet some requirements of the 

annual inspection. For example, if the Coast Guard examines the oily water separator, then the 

owner may note in their inspection report that the Coast Guard had completed the inspection and 

they would not be required to inspect it again. However, for portions of the vessel that are not 

inspected by the Coast Guard or classification society for environmental performance, the 

owner/operator must conduct an inspection to be sure that the vessel is meeting requirements of 

this permit. Regardless of who conducts the inspections, the owner/operator is responsible for a 

thorough inspection being conducted and taking corrective actions based on that inspection. If 

the owner/operator is unsure of the quality of inspections that they will use to fulfill their annual 

inspection requirement under this permit, EPA strongly recommends they use their own 

personnel to conduct the full inspection. The owner/operator is ultimately responsible for 

completion of this requirement. 

Each annual inspection must be recorded in the official logbook or other recordkeeping 

documentation, 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. 

Page 152 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

6.2. DRYDOCKING INSPECTION REPORTS (PART 4.1.4) 

Many class societies and the United States Coast Guard require that the vessel operator 

conduct drydock inspections before relaunching the vessel. Based on discussion with technical 

experts, EPA assumes most, if not all vessels currently must undergo drydock inspections. When 

a vessel is in drydock, it is much easier to access a wide range of areas on the vessel that are not 

easily accessible while the vessel is in water. The thorough examination of the vessel that occurs 

while it is in drydock provides owners/operators with an additional opportunity to implement the 

permit's requirements. For example, cleaning the vessel hull of attached organisms is much 

easier in drydock, and is safer for the environment because any attached organisms can be 

properly disposed of away from water, minimizing the risk of an introduction of ANS. For any 

drydock report, the permit requires that it include confirmation that the chain locker, hull, and 

cathodic protection have been inspected and cleaned, that anti-fouling hull coatings are 

maintained and applied in accordance with the permit's requirements, and that all pollution 

control equipment is maintained and properly functioning. In instances where vessel 

owners/operators have drydock reports conducted by the applicable class society or the Coast 

Guard, or where the vessel operators prepare another drydock inspection report, the permit 

requires the owner/operator to make such reports available to EPA or an authorized 

representative of EPA upon request. 

6.3. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS (PARTS 4.2 AND 4.3) 

Written records are useful tools for both the vessel owner or operator and EPA. They 

allow an owner or operator to 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. By identifying which areas consistently require more cleaning or repair work, the 

owner or operator can establish and implement procedures specifically designed to minimize 

pollution and streamline cleaning and maintenance efforts in those areas.

Much of the information that must be recorded under the permit is the same as the 

information that is required of vessels equipped with ballast tanks bound for a port or place in the 

United States by the Coast Guard Regulations at 33 CFR §151.2045. This basic information 

allows the identification of the vessel, the vessel’s travels and itineraries, and responsible parties. 

While the Coast Guard regulation applies only to vessels with ballast tanks, the requirements of 

the permit apply to all vessels covered by the permit, whether they have ballast water tanks or 

not. By using the existing vessel recordkeeping requirements as a framework into which the 

recordkeeping requirements of the permit fit, EPA has attempted to streamline the requirements, 

make compliance with the permit simple, and do so without imposing significant additional 

paperwork on vessel owners and operators. Streamlining the paperwork and recordkeeping 

requirements (for vessels also covered under Coast Guard regulations) increases compliance and 

allows EPA to achieve both permit enforcement and environmental protection goals. 

The information to be recorded is intended to be simple, basic, and straightforward. There 

are no specific forms to fill out or file; a permittee need only keep one brief record of each 

inspection, noting when and how it was completed and any relevant information discovered 

during the inspection. Inspection records must be kept on the vessel or accompanying tug and 

Page 153 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

may be kept in any form provided they can be made available to the EPA. Examples include the 

ship’s official logbook, the oil record book, shipboard oil pollution emergency plan or other 

official vessel recordkeeping documentation. There do not need to be multiple copies of the 

records. Additional requirements include a record of maintenance of specific pieces of 

equipment that cause discharges covered under the permit and a record of each incidence where 

a discharge occurs pursuant to a safety or emergency exception (e.g., bilge water 2.2.2, AFFF 

2.2.5, boiler blowdown 2.2.6, elevator pit 2.2.11, firemain 2.2.12). This can assist in 

troubleshooting any future pollution problems by showing how often maintenance was 

performed, what maintenance or repairs were completed, and how often and under what 

circumstances emergency exceptions were invoked. 

This permit contains provisions reinforcing reportable release requirements. The permit 

specifically does not allow the discharge of hazardous substances or oil in excess of reportable 

quantities, even if they are associated with the normal operation of a vessel. This provision has 

been included to clarify that the permit is not authorizing any reportable quantity releases of any 

material that were not authorized before issuance of this permit. These spills must be reported as 

required under 40 CFR Part 110 and 40 CFR Part 117. 

Vessels equipped with ballast water tanks are required by the permit to meet the 

requirements of 33 CFR 151.2045. This requirement applies both to vessels that are already 

subject to these Coast Guard regulations and to vessels that are not. The USCG regulations 

establish a recordkeeping system to collect information related to ballast water capacity, uptakes, 

exchanges, and discharges. In addition, like the 2008 VGP, the 2013 VGP requires the ballast 

water exchange and saltwater flushing requirements for vessels with ballast water tanks. These 

vessels that conduct saltwater flushing must note that fact on the Ballast Water Reporting Form, 

which is found in the Appendix to 33 CFR Part 151, Subpart D. Furthermore, in order to close an 

information gap in ballast water reporting, crude oil tankers engaged in the Coast Wise trade are 

also required to submit their ballast water reporting forms to the NBIC as a requirement of 

this permit.

6.3.1 Electronic Records

Recordkeeping technology is a rapidly changing field. Many vessel operators are 

increasingly using electronic record keeping systems to create and maintain required records, 

using software, electronic forms and onboard computer terminals that collect and transmit data 

electronically to shoreside databases for collection and storage. 

For the 2008 VGP, EPA interpreted the permit’s recordkeeping provisions to allow for 

owners/operators to use electronic recordkeeping systems to meet the requirements that “written” 

records be kept “on the vessel,” if those records satisfy the requirements in part 4.2 of the permit, 

which are designed to ensure that the records are: in a format that can be read in a similar manner 

as a paper record, legally dependable with no less evidentiary value than their paper equivalent, 

and accessible to the inspector during an inspection to the same extent as a paper copy stored on 

the vessel would be. In order to clarify for the purposes of this iteration of the VGP, EPA has 

explicitly included appropriate factors in Part 4.2 of the permit, and provides further guidance 

below: 

Page 154 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

(1) Readability/Legal Dependability

EPA expects the requirements of an electronic recordkeeping system in Part 4.2.1 of the 

VGP would together generally ensure that records created and/or maintained in such systems are 

readable and legally dependable with no less evidentiary value than their paper equivalent:40

a. From the vessel or tug, and from any other point of access to the electronic recordkeeping 

system, electronic records, including signatures, certifications, and alterations, can be: (i) 

displayed to EPA, including its authorized representatives, in a format that can be read in 

a manner similar to a paper record and that associates data with field names or other 

labels that give the data contained in the record meaning and context (not solely in a 

computer code or data string), (ii) easily copied for EPA, including its authorized 

representatives, to review and access at EPA staff computers using non-proprietary 

software, and (iii) can easily be printed to paper form;

b. Associated metadata in their native format is preserved and available upon request;

c. Electronic records cannot be modified without detection and are preserved in a manner 

that cannot be altered once created. For example, any changes to an electronic record are 

automatically and indelibly recorded in a logically associated (i.e., cryptographically 

bound) audit trail that records each change made without obscuring the data to which the 

modification is made or its antecedents;

d. The electronic recordkeeping system automatically identifies any person who creates, 

certifies, or modifies an electronic record using electronic signatures that meet the same 

signature, authentication, and identity-proofing standards set forth at 40 CFR § 3.2000(b) 

for electronic reports (including robust second-factor authentication);

e. Originals of any electronic record are immediately and automatically transferred to and 

held at a single location by a custodian of records who is not an author, certifier, or 

modifier of the electronic records. The original electronic record is secured in a fashion 

that protects it from tampering or destruction;

f. The electronic recordkeeping system automatically identifies: 1) the name, address, 

telephone number and email address for the custodian of records described in “d” above; 

and 2) the address and owner of the location where the original electronic record is 

located. The electronic records and their associated metadata remain available and the 

discharger/permittee can demonstrate that the records have not been changed in any 

modification of the record-keeping system or migration to a successor record-keeping 

system;

g. Clear instructions guide users of the electronic record-keeping system in proper use of the 

system and unambiguously communicate the legal significance of using an electronic 

signature device; and 

40 EPA notes that it may change this guidance at any time, based upon experience with electronic recordkeeping, or 

any other new information or considerations. 

Page 155 of 198

 
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

h. Computer systems (including hardware and software), controls, and attendant 

documentation that are part of the electronic record-keeping system are readily available 

for, and subject to, agency inspection.

(2) Accessibility

EPA will generally consider electronic records to be accessible enough to be considered 

to be stored “on the vessel” when the vessel operator is able to, immediately, upon request, 

provide to government officials or authorized representatives:

a. Paper or electronic copies of requested records required to be maintained pursuant to the 

VGP; and

b. Electronic access, using hardware and software available on the vessel or tug, to required 

VGP records via electronic storage on the vessel or tug, or via direct access to an 

electronic system of records stored elsewhere, provided that the location of the original 

record is within the United States. 

6.4. REPORTING (PART 4.4) 

6.4.1 Annual Report

The Annual Report replaces the annual noncompliance report and one-time report 

requirements found in the 2008 VGP by consolidating the requirements of the annual 

noncompliance report and the one-time report into one reporting form. All instances of 

noncompliance must be reported as part of the Annual Report, instead of separately, as 

previously required by the 2008 VGP. Previously, there were no parameters for how an annual 

noncompliance report was to be submitted; the new Annual Report provides a structured format 

to alleviate frequent concerns from vessel owner/operators and EPA regarding whether sufficient 

information was submitted. All permittees must submit an Annual Report for each of their 

vessels (or a combined annual report as allowed; see section 6.4.2 of the fact sheet below for 

further discussion) – both those permittees with active NOIs for their vessels and covered vessels 

less than 300 gross tons and having a capacity of less than 8 cubic meters of ballast water 

operating in U.S. waters. One Annual Report for each vessel is required per calendar year, except 

for 2013. Any relevant information from 2013 must be reported in the Annual Report for 2014. 

Annual Reports for a given calendar year must be submitted to EPA no later than February 28 of 

the following year. As a condition of having active permit coverage, vessels must submit an 

annual report. However, if they did not operate in waters subject to this permit during that year, 

they only need complete identifying information in that report and check that they did not 

operate in those waters. EPA has included this requirement so that Agency does not 

unnecessarily seek out vessels with active NOI coverage who did not file annual reports because 

they are not operating in waters subject to the permit.

EPA also advises that vessel owner/operators covered under the 2008 VGP must submit 

their annual noncompliance reports (if applicable) for the January 1, 2013 to December 18, 2013 

time period consistent with the terms of that permit. 

Page 156 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

6.4.2 Combined Annual Reports for Unmanned, Unpowered Barges or Vessels less than 

300 Gross Tons 

Based upon experience from implementation of the 2008 VGP, comments from vessel 

owners/operators expressing a desire to reduce administrative burden where possible because of 

unique operational constraints, and the new requirements in this permit for EUPs, EPA has 

determined that it makes sense to streamline the annual reporting process for owners/operators 

that have several vessels if they meet certain defined criteria. Therefore, this permit allows 

owners/operators of multiple vessels to submit one Annual Report (known as the “Combined 

Annual Report”) if they meet all of the conditions listed in Part 4.4.2 of the permit. Those 

conditions are that the answers for each vessel covered by the report must be the same, no 

analytical monitoring is required for the vessels’ discharges, the report will be submitted 

electronically, and that none of the vessels have had any instances of noncompliance or 

identified deficiencies in the previous 23 months, and each vessel must have an active NOI to 

identify it. Vessels that do not meet these requirements cannot be included in the Combined 

Annual Report. 

EPA has authorized a Combined Annual Report for unmanned, unpowered barges and 

vessels less than 300 gross tons because many of these vessels are fundamentally similar and 

have a limited number of discharges. Furthermore, vessel owners/operators may have several 

thousand barges or several vessels less than 300 gross tons with these similar characteristics. 

Hence, EPA identified this provision as an efficient way to gather the information without 

sacrificing data quality while minimizing burden on a significant portion of the regulated 

universe. 

Part 4.4.3 of the permit, “Reportable Quantities of Hazardous Substances or Oil” explains 

that the release of a reportable quantity of any hazardous substance or oil must be reported to the 

National Response Center. The National Response Center is staffed 24 hours a day by U.S. Coast 

Guard personnel, who will ask you to provide as much information about the incident as 

possible, including: your name, location, organization, and telephone number; name and address 

of the party responsible for the incident; date and time of the incident; location of the incident; 

source and cause of the release or spill; types of material(s) released or spilled; medium (e.g. 

land, water) affected by release or spill; danger or threat posed by the release or spill; number 

and types of injuries or fatalities (if any); weather conditions at the incident location; name of the 

carrier vessel, or other identifying information; whether an evacuation has occurred; other 

agencies notified or about to be notified; any other information that may help emergency 

personnel respond to the incident. In the case of reporting quantities of hazardous substances or 

oil, if a report is provided to the National Response Center, it is not necessary to report to EPA as 

outlined in part 4.4.4 of the permit. 

Part 4.4.4 of the permit, “Additional Reporting,” provides additional reporting 

requirements – a requirement to comply with the standard permit reporting provisions in Part 

1.13 of the permit, a requirement to timely report to EPA when certain types of noncompliance 

occur, namely, those that endanger health or the environment. In the case where discharges may 

affect drinking water supplies, recreational waters, elicit fish kills, or may otherwise endanger 

human health or the environment, the discharge must be reported orally to the appropriate EPA 

Page 157 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

regional office within 24 hours from the time of discovery, followed by an electronic or written 

report (per the requirements of Appendix B, section 12(F)) within 5 days. 

EPA also encourages operators to report the releases that may have human health 

ramifications to the appropriate local authorities (e.g., public water supply operator, health 

department). Follow-up monitoring results must be reported via the electronic system (when 

available) or in writing to the appropriate EPA Regional Office (Part 3.7) within 30 days of 

receiving the results. The report should include the permit identification number; vessel name, 

address and location; receiving water; monitoring data from this and the preceding monitoring 

event(s); an explanation of the situation; what has been done and shall be done to further reduce 

pollutants in the discharge; and an appropriate contact name and phone number. 

Vessel owners/operators under Parts 5.1, 5.2, and 5.8 of this permit have additional 

reporting requirements. They must report their monitoring data for their graywater treatment 

systems (5.1 and 5.2) 

6.5. APPLICABILITY OF INSPECTION AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT FOR VESSELS

LEAVING WATERS SUBJECT TO THIS PERMIT

The VGP’s inspection and recordkeeping requirements do not apply worldwide. Once 

vessels enter waters subject to this permit, they must be in compliance with the permit’s 

requirements that apply to their discharges before those discharges occur in waters subject to the 

permit (which in most cases will be at the moment they enter those waters, because many 

discharges occur continuously during vessel operation). With respect to how the permit’s 

periodic inspection and reporting requirements apply in situations where a vessel transits in and 

out of waters subject to the VGP, EPA intends for such conditions to be read in light of what 

they are – conditions prerequisite to discharge into those waters. Thus, for example, a vessel 

transiting in and out of waters would be in compliance with the routine visual inspection 

requirement if the vessel had conducted a compliant inspection in the week prior to discharging 

or on the voyage during which they will discharge into waters subject to the VGP. EPA does not 

intend for the permit to be read to require that the weekly inspection also would have had to have 

occurred, for example, two, three, and four weeks prior to the discharge into waters subject to the 

permit. 

EPA’s intent is the same for other periodic inspection requirements - annual inspections 

must have occurred within a year prior to discharge into waters subject to the permit. Drydock 

inspection reports are likewise a condition prerequisite to discharge into waters subject to the 

permit -- because the report is necessary to ensure that discharges covered by the permit meet the 

requirements of the permit, they are required regardless of whether they were prepared inside or 

outside of the United States. EPA notes that inspections and recordkeeping are directly related to 

ensuring that the vessel is in compliance with the permit prior to discharging into waters subject 

to the permit. 

Existing recordkeeping systems could be used or adopted, so long as they contain the 

necessary information. 

Page 158 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

7. ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGY BASED AND RELATED PERMIT 

REQUIREMENTS BASED ON CLASS OF VESSEL (VESSEL CLASS-SPECIFIC 

REQUIREMENTS) (PART 5) 

7.1. LARGE CRUISE SHIPS (PART 5.1) 

Large cruise ships are those ships that provide overnight accommodations and are 

licensed to carry 500 or more passengers for hire. Requirements for cruise ships authorized to 

carry 500 or more passengers apply regardless of the actual number of passengers onboard. EPA 

selected this threshold defining large cruise ships to be consistent with the requirements of “Title 

XIV—Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations” of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Bill (H.R. 

5666) in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554) (commonly referred to as 

Title XIV) passed on December 12, 2000. Title XIV set discharge standards for sewage and 

graywater from certain cruise ships (those authorized to carry 500 or more passengers for hire) 

while operating in the Alexander Archipelago and the navigable waters of the United States in 

the State of Alaska and within the Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (referred 

to here as “Alaskan waters”).While most cruise ship vessel discharges are similar to those of 

other similarly sized vessels, cruise ships have several unique characteristics and discharges for 

which they require additional permit requirements. Cruise ships provide accommodations and 

extensive amenities to a large number of passengers. These extensive onboard services provided 

for guests contribute to the increase in the volume of cruise ship discharges. For example, 

because these vessels carry a large number of people onboard, they generate considerably more 

graywater discharges than a container or cargo ship. Other amenities provided, such as photo 

developing, dry cleaning, and day spas, use and produce chemicals that are toxic to the aquatic 

environment. Discharges of these substances are not authorized by the permit. 

7.1.1 Graywater Management 

As previously mentioned, the amount of graywater produced by large cruise ships is 

many times greater than what is produced by a cargo vessel of similar size. Graywater, especially 

in such large quantities, can cause environmental harm. The graywater produced by cruise ships 

may contain high levels of nutrients, pathogens, residual levels of organic material, and cleaning 

chemicals. 

EPA established the numeric effluent limits for graywater found in Part 5.1.1.1.2 

(discussed below) because data gathered by EPA demonstrate that technologies are available, as 

well as economically practicable and achievable, and therefore, would represent BPT and BAT. 

The treatment technologies that remove non-conventional pollutants also treat conventional 

pollutants; hence, EPA applied the BAT standard to all pollutants for which the permit proposes 

standards for graywater. For additional discussion of BAT, BCT, and the requirements of each, 

please see Part 4.2.3 of the Fact Sheet. 

The technology to meet the effluent limits found in Part 5.1.1.1.2 of the permit is 

currently in use and already required for large cruise ships operating in Alaskan waters which 

discharge within the territorial seas. EPA anticipates no major physical impediments to installing 

such technology on large cruise ships, and in fact, many cruise ships are already capable of 

meeting these standards. There are two systems available that cruise ships typically use to treat 

Page 159 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

graywater: traditional Type II marine sanitation devices (MSDs) and advanced wastewater

treatment systems (AWTSs). An in depth discussion of how each system works can be found in 

the EPA Cruise Ship Assessment Report, Part 2.3, which is available in the docket for this 

permit. In general, AWTSs are capable of treating graywater and graywater mixed with sewage 

to more stringent standards than traditional Type II MSDs, and EPA has therefore based the 

effluent limits in this permit on the AWTSs technology. AWTSs on board cruise ships have been 

shown to reduce ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and total phosphorus by moderate amounts 

and conventional pollutants such as BOD5, TSS, and fecal coliform substantially. In monitoring 

conducted by EPA in 2004 and 2005, nitrate/nitrite levels were low and remained relatively 

unchanged by treatment. Nitrogen and phosphorus are likely taken up by microorganisms in the 

bioreactor and removed from the system in the waste sludge. Table 3: AWT Effluent 

Concentrations and Removals1Table 3 shows the influent and effluent concentrations for these 

systems for Cruise Ships in Alaska (adapted from US EPA, 2008a). 

Table 3: AWT Effluent Concentrations and Removals1

Analyte Unit

Average 

Concentration in 

Cruise Ship 

AWT Influent1

Average Conc. 

(± SE) in Cruise 

Ship AWT 

Effluent2

Percent Removal 

Ranges3

Fecal Coliform CFU/100 ml 103,000,000* (61 

detects out of 62 

samples)

14.5* (26 detects 

out of 285 

samples)

>99

Total Suspended 

Solids 

mg/L 545 (50 detects 

out of 50 

samples)

4.49* (±0.193)

(73 detects out of 

587 samples)

>99

Biochemical 

Oxygen Demand 

(5-day)

mg/L 526 (24 detects 

out of 24 

samples)

7.99* (±0.798)

(358 detects out 

of 568 samples)

>99

pH SU 99.5% of samples 

within range of 

6.0 to 9.0) (921 

detects out of 921 

samples)

Total Residual 

Chlorine 

mg/L 0.338* (±0.129) 

(41 detects our of 

547 samples)

Ammonia As 

Nitrogen 

mg/L 78.6 (35 detects 

out of 35 

samples)

36.6* (±5.50) 

(136 detects out 

of 138 samples)

58 to 74

Nitrate/Nitrite as 

Nitrogen

mg/L 0.325* (26 

detects out of 50 

samples)

3.32* (±0.653) 

(66 detects out of 

152 samples)

NC

Page 160 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Table 3: AWT Effluent Concentrations and Removals1

Analyte Unit

Average 

Concentration in 

Cruise Ship 

AWT Influent1

Average Conc. 

(± SE) in Cruise 

Ship AWT 

Effluent2

Percent Removal 

Ranges3

Total Kjeldahl 

Nitrogen

mg/L 111 (50 detects 

out of 50 

samples)

32.5* (±3.27) 

(169 detects out 

of 170 samples)

70 to 76

Total Phosphorus mg/L 18.1 (25 detects 

out of 25 

samples)

5.05* (±0.460) 

(146 detects out 

of 154 samples)

41 to 98

1

The data presented in Table 3 represents the treatment of a combined sewage and graywater 

waste stream. Data in EPA’s Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report demonstrates that the 

average concentration in cruise ship AWT influent is of higher strength than the average 

concentration in untreated graywater alone, but is similar in composition (see Part 2.3.3 p. 2-16; 

Part 3.3, p 3-9) . Consequently, the combined waste stream data can be used to draw 

conclusions regarding the treatability of graywater by similar treatment devices.

2

 Based on data collected by EPA in 2004 and 2005. 

3

 Based on data collected by ADEC/Coast Guard from 2003 to 2005; data collected by EPA in 

2004 and 2005; and data collected through EPA’s 2004 cruise ship survey. 

“NC” indicates that percent removal not calculated because the effluent concentration was 

greater than the influent concentration or the analyte was not detected in the influent samples 

from one or more sampled ships. 

* Average includes at least one nondetect value; this calculation uses detection limits for 

nondetected results. 

One recent estimate Choi (2007) stated that the cruise industry estimated that roughly 

40% of the International Council of Cruise Lines members’ 130 ships (which make up two-thirds 

of the world fleet) have installed AWTSs, with 10 to 15 more systems added each year (Choi, 

2007). In 2006, 23 of 28 large cruise ships that operated in Alaskan waters had AWTSs in order 

to meet the more stringent discharge requirements required under Title XIV (see subsection 2.2.3 

of EPA’s Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report for additional information). The remainder 

operated traditional Type II MSDs and held the treated sewage and untreated graywater in 

double-bottom ballast tanks for discharge outside Alaskan waters. For additional information on 

Title XIV and cruise ship discharges, please see Part 2 of the EPA’s Cruise Ship Discharge 

Assessment Report. 

The standards that EPA has included are also economically practicable and achievable. 

EPA estimates that the cost of maintaining a graywater treatment system (which treats graywater 

commingled with blackwater) is $7.09 per passenger (including crew) berth per season. For more 

information, please see the Economic Analysis accompanying this permit. In addition, EPA 

considered other impacts that would be caused by the imposition of these standards, such as 

increased energy use onboard the cruise ships, and found those impacts to be negligible. Cruise 

Page 161 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

ships can expect to expend additional fuel when operating the AWTSs, to generate solid sludge 

or other waste from these systems, and/or to have additional cost in transporting treated or 

untreated graywater out of specific waters; however, all of these effects are relatively small.

7.1.1.1 Pierside Limits

While pierside, cruise ship operators are required to use graywater reception facilities if 

they are reasonably available unless the vessel treats graywater with a device to meet the 

standards found in Part 5.1.1.1.2 of the permit. If not available, graywater must be held for later 

discharge beyond 3 nm. These requirements will minimize the volume of pollutants discharged 

while the cruise ship is pierside or operating in nearshore environments. These restrictions will 

also reduce the discharge of chemicals, nutrients, and pathogens into harbors and ports, which 

can be located in ecologically sensitive estuaries, and where there are large numbers of vessels 

discharging in close proximity. Hence, the cumulative impact of numerous untreated graywater 

discharges in harbors and ports may be significant. Furthermore, based on responses to surveys 

with vessel operators and industry representatives conducted as part of the economic analysis, 

most cruise ship operators have voluntarily agreed not to discharge graywater within 4 nautical 

miles of shore (CLIA 2006). Large cruise ships have the capacity to hold graywater for a 

minimum of 1 to 2 days, as evidenced by their ability to hold all wastewaters while sailing in 

areas such as Glacier Bay in Southeast Alaska, where discharges are generally prohibited under 

their concession contracts with the National Park Service. According to responses to EPA’s 2004 

cruise ship survey of large cruise ships operating in Alaskan waters, graywater holding capacity 

ranged from 5 to 90 hours, with an average holding capacity of 56 hours. 

Though the standards specified in the permit do not include numeric limits for nutrients, 

the systems capable of meeting the other standards in this permit (listed in Part 5.1.1.1.2) have 

been shown to remove considerable amounts of nutrients and successfully achieve pathogen 

standards as shown above in Table 3 (US EPA 2008). For the reasons discussed above, 

approaches to meet these requirements are technologically available and economically 

practicable and achievable.

7.1.1.2 Operational Limits

The 2008 VGP prohibited the discharge of graywater within 1 nm of shore unless the 

graywater has been treated to treatment standards in Part 5.1.1.1.2 of the permit. For the 2013 

VGP, EPA is requiring that cruise ships may only discharge graywater treated to the standards 

found in Part 5.1.1.1.2 of this permit within 3 nm from shore. EPA made this change after 

considering the six factors under 40 CFR § 125.3(c), which sets BAT treatment limits and the 

efficacy of these treatment systems.

Data from those vessels which discharge graywater effluent (commingled with 

blackwater) through an AWTS indicate that cruise ships with these treatment systems are 

consistently able to meet the operational limits contained within this permit. This is despite the 

fact that, as of the issuance of this permit, some of these systems are starting to age. The systems 

have been used onboard cruise ships for multiple years, have proven reliable, effective, and 

significantly reduce pollutants being discharged from cruise ship graywater effluent. Hence, the 

processes employed and the engineering aspects of installing and using these systems are well 

Page 162 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

understood and clearly appropriate for use onboard these vessels. EPA expects no substantial 

process changes for the industry from existing practice: as discussed above, EPA believes that a 

significant portion of vessels are already treating this effluent to the standards found in Part 

5.1.1.1.2 and those that are not have significant holding capacity. There may be some vessels 

which have to dedicate additional holding tanks or may elect to install an AWTS to treat the 

effluent; however, EPA does not believe this process will be especially challenging, as use of 

these devices or holding the effluent is common practice among this class of vessels. The nonwater quality environmental impacts are minimal: for those vessels treating graywater to the 

standards found in Part 5.1.1.1.2, EPA assumes that these vessel owner/operators were also using 

their treatment equipment to treat graywater between 1 and 3 nautical miles. For those vessels 

which choose not to treat graywater, and therefore either discharge pierside to an onshore facility 

or discharge it underway outside of 3 nm, these vessels will have to hold their untreated 

graywater for the time sailing from 1 to 3 nm. Generally, EPA expects the time many cruise 

ships spend between 1 to 3 nm from shore to be relatively short considering cruise ships’ typical 

voyage patterns (i.e., in ports for lengthy periods, then sailing to and from different ports). 

Finally, when examining costs, EPA notes that no significant additional costs are expected to be 

incurred from the 2008 VGP requirements. Vessels which were not previously treating between 

1 and 3 nm (but treating within 1 nm) may have marginal increased energy costs and associated 

costs from extra time spent running the systems. Vessels that were previously holding their 

graywater may spend slightly more on fuel costs to transport the wastewater effluent further or to 

offload a greater volume of effluent to onshore facilities. Hence, EPA concluded that graywater 

treatment systems to meet the limits found in Part 5.1.1.1.2 of the permit are widely available 

and their use by this class of vessels is economically achievable.

Finally, the graywater discharge standards in this permit are consistent with those for 

large cruise ships underway in Alaskan waters required under Title XIV. As mentioned, industry 

information shows that many cruise ships are already meeting the operational standards required 

by the permit. 

7.1.1.3 Limits Applicable to Operation in Nutrient Impaired Waters 

Nutrients are a pollutant of concern addressed by this permit. EPA found it not to be 

economically practicable and achievable to require discharges of graywater to be prohibited in 

all cases; however, a partial restriction on such discharges would represent the BPT and BAT 

levels of control. Because discharges of graywater are of particular concern in nutrient impaired 

waters, the permit contains limits designed to minimize the discharge of graywater in those 

waters. Under this permit, graywater discharges are not authorized in nutrient impaired waters, 

unless the length of the voyage through those waters exceeds the ship’s holding capacity. If the 

voyage length does exceed the holding capacity, the cruise ship operator has two options: treat 

the excess graywater (above the holding capacity) to meet the standards of 5.1.1.1.2 prior to 

discharging it or dispose of graywater properly onshore (before exceeding capacity). These 

measures will limit the amount of graywater and the amount of chemicals, nutrients, and 

pathogens discharged into nutrient-impaired waters. The average holding capacity for graywater, 

based on EPA’s 2004 cruise ship study, is 56 hours. Hence, most cruise ship owners/operators 

would be able to meet the requirements to hold their graywater as required in the permit. 

Page 163 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

7.1.1.4 Graywater Treatment Standards 

The permit requires the discharge of treated graywater to meet the following 

requirements: the minimum level of effluent quality specified in 40 CFR 133.102; the geometric 

mean of the samples during any 30-day period may not exceed 20 fecal coliform/100ml and not 

more than 10 % of the samples could exceed 40 fecal coliform/100 ml; and concentrations of 

total residual chlorine may not exceed 10.0 micrograms per liter (μg/l). These graywater 

treatment standards are based on the Title XIV standards that are published in Coast Guard 

regulations at 33 CFR 159.309. EPA expects owners of large cruise ships to incur some cost, 

although these costs are considered affordable, would cause no closures, and should not cause 

any cruise ship owner/operators to exceed a 1% revenue threshold. 

7.1.1.5 Sculleries and Galleys 

The permit requires cruise ship operators to use phosphate free detergents in the scullery 

and galley. Additionally, it requires any degreaser used to be minimally-toxic if the degreaser or 

its residue otherwise would be discharged as part of any waste stream. The use of phosphate free 

soaps and cleaners is a simple step toward reducing the amount of nutrients, namely phosphorus, 

present in graywater discharge. Phosphate free detergents and minimally-toxic detergents are 

readily available for purchase, are comparably priced, and are an affordable management 

measure for reducing phosphates and toxic compounds in waste streams. Based on the economic 

analysis prepared for this permit, the purchase of phosphorus free soaps will result in negligible 

additional costs for any owner or operator. Hence, use of these more environmentally friendly 

products is technologically available and economically practicable and achievable.

7.1.1.6 Other Materials

Many of the services provided to cruise ship passengers use toxic chemicals that can end 

up in the graywater discharge (US EPA 2008a). These include dry cleaning operations, photo 

developing, medical services, and spa and salon services. The permit requires that other 

materials, including waste from mercury containing products, dry cleaners or dry cleaner 

condensate, photo processing labs, medical sinks or floor drains, salon floor drains, chemical 

storage areas, and print shops using traditional or non-soy based inks and chlorinated solvents be 

prevented from entering the ship’s graywater, blackwater, or bilge systems. Discharges of these 

materials are not eligible for coverage under this permit. There are several ways that ship 

owner/operators can prevent these materials from entering the graywater, blackwater, or bilge 

systems, including plugging any drains that lead to the graywater, blackwater, or bilge systems in 

areas where these wastes are produced, creating alternative waste receptacles, or replumbing 

drains to appropriate holding tanks. Drain plugging, alternative waste receptacles, and/or replumbing would allow the chemicals to be stored and properly treated. Also, in order to prevent 

the addition of known toxic materials to waters subject to this permit, the permit prohibits 

addition of toxic materials, including products containing acetone, benzene, or formaldehyde, 

into spa or salon sinks or floor drains if those sinks or drains lead to any system which will ever 

discharge into waters subject to this permit. Due to the highly toxic nature of these materials, 

they must be sent to an alternative waste receptacle or holding tank and cannot be discharged 

into waters subject to this permit or allowed to enter any discharge stream which later discharges

into waters subject to this permit. 

Page 164 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Based on information collected as part of the economic analysis, all cruise ship owners 

and operators are already taking these measures. For any vessels that have not yet taken these 

measures, EPA expects these preventive measures to be technologically available and 

economically practicable and achievable.

7.1.1.7 Pool and Spa Discharges 

Pool and spa water may also be added to the graywater treatment systems; however, it 

must still be de-chlorinated and/or debrominated prior to discharge subject to this permit. In 

addition, the effluent discharged from the graywater treatment system must meet all treatment 

standards found in Part 5.1.1.1. 

Discharges from pools and spas are authorized under this permit, provided that if they use 

chlorination or debromination, they are dechlorinated and/or debrominated. To be considered 

dechlorinated, the total residual chlorine in the pool or spa effluent must be less than 100μg/l if 

the pool or spa water is discharged without going through an advanced wastewater treatment 

system. To be considered debrominated, the total residual oxidant in the pool or spa effluent 

must be below 25μg/l if the pool or spa water is discharged without going through an advanced 

wastewater treatment system. EPA determined the dechlorination limits by using those 

established for ballast water treatment systems and by evaluating comments submitted by public 

commenters that indicated such limits are achievable. Furthermore, this limit is consistent with 

common dechlorination limits from shore based sewage treatment facilities. In addition, the 

permit provides that vessel owners/operators may only discharge pool or spa water while the 

vessel is underway; hence, EPA anticipates that this discharge will be significantly diluted. 

7.1.2 Monitoring Requirements (Part 5.1.2) 

Cruise ship operators must complete specific monitoring steps to document compliance 

with graywater treatment and discharge requirements under the permit. The monitoring 

requirements for large cruise ships are similar to those required by the Coast Guard regulations 

implementing Title XIV published at 33 CFR 159.309. These monitoring requirements are 

required by the U.S. Coast Guard for Alaskan cruise ship operators that discharge graywater and 

sewage within nearshore Alaskan waters. EPA evaluated these monitoring requirements and 

elected to use the same standards to remain consistent with the Coast Guard. The monitoring 

regime selected is sufficient to show that the systems are properly functioning before large cruise 

ships enter domestic territorial seas and that the systems are properly maintained.

The monitoring requirements in this permit delineate a specific schedule for sampling, 

testing, and reporting, in compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 122.44 and 122.48. 

Permittees need to use test methods that are listed in 40 CFR Part 136 for all constituents 

sampled. The monitoring requirements will yield data representative of the discharge being 

monitored, allowing both EPA and permittees to accurately evaluate both compliance and the 

effectiveness of the permit requirements. The requirements include monitoring, sampling, and 

testing for specific parameters likely to be present in the effluent. These measurements 

characterize treatment efficacy and enable documentation of permit compliance. Monitoring 

results need to be reported annually, following reporting of initial monitoring to establish the 

efficacy of the treatment system (see below).

Page 165 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

7.1.2.1 Untreated Graywater 

Since graywater from large cruise ships must be treated in all waters subject to this 

permit, a large cruise ship can no longer legally discharge untreated graywater (see discussion 

above in 7.1.1 for why EPA made changes to the operational discharge limits for Cruise Ships). 

However, if a large cruise ship discharges untreated graywater, the vessel owner/operator must 

keep records estimating all discharges of untreated graywater into waters subject to the permit, 

including date, location, and volume discharged. This constitutes a permit violation and it must 

be recorded in the vessel’s Annual Report. In order to streamline recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements, this information may be kept in the sewage and graywater discharge record book 

otherwise required by 33 CFR §159.315 for those vessels that keep these records. Alternatively, 

cruise ship operators could record these data in the ship’s log or other recordkeeping 

documentation, as long as the location of the information is clearly known and can be made 

available to EPA or any EPA representative immediately on request. EPA may use this 

information, in part, to monitor compliance with and effectiveness of the permit requirements. 

7.1.2.2 Treated Graywater

Prior to entering domestic territorial seas, or within 90 days of obtaining permit coverage, 

whichever is later, cruise ship operators are required to demonstrate that the vessel has the ability 

to treat graywater to the applicable standards found in Part 5.1.1.1.2 if the vessel will be 

discharging graywater within 3 nm of shore or into nutrient impaired waters subject to this 

permit. These data must be reported to EPA consistent with the requirements discussed below. 

The 2013 VGP also requires large cruise ships to monitor for several additional 

parameters: several nutrients and E. coli. EPA is requiring monitoring of nutrients to better 

characterize the effluent from these vessels. Since large cruise ships are already monitoring for 

other parameters, they will only need to collect extra water for these additional parameters. 

Hence, there is marginal incremental cost. Many new EPA permits have established pathogen 

limits for E. coli instead of fecal coliform. EPA has left the requirement for fecal coliform to be 

consistent with Title XIV; however, the Agency believes that it is appropriate to gather E. coli

concentrations from these vessels to better characterize the effluent.

Furthermore, the permit requires the owner/operator to maintain records estimating the 

volume of all discharges of treated graywater into waters subject to the permit. These records 

would consist of the date, location, and volume discharged and could be maintained as part of the 

sewage and graywater discharge record book required under 33 CFR §159.315. 

7.1.2.3 Initial Monitoring

Within 90 days of obtaining permit coverage, large cruise ship operators are required to 

demonstrate that the vessel has the ability to treat graywater to the applicable standards if the 

ship will be discharging graywater within 3 nm of shore. Cruise ship operators are required to 

initially demonstrate the effectiveness of the graywater treatment system by taking at least five 

(5) samples over 30 days. Samples are required to meet standards for BOD5, fecal coliform, 

suspended solids, pH, and total residual chlorine. The requirement for five initial samples is 

consistent with the Title XIV requirements for large cruise ships operating in Alaska. The permit 

Page 166 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

requires records of monitoring information be kept, including the date, exact place noted in 

latitude and longitude, and time of sampling or measurements; the individual(s) who performed 

the sampling or measurements; the date(s) analyses were performed; the individual(s) who 

performed the analyses; the analytical techniques or methods used; and the results of such 

analyses. The permit requires records be kept for 3 years. 

Additionally, in order for EPA to better understand the performance of AWTSs and to 

better characterize cruise ship discharges, EPA has included monitoring requirements for E. coli, 

total phosphorus (TP), ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN). These tests 

are not expensive; samples can be taken at the same time as the sampling for which effluent 

limits have been established, and the information will be helpful for EPA and others to establish 

the potential environmental impact (if any) of treated Cruise Ship discharges. Such information 

might be useful for future permit iterations: for instance, EPA could examine whether the 

prohibition of treated cruise ship effluent in nutrient impaired waters is necessary if systems are 

removing substantial nutrient concentrations. 

For chlorine monitoring, analytical results that are below the method detection limit are 

considered in compliance with the permit effluent limits, as long as the testing method used had 

a detection limit no higher than 10 μg/l under ideal conditions. EPA has found that method 

SM4500-CL G (DPD Colorimetric Method) is able to reach 10 μg/l under ideal conditions. 

SM4500-Cl G is typically the method that ADEC/USCG uses for compliance monitoring. 

In addition, testing and reporting for total residual chlorine is not required if chlorine is 

not used as the disinfectant in the wastewater treatment process and no water to which chlorine 

has been added (swimming pools, spas, etc.) is drained to the graywater system. 

7.1.2.4 Maintenance Monitoring 

After initially demonstrating the effectiveness of the treatment system, operators must 

conduct the same sampling and testing at least once per quarter to show continued effectiveness 

of the system and compliance with the permit. This requirement includes keeping all required 

records of the sampling and testing results for at least 3 years. 

Based on public comments, EPA has clarified in the permit that sampling and testing 

need only be conducted once per quarter for any quarter the vessel discharges graywater into 

waters subject to this permit. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the treatment 

systems are working properly; however, EPA recognizes that some vessels only discharge 

periodically or once per year. 

7.1.2.5 Treated Pool and Spa Discharges (5.1.2.3)

Vessel owner/operators must monitor chlorine or bromine (as total residual oxidant) 

concentrations (as applicable) in pool and spa water before discharging such water into waters 

subject to this permit. Such monitoring for chlorine must use Part 136 methods in order to ensure 

the dechlorination process is complete. Such monitoring for bromine must use Part 136 methods 

or may also use colorimetric methods, including with test kits, (for pool and spa discharges 

only), provided that test kit has method detection limit no higher than 50 μg/L. In addition, 

Page 167 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

vessel records must include the location, estimated volume, and concentration of chlorine or 

bromine in the discharge. 

As with monitoring for chlorine in graywater, analytical results that are below the method 

detection limit are considered in compliance with the permit effluent limits, as long as the testing 

method used had a detection limit no higher than 10 μg/l under ideal conditions. EPA has found 

that method SM4500-CL G (DPD Colorimetric Method) is able to reach 10 μg/l under ideal 

conditions and so meets these requirements. SM4500-Cl G is typically the method that 

ADEC/USCG uses for compliance monitoring. For bromine, analytical results below the method 

detection limit shall be deemed compliant with the effluent limits, provided the permittee uses a 

testing method with a detection limit no higher than 50.0 μg/L. 

7.1.2.6 Monitoring Reporting 

In addition to the other reporting requirements established by this permit, vessel operators 

must submit the initial sampling and testing information to EPA. Once an electronic reporting 

system is established, it will be available at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/enoi. You may 

check www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels to determine whether electronic reporting for the relevant 

document has been implemented. If the website indicates that electronic reporting for the 

document has not been implemented, you do not need to seek the waiver. Maintenance sampling 

and testing information must be submitted at least once a year. 

EPA notes, that unlike the 2008 VGP, monitoring data must be reported directly to EPA. 

This is to ensure that EPA can review whether all cruise ship data collected are complete and 

allows cruise ship operators to consolidate all of the reporting requirements into one annual 

report.

7.1.2.7 Reserved Authority

Meeting the monitoring requirements would not shield the vessel operator from liability 

if EPA or Coast Guard tests the graywater discharge and finds it is not in compliance with the 

treatment standards. Non-compliance with any effluent limit would be a violation of the permit.

7.1.3 Education and Training Requirements (Part 5.1.3) 

Pursuant to CWA section 402(a)(2), and 40 CFR 122.43(a), and other implementing 

regulations, EPA is imposing the following education and training requirements. 

Crew training is extremely important because the vessel’s crew plays a significant role in 

increasing or decreasing the volume and quality of vessel discharges. The permit requires the 

cruise ship owner/operator to train the crew members who actively take part in the management 

of a discharge, or who may affect a discharge, in environmental procedures sufficiently so that 

the crew could demonstrate proficiency in implementing the procedures; provide advanced 

training in environmental management procedures to any crew members directly involved in the 

management of a specific discharge, such that the crew could demonstrate proficiency in 

implementing the procedures; and establish and enforce sufficient reprimand procedures for any 

crew member whose actions lead to a violation of any of the effluent limits in this permit, or a 

Page 168 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

violation of other procedures established by the cruise ship operator to minimize the discharge of 

pollutants. 

In addition, the permit requires the cruise ship operator to educate passengers about 

potential environmental impacts and steps the passengers can take to minimize those impacts. 

Proper education of crew and passengers plays an important role in meeting environmental 

protection goals because they are often in the best position to minimize vessel discharges. 

Graywater is one example. Passengers can minimize the amount of graywater produced onboard 

if they are made aware of water conservation practices such as reusing sheets and towels. 

Passengers can control the constituents added to graywater discharge, such as through proper 

disposal of unused pharmaceuticals which would prevent their ultimate introduction into the 

aquatic environment. The permit allows flexibility in how these goals are accomplished, and 

allows the passenger education to take place via posting or distribution of signage, flyers, or 

other handouts, incorporating environmental information into passenger orientation 

presentations, holding lectures or seminars, or making announcements over the ship’s public 

address system. 

Most cruise ship operators have already incorporated environmental training into 

established training and education requirements. Some of these education requirements included 

in the permit are based in part on industry literature created by the industry trade group Cruise 

Lines International Association (CLIA). The steps required by the permit are already being 

employed by many cruise ship operators in the industry and thus are available as well as 

economically practicable and achievable. Inclusion of education requirements in the permit is 

designed to elevate the standard of conduct to the level of the most responsible operators. Most 

cruise ship operators are already meeting the permit requirements. For more information on 

cruise ship operators voluntary actions, please see CLIA 2006. 

7.2. MEDIUM CRUISE SHIPS [PART 5.2] 

Medium cruise ships are those ships authorized to carry 100 to 499 passengers for hire 

and provide overnight accommodation to those passengers. EPA selected a threshold of 100 

people as the lower end of the range to capture vessels where the volume of graywater generated 

gradually increases. The discharges of untreated graywater from cruise ships in this size range 

has been shown to contain similar pollutants to those in untreated graywater discharges from 

large cruise ships (ADEC, 2002). Therefore, these discharges also have a similar negative impact 

on water quality. As discussed above, cruise ships have unique characteristics that require 

additional discharge management requirements. While medium cruise ships carry fewer

passengers than large cruise ships, the volume of graywater generated is still significantly higher 

than that generated by a cargo ship carrying crew only. See Part 7.1 for additional discussion on 

the nature of cruise ship discharges, the reason effluent limits were established, and how these 

limits represent BPT/BAT. 

EPA has made changes from the proposed 2013 VGP to the final 2013 VGP for 

requirements for medium cruise ships. In the proposed VGP, EPA would have altered the 

applicability for existing medium-sized cruise ships (i.e., constructed before issuance of the 2008 

VGP) that had to meet the numeric treatment limits. EPA had proposed changing the 

applicability threshold from a vessel unable to voyage more than 1 nm from shore to a vessel 

Page 169 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

unable to voyage more than 3 nm from shore. EPA was persuaded by the comments received not 

to make the proposed change in the final VGP. The final VGP retains the applicability threshold 

that is consistent with the 2008 VGP for medium Cruise Ships. EPA did not intend to 

inadvertently require retrofits for a vessel that is able to voyage more than 1nm from shore, but 

not 3 nm from shore. Based on the previous permit conditions in the 2008 permit, some existing 

(constructed before issuance of the 2008 VGP) medium-sized vessels may have foregone 

installation of graywater treatment during regularly scheduled vessel maintenance and repair 

since issuance of the 2008 VGP based on the 2008 VGP provisions that had authorized the 

discharge untreated graywater while underway. 

Like in the 2008 VGP, today’s final permit continues to identify who must meet numeric 

graywater treatment limits as “vessels unable to voyage more than 1 nm from shore and [that] 

were constructed before December 19, 2008.” As discussed above, retains this applicability term 

in recognition that there may be medium cruise ships built before December 19, 2008 (the day 

after the issuance date of the first VGP) that could voyage more than one nm from shore, but not 

voyage three nm from shore. The provision has been retained for clarity and so as not to 

inadvertently require an existing medium sized cruise vessel (built prior to the issuance of the 

first VGP) to retrofit to a graywater treatment system if the vessel had no other management 

options. 

There may be rare cases where some medium sized cruise vessels constructed on or after 

December 19, 2008 are unable to install graywater treatment systems or to use other 

management options to meet the numeric treatment limits in Part 5.2.1.1.2 of the permit. These 

cases may include when an existing cruise vessel (originally built before the issuance of the first 

VGP) undergoes a major conversion, but re-plumbing the graywater infrastructure within the 

vessel to a centralized collection and treatment point may not be feasible. Other examples could 

include medium cruise ships that were inadvertently designed and constructed during the first 

term of the VGP in such a unique manner as to render the installation of graywater treatment 

systems on-board impossible. In these cases, the medium sized cruise ship owner/operator may 

apply for an individual permit for graywater discharges on the basis that specific technology 

based limits for that vessel should be developed. EPA has determined, however, based on 

available data and in the absence of compelling vessel-specific data indicating otherwise, that the 

treatment-based limits in today’s VGP represent BAT for all new build medium cruise ships. 

Any request for an individual permit would need to include data and information demonstrating 

why these requirements are not BAT for that particular vessel.

7.2.1 Graywater Management 

As in the 2008 VGP, vessels newly built after December 19, 2008 must meet the limits 

found in Part 5.2 of the VGP. EPA established the numeric effluent limits for graywater found in 

Part 5.2.1.1.2 of the VGP because data gathered by EPA demonstrate that technologies are 

available, as well as economically practicable and achievable, and therefore, would represent 

BPT and BAT levels of control (see additional discussion below). The treatment technologies 

that remove non-conventional pollutants also treat conventional pollutants; hence, EPA applied 

the BAT standard to all pollutants for which the permit establishes standards for graywater. For 

Page 170 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

additional discussion of BAT, BCT, and the requirements of each, see sections 4.1 and 4.2 of this 

fact sheet. 

7.2.2 Differences Between the Requirements for Large Cruise Ships and Medium Cruise 

Ships

The permit requirements for medium cruise ships are identical to those for large cruise 

ships, with two exceptions. These are: 

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

• Differences for existing medium cruise ships (built before December 19, 2008) 

unable to voyage more than 1 nm from shore. 

7.2.2.1 Different Requirements in Nutrient Impaired Waters

In nutrient impaired waters such as estuaries, this permit allows for medium sized cruise 

ships unable to retain graywater on board to discharge untreated graywater while moving at a 

speed of at least 6 knots. This difference was included because, at this time, EPA expects fewer 

of these size vessels to have treatment capacity to meet the more stringent standards in Part 

5.2.1.1.2. Hence, owner/operators may not be able to adjust their fleet positions to assure that 

vessels are available that have either sufficient holding capacity or the ability to treat to the 

standards in Part 5.2.1.1.2 of the permit to meet the nutrient impaired estuary requirements. 

Though EPA fully expects most medium cruise ships to have the ability to hold the graywater 

until they get further than 3 nm offshore (for example, medium cruise ships sailing in Glacier 

Bay in Southeast Alaska hold their wastewater and do not discharge for the duration of their visit 

in the park), it may be difficult to hold the graywater for prolonged periods in large nutrient 

impaired estuaries (in which the channel can be more than 3 nm from any shore). Though 

treatment technologies to meet the standards in part 5.2.1.1.2 are available, EPA has not 

concluded that requiring all medium cruise ship owner/operators to install these systems prior to 

coverage under this permit is economically achievable. This extra flexibility for medium cruise 

ships allows owner/operators to comply with the requirements of the permit, while offering a 

more environmentally protective approach than allowing the discharge of graywater into 

nutrient-impaired estuaries while stationary. Hence, these requirements, taken as a whole, are 

technologically available and economically practicable and achievable. 

7.2.2.2 Differences for Existing Medium Cruise Ships Built Before December 19, 2008 

Unable to Voyage More than 1 nm from Shore 

Some older, existing medium cruise ships that operate on rivers or lakes, are not 

authorized to go beyond 1 nm (e.g., are restricted by their operational certificate to operating 

only within 1nm of shore), or otherwise never go beyond 1 nm from shore. A Medium Cruise 

Ship in operation as of December 19, 2008 is not required to meet the graywater requirements 

found in Part 5.2.1.1.1 if the ship is unable to voyage 1 nm from shore, unless the ship undergoes 

a major conversion subsequent to the VGP effective date. Vessels constructed on or after 

December 19, 2008 are required to meet the graywater standards found in Part 5.2.1.1.1. (the 

same as large cruise ships). If, during the permit term, a vessel that is in operation on the 

effective date of this permit undergoes a major conversion as defined in Part 7 of the permit, the 

Page 171 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

discharge from such a ship must meet the treatment standards found in Part 5.2.1.1.1 of the 

permit. 

Unlike large cruise ships, which by their operational necessities are ocean going, some 

medium cruise ships are unable to regularly voyage 1 nm from shore. If onshore treatment is not 

readily available in river port towns for treatment of graywater, then the ship would be unable to 

meet these graywater treatment standards immediately. Furthermore, installation of AWTSs may 

be more complicated on older vessels than on newer vessels. Hence, based on the comments 

submitted and further economic analysis (included in the economic analysis for this permit) and 

unlike with larger cruise ships, many medium cruise ships may not be able to immediately 

achieve these treatment standards without installation of equipment that could require a major 

overhaul of the vessel. This type of vessel repair or conversion could be extensive, require drydocking, and in some cases, re-design of major structural components of the vessel. For these 

reasons, EPA determines that it is not economically practicable or achievable to require all 

existing medium cruise ships which are unable to travel outside 3 nm to meet the requirements of 

Part 5.2.1.1.1 at this time. However, EPA notes that it may yet become economically achievable 

to include this requirement for all medium cruise ships in future iterations of this permit and 

owner/operators are so advised should they upgrade existing graywater vessel treatment capacity. 

For additional information on economic achievability and BAT, please see the economic analysis 

for this permit. 

7.3. LARGE FERRIES (PART 5.3) 

Ferries are vessels for hire that are designed to carry passengers and/or vehicles between 

two ports, usually in inland, coastal, or nearshore waters. They usually travel the same route 

several times a day and do not provide overnight accommodations to their passengers. They have 

discharges unique to their industry because of the potentially high volume of both pedestrian and 

vehicular traffic that they carry, usually on inland or coastal waters. These waters usually carry a 

relatively high volume of vessel traffic and also can contain highly valuable and ecologically 

sensitive mating and nesting grounds for birds, fish, and mammals. The permit provisions apply 

to large ferries. For purposes of the permit, large ferries are those ferries authorized to carry a) 

more than 100 tons of cars, trucks, trains, or other land-based transportation or b) 250 or more 

people. 

EPA could not find a preexisting definition of large ferry. Hence, the Agency reviewed 

the number of ferries captured at different weight thresholds using data including all steel hulled, 

self-propelled vessels classified by the WTLUS/VESDOC as Passenger Vessels, Combination 

Passenger/Cargo ships, and by Ferries Data DOC as Passenger Vessels, Combination 

Passenger/Cargo ships, and Ferries. EPA considered the relative increase in the discharge of 

pollutants, particularly those pollutants generated from land-based transportation on board 

vessels, as ferry size increased when establishing this threshold. For this permit, EPA has stated 

that a “Large Ferry” means a “ferry” that: a) has a capacity greater than or equal to 100 tons of 

cargo, e.g., for cars, trucks, trains, or other land-based transportation or b) is authorized by the 

Coast Guard to carry 250 or more people. 

In order to minimize the harmful effects of discharges from large ferries, this permit 

imposes specific requirements with respect to the potential spills, drips, and leaks associated with 

Page 172 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

carrying of vehicles. These requirements include treatment of runoff from below deck (e.g. areas 

not exposed to the elements) parking and storage areas with an oily water separator or other 

similar device, and require that this discharge not be released into waters listed in Part 12.1. In 

addition, pursuant to CWA sections 402(a)(2), and 40 CFR 122.43(a), and other implementing 

regulations, the permit sets out requirements for all large ferries with respect to educating the 

crew and passengers about environmental procedures. It is the crew that will implement the 

environmental requirements found in the permit, and because of that, they must be taught what to 

do, how to do it, and why they are doing it. Large ferry owner/operators also are required to 

educate passengers on their potential environmental impacts and how those can be mitigated. 

This education must address eliminating the discharge of trash into any waste stream, 

minimizing the production of trash from parking areas and storage areas, eliminating the addition 

of unused soaps, detergents and pharmaceuticals to the graywater or blackwater systems, and 

minimizing the production of graywater. There are many ways that a ferry operator can 

accomplish passenger education, including posted signage, distribution of informational 

materials, incorporating environmental material in orientation presentations, and broadcasting 

environmental information over loudspeakers or the public address system. 

Some of these education requirements included in the permit are based in part on industry 

literature created by the industry trade group CLIA. EPA anticipates that educating crew and 

passengers on cruise ships is similar to educating the crew and passengers of large ferries. The 

educational requirements in the permit are already being employed by many cruise ship 

owner/operators in the industry. 

For those large ferries which are authorized by the Coast Guard to carry 250 or more 

people, the permit also requires use of shoreside graywater reception facilities if they are 

reasonably available. If not available, such large ferries are required to hold their graywater 

while in port if the vessel has the holding capacity and to discharge the effluent while the vessel 

is underway under the operational conditions set out in section 5.3.1.2 of the permit. 

The technologies upon which the permit’s graywater requirements are based are 

technologically available and economically practicable and achievable. These requirements are 

intended to reduce the volume of graywater discharged while large ferries are pierside so as to 

reduce the discharge of chemicals, nutrients, and pathogens into marinas and ports, which can be 

located in ecologically sensitive estuaries, and where large numbers of vessels may be

discharging in close proximity. The cumulative impact of numerous graywater discharges in port 

may be significant. In addition, these requirements will help reduce potential impacts if 

graywater needs to be discharged while underway by setting out operational limits on such 

discharges, as further explained in the Fact Sheet discussions for graywater from cruise ships. 

Unlike the 2008 VGP, this permit does not authorize the discharge of coal ash slurry from 

coal fired propulsion systems from ferries. The previous VGP suspended the authorization for 

these discharges in December 2012. Either coal ash discharges must cease into waters subject to 

this permit or they must be authorized under an individual NPDES permit. 

Page 173 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

7.4. BARGES (INCLUDING HOPPER BARGES, CHEMICAL BARGES, FUEL BARGES, CRANE 

BARGES, DRY BULK CARGO BARGES) (PART 5.4) 

Barges are large flat-bottomed boats typically used to move cargo in inland waterways. 

Barges are usually not powered vessels, but are instead pushed or pulled by tugboats. Due to the 

way they carry cargo, the permit imposes additional measures in order to prevent and minimize 

the discharge of pollutants from barges. Specifically, the permit requires additional measures to 

prevent the contamination of condensation with oily or toxic materials. Based on information 

provided in comments received in response to the June 21, 2007 Federal Register notice, it is a 

technologically available and economically achievable and practicable practice for barge 

owner/operators to prevent the contamination of condensation. This permit also prohibits any 

discharge that has or causes a visible sheen or is otherwise discharged in a quantity that may be 

harmful. 

The permit also requires barges to conduct an inspection not required for other vessels. 

Every time water is pumped from any area below deck, the vessel operator must conduct a visual 

sheen test by conducting a visual inspection of the discharge and the water around the barge to 

check the water for a visual sheen. EPA is imposing this requirement due to our understanding 

that this is current good marine practice and that pumping water from below deck (where water 

may have come into contact with cargoes) is more likely to result in a discharge that may be 

harmful. Under 40 CFR 110 or 40 CFR 302, if a visible sheen is detected, you must report the 

discharge immediately to the National Response Center at 1-800-424-8802 or on the Center’s 

website at www.nrc.uscg.mil. Furthermore, appropriate corrective actions must be taken 

according to the corrective actions section in Part 3 of the permit and the event must be recorded 

according to Part 4.2 of the permit. 

Today’s VGP improves efficiency for many unmanned, unpowered barges. This includes 

reducing the recordkeeping requirements found under Part 4.2 of the Permit, allowing electronic 

recordkeeping, reducing requirements for routine visual inspections when a vessel is “fleeted”, 

and allowing vessel owner/operators to submit combined annual reports for certain vessels. EPA 

believes that some of these changes should significantly improve efficiency for most vessel 

owner/operators, but several will result in particular efficiencies for the barge industry.

7.5. OIL AND PETROLEUM TANKERS (PART 5.5) 

Oil tankers are designed to carry oil and other petroleum products in bulk tanks. Due to 

the cargo they carry and how they carry their cargo, they are prone to environmentally harmful 

discharges of oil, particularly during cargo loading and unloading operations. To mitigate these 

risks, the permit requires that scuppers be blocked during cargo operations to prevent oil from 

contaminating discharges authorized by this permit. Any oil that is spilled must be cleaned up 

with oil absorbent cloths or other device to minimize contamination of any authorized discharge. 

The discharges of water from deck seals are authorized when such deck seals are installed as an 

integral part of an inert gas scrubber system. These requirements represent existing good marine 

practice for these vessels.

A visual sheen test must be conducted after cargo loading operations, cargo unloading 

operations, and deck washing. The visual sheen test detects the presence of free oil on the surface 

Page 174 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

of the water surrounding the vessel. That free oil is visible on the water’s surface as an oily 

sheen. Under 40 CFR 110 or 40 CFR 302, if a visible sheen is detected, you must report the 

discharge immediately to the National Response Center at 1-800-424-8802 or on the Center’s 

website at www.nrc.uscg.mil. Furthermore, appropriate corrective actions must be taken 

according to the corrective actions section in Part 3 of the permit and the event must be recorded 

according to Part 4.2 of the permit. 

Oil spill management measures are carried out by the tanker’s crew. Pursuant to CWA 

sections 402(a)(2), and 40 CFR 122.43(a), and implementing regulations, EPA is requiring that 

all crew members who actively take part in management of a discharge or who may affect a 

discharge receive training so they are aware of what they must do, when to do it, and why to do it 

in order to minimize the discharge of oil and other toxic pollutants. In addition, reprimand 

procedures must in place to hold crew accountable for any failure to follow established pollution 

prevention procedures. 

7.6. RESEARCH VESSELS (PART 5.6) 

Research vessels are those that are engaged in investigation or experimentation aimed at 

the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted scientific theories or laws in the 

light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws. They typically 

include State, Federal, non-profit, educational, and occasionally corporate vessels conducting 

scientific research and experiments. They are not engaged in commercial activity that results in 

the direct production of or harvesting for sale of mineral or living resources collected during 

their voyages. This permit lists the following materials that research vessels are authorized to 

discharge: tracers (dyes, fluorescent beads, SF6), drifters, tracking devices and the like, and 

expendable bathythermograph (XBT) probes. The permit’s provisions limit these discharges to 

the minimal amount that is necessary to conduct the research. In addition, these discharges are 

only authorized for the sole purpose of conducting research on the aquatic environment or its 

natural resources in accordance with generally recognized scientific methods, principles, or 

techniques. EPA expects research vessels to employ responsible research practices at all times. 

EPA believes that these practices allow for productive research while minimizing the discharge 

of materials, and that they are technologically available and economically practicable and 

achievable. 

7.7. EMERGENCY VESSELS (PART 5.7) 

Emergency vessels include firefighting boats, police boats, and other boats with a public 

safety mission. These vessels have supplemental permit provisions in Part 5.7 of this permit that 

specifically allow discharges incidental to their public safety responsibilities. The permit allows 

the discharge of substances necessary for securing and saving lives at sea. In addition, it allows 

discharges for training, testing and maintenance purposes, as long as those discharges comply 

with any additional requirements of the CWA, including section 311, which imposes conditions 

on the discharge of oil. Furthermore, when these discharges include the use of foaming agents 

for oil or chemical fire response, they must be in accordance with the National Contingency 

Plan, pursuant to 40 CFR 300. The National Contingency Plan contains procedures for preparing 

for and responding to discharges of oil and hazardous substances. 

Page 175 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

EPA notes that the most commonly used aquatic firefighting substance, AFFF, has the 

potential for significant environmental impact. In addition to requirements of Part 2.2.5 of this 

permit, EPA encourages operators of emergency and fire boats to use AFFF formulations that 

contain low concentrations of perfluorinated surfactants or contain non-fluorinated surfactants 

that maintain emergency operations effectiveness. Use of alternative formulations of AFFF is 

strongly recommended for those vessels that operate in areas near active commercial or 

recreational fisheries, near swimmable waters, or in high traffic areas. EPA encourages 

emergency vessel owner/operators to use common sense to minimize unnecessary discharges of 

these toxic firefighting substances. Furthermore, EPA encourages emergency vessel 

owner/operators to use less persistent (non-fluorinated) substitute foam for training purposes. 

8. STATE OR TRIBAL REQUIREMENTS (PART 6)

Part 6 of the final VGP identifies provisions provided to EPA by States and Tribes in 

their CWA § 401 certifications that the States and Tribes deemed necessary to assure compliance 

with applicable provisions of the CWA and any other appropriate requirements of State and 

Tribal law. See 33 U.S.C. 1341(d); 40 CFR § 124.53(e)(1). Pursuant to CWA § 401(d), EPA has 

attached those State and Tribal provisions to the final VGP; those that constitute effluent or other 

limitations or monitoring requirements are 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). Part 6 of 

the permit also includes conditions provided by states as part of their concurrence with this 

permit for CZMA purposes if applicable (see Part 12.1 of this fact sheet). 

9. DEFINITIONS (APPENDIX A) 

Appendix A 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 Part 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 has added several new definitions to this permit, including “biodegradable,” “active 

substances,”“”alternative management systems,” “environmental acceptable lubricants,” “fish 

hold,” “Lakers,” “niche areas,” “seafood processing,” “untreated graywater,” and “voyage.” 

Based on public comment received, EPA has modified definitions including biodegradable and 

bioaccumulative.

10. NOTICE OF INTENT AND NOTICE OF TERMINATION (APPENDIX E AND F) 

Appendix E of the permit gives those owners and operators who will be required to 

submit an NOI form an explanation of the process and requirements. This Part reiterates who 

Page 176 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

must file an NOI, pursuant to 1.5.1 of this permit (“How to Obtain Authorization”), and includes 

a table that outlines the deadlines for submission of an NOI, and corresponding discharge 

authorization dates. This table provides the same information as Table 1 of this permit. In 

addition, Part 10.2 provides the actual NOI form, and gives section-by-section instructions on 

how to fill out the form. The website address for submitting the NOI form is 

www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels eNOI. The NOI form for vessel discharges will be available on the 

website approximately 6 months after permit issuance.

Appendix F of the permit discusses how and when to terminate permit coverage using a 

Notice of Termination (NOT) form, pursuant to the permit’s requirements in 1.6. Like the NOI 

form in Part 10, Part 11 provides the web address for submission of the NOT form, a section-bysection explanation about each section of the NOT form, and the actual NOT form. 

11. WATERS FEDERALLY PROTECTED WHOLLY OR IN PART FOR 

CONSERVATION PURPOSES [APPENDIX G] 

Appendix G (formally referred to as Part 12 waters in the 2008 VGP) of this permit lists 

“waters federally protected in whole or in part for conservation purposes,” and several of the 

permit’s technology-based effluent limits prohibit or limit various discharges in these waters to 

the extent they are within waters subject to this permit. As discussed in section 4.2.3 of this fact 

sheet, EPA has found that the prescribed limits are technologically available and economically 

practicable and achievable for certain discharges. Because it is possible to limit discharges to 

certain times, but not to limit those discharges indefinitely, EPA focused on imposing these 

limitations for waters federally protected in whole or in part for conservation purposes. To 

develop this list of waters, EPA reviewed several federal authorities that protect waters that are 

known to be of particular high value or sensitive to environmental impacts. These waters are 

comprised of areas that are important to EPA, our federal partners, and the public at large, as 

evidenced by the waters’ special status or designation by the Federal government as National 

Marine Sanctuaries, Marine National Monuments, National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, 

National Wilderness Areas, or parts of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. As 

mentioned, these waters are likely to be of high quality and consist of unique ecosystems which 

may include distinctive species of aquatic animals and plants. Furthermore, as protected areas, 

these waters are more likely to have a greater abundance of sensitive species of plants and 

animals that may have trouble surviving in areas with greater anthropogenic impact. 

12. OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

12.1. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA)

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and its implementing regulations (15 CFR 

Part 930) require that any Federal agency activity or Federally licensed or permitted activity 

occurring within (or outside but affecting) the coastal zone) of a state with an approved coastal 

zone management program (CZMP) be consistent with the enforceable policies of that approved 

program to the maximum extent practicable. Agency general permits that do not involve case-bycase or individualized determinations by the Agency are federal activities for the purposes of 

CZMA section 307(c)(1). Following proposal of the VGP, EPA provided the relevant state 

coastal zone management agencies with EPA’s national consistency determination regarding the 

Page 177 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

enforceable policies in approved state CZM programs for the coastal zones including state waters 

where the VGP would authorize discharges. 15 CFR 930.31(d). Consistent with the maximum 

extent practicable standard in 15 CFR 930.32, the final VGP either incorporates state conditions 

(see VGP Part 6), or if not incorporated or if a state coastal zone management agency objected to 

the VGP, Part 6 of the VGP notifies potential users of the permit that the VGP is not available 

for use in that State unless vessel owner/operators wanting to use the VGP in that State provide 

the State agency with an individual consistency certification under 15 CFR Part 930 subpart D 

and the State agency concurs. 

12.2. 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 commenced informal consultation with the Services in December 2011.

Informal consultation consisted of briefing the Services’ staff on the contents of the draft 

permits, discussing EPA’s proposed outline and methodological approach of a BE for both 

permits, including using a detailed analysis of expected constituents in and impacts from 

incidental vessel discharges, representative listed species, and reference action areas to inform 

the broader effects analysis. EPA also requested species lists, additional pertinent information 

from the Services, and discussed the permit issuance timeline. As part of informal consultation, 

EPA met with the Services on multiple occasions, and sought and received valuable input on the 

design of the Agency’s Biological Evaluation (EPA 2012b, Nagle 2012).

EPA initiated formal consultation with the Services on July 3, 2012, submitting a formal 

consultation package including an extensive biological evaluation for the 2013 VGP and sVGP. 

Section 7 of the ESA allows 90 days for interagency consultation and an additional 45 days for 

the Services to prepare a biological opinion, under most circumstances. After a short, mutually 

agreed upon extension of the formal consultation time frame, EPA and the Services successfully 

concluded formal consultation on November 28 and 29, 2012 with transmittal of separate 

biological opinions. Both of those opinions concluded that EPA’s issuance of the VGP was not 

likely to jeopardize listed or proposed species or adversely modify designated or proposed 

critical habitat. Both biological opinions can be found in the docket for this permit issuance. 

Furthermore, on March 23, 2012 the United States Coast Guard published their final 

ballast water discharge standard in the Federal Register, and subsequently the Services 

concluded consultation on that action in June 2012. The FWS concluded on June 1, 2012 that the 

USCG’s action was not likely to jeopardize listed or proposed species or adversely modify 

Page 178 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

designated or proposed critical habitat and NFMS followed with a June 20, 2012 biological 

opinion that the USCG’s ballast water discharge standard may affect but is not likely to 

adversely affect threatened and endangered species or their critical habitat. The Vessel General 

Permit both requires adherence to the USCG’s ballast water discharge standard and contains 

additional environmental protections from that recently issued rulemaking. 

12.3. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION

Pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), 

Federal agencies must consult with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding any of their actions authorized, funded, or 

undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). Upon review, EPA has determined that issuance of this final 

permit will have no adverse effect on EFH. Any effects of this permit on essential fish habitat 

would be beneficial by imposing restrictions, including management practices, on discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of vessels. Since prior to enactment of the CWA and the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, such discharges have occurred without restrictions. 

12.4. MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACT

Title I of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) (also known as 

the Ocean Dumping Act) generally prohibits, unless authorized by a permit issued under the Act, 

(1) transportation of material from the US for the purpose of ocean dumping; (2) transportation 

of material from anywhere for the purpose of ocean dumping by US agencies or US-flagged 

vessels; and (3) dumping of material transported from outside the US into the US territorial sea 

or dumping of material transported from outside the US into the US contiguous zone, to the 

extent that it may affect the territorial sea or the territory of the United States. MPRSA section 

101. 

Dumping under the MPRSA means “a disposition of material: Provided, that it does not 

mean a disposition of ... a routine discharge of effluent incidental to the propulsion of, or 

operation of motor-driven equipment on, vessels,” nor “a disposition of any effluent from any 

outfall structure to the extent that such disposition is regulated under the [CWA].” MPRSA 3(f), 

33 U.S.C. 1402(f). The VGP regulates such discharges, i.e., routine discharges incidental to the 

propulsion or normal operation motor-driven equipment on vessels and/or effluent from outfall 

structures, and thus the regulated discharges are not regulated under the MPRSA. 

12.5. OIL SPILL REQUIREMENTS

Section 311 of the CWA prohibits the discharge of hazardous substances in harmful 

quantities. Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel specifically controlled by the 

permit are excluded from the provisions of section 311. However, this permit does not preclude 

the institution of legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or 

penalties for other unauthorized discharges of hazardous substances which are covered by 

section 311 of the CWA. 

Page 179 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

12.6. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

The information collection requirements for the first iteration of the VGP were approved 

by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. as part of the NPDES Consolidated ICR. On September 28, 2008 EPA published the 

first public notice of this ICR under the OMB control number 2040-0004 and on December 17, 

2008 EPA published the final public notice for a 30 day comment period. 

This information must be collected in order to appropriately administer and enforce the 

terms and conditions of the VGP. This information collection is mandatory as authorized by 

Clean Water Act section 308 and all information collected will be treated as Confidential 

Business Information (CBI). 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person shall not be subject to any penalty for 

failing to comply with, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 

CFR Part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR Part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection requirements contained in this final permit. 

12.7. EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898: FEDERAL ACTIONS TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

IN MINORITY POPULATIONS AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that these permits will not have disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 

including any minority or low-income population. The provisions in these permits include, 

among other things, new requirements for ballast water discharges, other incidental discharges, 

commercial fishing vessels, and vessels less than 79 feet, which will result in an increase in the 

level of environmental protection. The requirements in the VGP and sVGP apply equally to 

discharges from regulated vessels, and therefore do not disproportionately and adversely affect 

minority or low-income populations.

13. REFERENCES

Aalborg. (2010). EGCS SMM Workshop 2010 presentation. Retrieved from http://www.aalborgindustries.com/scrubber/documents/ExhaustGasCleaning_000.pdf. 

Page 180 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

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. 

AEA. (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 by AEA, Association ASPEN and Swedish Environmental Research 

Institute. 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.

Association Francaise des Capitaines de Navires. Accessed September 10, 2010. 

Retrieved from 

http://www.afcan.org/dossiers_techniques/gestion_dech_huileux2_gb.html. 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) & Science Advisory Panel. (2002). 

The impact of cruise ship wastewater discharge on Alaska waters. 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). (2007). Large Commercial 

Passenger Vessel Wastewater Discharge: General Permit Information Sheet. Retrieved 

from http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/cruise_ships/gp/2008_GP_Info2.pdf. 

Albert, R. (2010). Development of the Next VGP – Stakeholder Listening Session, Washington 

DC. December 15, 2010. 

Albert, R. (2011). Development of the ballast water requirements of the next Vessel General 

Permit. Ballast Water Treatment Technology Conference. London, England. July, 2011. 

Albert, R. and Everett, R. (2010). Capabilities of shipboard ballast water treatment technology. 

Presentation to EPA’s Science Advisory Board, July 29, 2010, Washington, DC. 

Albert, R., Everett, R., Lishman, J., and Smith, D. (2010). Availability and efficacy of ballast 

water treatment technology: background and issue paper. Paper prepared to assist the 

Science Advisory Board Review of the availability and efficacy of ballast water treatment 

technology. June, 2010. Retrieved from 

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vessels_efficacy_ballast_final.pdf. 

Albert, R. and Piziali, J. (2012). Addendum to the Biological Evaluation for the 2013 Vessel 

General Permit (VGP) and Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP). Memorandum to Dan 

Buford and George Noguchi, Fish and Wildlife Service and Jennifer Schultz, Ron Dean, 

and Pat Shaw-Allen, NOAA. October 25, 2012. 

Aluyor, E.A., O. O. Obahiagbon and M. Ori-jesu. (2009). Biodegradation of vegetable oils: A 

review. Scientific Research and Essay. 4(6): 543-548. 

Page 181 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). (2010). Ballast Water Treatment Advisory. 8 June 2010. 

Retrieved from

http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/Refer

ences/ABS%20Advisories/BWTreatmentAdv. Accessed June 16, 2010. 

American Waterways Operators (AWO). (2009). Public comments submitted regarding proposed 

USCG rulemaking on standards for living organisms in ships’ ballast water discharged in 

U.S. waters. Comment number USCG-2001-10486-0280. Posted 12/4/2009. 

Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS). (1992). Controls on the Discharge of 

Ballast Water and Sediment from Ships Entering Australia from Overseas. AQIS Notice 

(Barrier Co-ordination) 92/2. AQIS, Canberra, Australia. 

Alther, G.R. (1995). Organically modified clay removes oil from water. Waste Management, 

15(8), 623-628. 

Axiak, V., Sammut, M., Chircop, P., Vella, A., & Mintoff, B. (1995). Laboratory and field 

investigations on the effects of organotin (tributyltin) on the oyster, Ostrea edulis. 

Environmental Toxicology: Hazards to the Environment and Man in the Mediterranean 

Region, 171, 117-120. 

Bacher, Henrik. (2011). How to Choose and Integrate Best System that Fulfills Your 

Requirements. 4th Ballast Water Management Summit. Amsterdam, Netherlands. 

Bailey, S., L., Velez-Espino, L., Johannsson, O., Koops, M., and Wiley, C. 2009. Estimating 

establishment probabilities of Cladocera introduced at low density: an evaluation of the 

proposed ballast water discharge standards. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 66: 261-276. 

Bailey et. al. (2011). Evaluating efficacy of an environmental policy to prevent biological 

invasions. Environmental Science and Technology, 45, 2554-2561. 

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. (September). Retrieved form 

http://www.gsarp.org/pubs/Initial%20Survey%20of%20Invasive%20Species.pdf. 

Battelle. (2007). Technical support for EPA development of a permitting framework to address 

the vacatur of the NPDES vessel exclusion (Revised Draft Report).

Bentivegna, C.S., & Piatkowski, T. (1998). Effects of tributyltin on medaka (Oryzias latipes) 

embryos at different stages of development. Aquatic Toxicology, 44, 117-128. 

Page 182 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Betton, C.I. (2009). Chapter 15, Lubricants and Their Environmental Impact. In: Chemistry and 

Technology of Lubricants, 3rd Edition. Mortimer, R., M. Fox, and S. Orszulik, eds. 

Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York. 547 pp. 

Bindoff et al. (2007). “Observations: Oceanic climate change and sea level.” Climate change 

2007: The physical science basis (Fourth Assessment Report).Cambridge, United 

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Bolch, C.J.S., & de Salas, M.F. (2007). A review of the molecular evidence for ballast water 

introduction of the toxic dinoflagellates Gymnodinium catenatum and the Alexandrium 

"tamarensis complex" to Australasia. Ballast Water, 6, 465-485. 

Brickman, D. (2006). Risk assessment model for dispersion of ballast water organisms in shelf 

seas. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63, 2748-2759. 

Brickman, D., & Smith, P. (2007). Variability in invasion risk for ballast water exchange on the 

Scotian Shelf of eastern Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54, 168-174. 

Briski, E., Allinger, L. E., Balcer, M., Cangelosi, A., Fanberg, L., Markee, T. P., Mays, N., 

Polkinghorne, C. N., Prihoda, K. R., Reavie, E. D., Regan, D. H., Reid, D. M., Saillard, 

H. J., Schwerdt, T., Schaefer, H., TenEyck, M., Wiley, C. J., and Bailey, S. A. (2013). 

"Multidimensional Approach to Invasive Species Prevention." Environmental Science & 

Technology, 47(3), 1216-1221. 

Briski, E., Bailey, S. A., Cristescu, M. E., and Macisaac, H. J. (2010). "Efficacy of ‘saltwater 

flushing’ in protecting the Great Lakes from biological invasions by invertebrate eggs in 

ships’ ballast sediment." Freshwater Biology, 55(11), 2414-2424. 

Briski, E., Ghabooli, S., Bailey, S., and MacIsaac, H. (2012). "Invasion risk posed by 

macroinvertebrates transported in ships’ ballast tanks." Biological Invasions, 1-8. 

Brown & Caldwell. (2007). Port of Milwaukee Onshore Ballast Water Treatment – Feasibility 

Study Report. Prepared for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Brown & 

Caldwell, Milwaukee, WI, 114 pp. 

Brown & Caldwell, and Bay Engineering. Inc. (2008). Port of Milwaukee Onshore Ballast Water 

Treatment – Feasibility Study Report. Phase 2. Prepared for the Wisconsin Department of 

10 Natural Resources. Brown & Caldwell, Milwaukee, WI, 98 pp. 

Cairns Jr., J. (1972). Environmental Quality and the Thermal Pollution Problem. In Farvar, M.G. 

and J.P. Milton (Eds.), The Careless Technology: Ecology and International 

Development. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press. 

California Association of Port Authorities (CAPA). (2000). Feasibility of Onshore Ballast Water 

Treatment at California Ports. Prepared by URS Corporation/Dames & Moore. CAPA, 

Sacramento, CA.

Page 183 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

California State Lands Commission (CSLC). 2010. Draft (2010) Assessment of the Efficacy, 

Availability and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Use in 

California Waters. California SLC, Sacramento, CA, 149 pp. 

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (2002). Evaluation of Ballast Water 

Treatment Technology for Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms. SWRCB, 

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA, 70 pp. 

Cangelosi, A. (2010a). Report of the land-based freshwater testing of the Siemens SiCURE 

Ballast Water Management System. Great Ships Initiative. GSI/LB/F/A/1.

Cangelosi, A. (2010b). A Great Lake relevancy preamble to the GSI report on land-based testing 

outcomes for the Siemens SICURE Ballast Water Management System. Great Ships 

Initiative.

Cangelosi, Allegra. (2011). Final Report of the Land-Based, Freshwater Testing of the Lye 

(NaOH) Ballast Water Treatment System. Washington, DC. 

Caplan, J., Newton, C., & Kelemen, D. (2000). Technical report: Novel oil/water separator for 

treatment of oily bilgewater. Marine Technology and SNAME News, 2000, 37(2), 

111-115. 

Carlton, J.T. (1985). Transoceanic and Interoceanic Dispersal of Coastal Marine Organisms: The 

Biology of Ballast Water. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review, 23, 313–

371. 

Carlton, J.T. (1996). Pattern, process, and prediction in marine invasion ecology. Invasion 

Biology, 78, 97-106. 

Carlton, J.T., and Geller, J.B. (1993). Ecological Roulette: The Global Transport of 

Nonindigenous Marine Organisms. Science, 261(5117), 78-82. 

Chan A. (2010). Personal communication. 

Cheryan, M., and N. Rajagopalan. (1998). Membrane processing of oily streams. Wastewater 

treatment and waste reduction. J. Membr. Sci., 151, 13. 

Choi, C. (2007). Cruise Ships Face Tough New Waste Disposal Limits - Industry Says Its SelfPolicing Negates Need for Crackdown. New York Times. Retrieved from 

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

Cohen, A. N., Carlton, J. T., & Fountain, M. C. (1995). Introduction, dispersal and potential 

impacts of the green crab Carcinus maenas in San Francisco Bay, California. Marine 

Biology, 122(2), 225-237. 

Page 184 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Cohen, A.N. (1998). Ships' Ballast Water and the Introduction of Exotic Organisms into the San 

Francisco Estuary: Current Status of the Problem and Options for Management. A report 

for the Collaboration Among State and Federal Agencies to Improve California’s Water 

Supply (CALFED) and the California Urban Water Agencies. San Francisco Estuary 

Institute, Richmond, CA. 

Cohen, A. & J. Carlton. (1998). Accelerating Invasion Rate in a Highly Invaded Estuary. 

Science. 279, 555-558.Cohen, A.N., 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. and B. Foster. (2000). The Regulation of Biological Pollution: Preventing Exotic 

Species Invasions from Ballast Water Discharged into California Coastal Water. 30 

Golden Gate University Law Review 787. 

Copeland, C. (2008). CRS Report to Congress: Cruise Ship Pollution: Background, Laws and 

Regulations, and Key Issues. Retrieved from http://www.earthnews.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Dec/RL32450.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.

Couple Systems. (2010). Dry EGCS Process Dry Exhaust Gas Cleaning System. Retrieved from 

http://www.egcsa.com/pdfs/Couple-Systems-EGCS-SMM-Workshop-2010.pdf. 

Cruise Line International Association (CLIA). (2006). Cruise Industry Standard: Cruise Industry 

Waste Management Practices and Procedures. 

Dames and Moore. (1998). Ballast water management technical memorandum for the Port of 

Oakland. Job No. 02801-028-086, November 6, 1998. Dames and Moore, San Francisco, 

CA.

Dames and Moore. (1999). Phase I Final Report Ballast Water Exchange and Treatment. A 

Report for the California Association of Port Authorities, Pacific Merchant Shipping 

David M. et. al (2007). Results from the first ballast water sampling study in the Mediterranean 

Sea - the Port of Koper study. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54(1), 53-65. 

DeCola, E. (2000). International Oil Spill Statistics: (2000). Oil Spill Intelligence Report (OSIR). 

Arlington, MA: Cutter Information Corporation. 

DiGangi, J., Schettler, T., Cobbing, M., & Rossi, M. (2002). Aggregate exposures to phthalate in 

humans. 

Page 185 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

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

American Geophysical Union, 87. 

Doblin, M., Coyne, K., Rinta-Kanto, J., Wilhelm, S., & 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. 

Dobroski, N., Takata, L., Scianni, C., & Falkner, M. (2009). Assessment of the efficacy, 

availability and environmental impacts of ballast water treatment systems for use in 

California waters. Produced for the California State Legislature. Retrieved from 

http://www.slc.ca.gov/Spec_Pub/MFD/Ballast_Water/Documents/2009cslctechreportfina

l.pdf. 180 pp. 

Dobroski, N., Scianni, C., and Takata, L. (2011). 2011 Update: Ballast Water Treatment Systems 

for Use in California Waters. Produced for the California State Lands Commission by the 

Marine Invasive Species Program. Retrieved from 

http://www.slc.ca.gov/Spec_Pub/MFD/Ballast_Water/Documents/2011TechUpdateFinal

_1Sep2011.pdf. 67 pp. 

Drake, J., D. Lodge, and M. Lewis. (2005). Theory and preliminary analysis of species invasions 

from ballast water: controlling discharge volume and location. American Midland 

Naturalist 154:459– 470. 

Drake, J.M. & Lodge, D.M. (2007). Rate of species introductions in the Great Lakes via ships' 

ballast water and sediments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 64, 

530-538. 

Drake, L., Doblin, M., & Dobbs, F. (2007). 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., & Skjong, R. (2004). Challenges in 

global ballast water management. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48, 615-623. 

Entec. (2005). European Commission Directorate General Environment, Service Contract on 

Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments, Task 2c – SO2 

Abatement Final Report. Entec UK Limited. 

Environmental Law Institute. (2004). Filling the gaps: ten strategies to strengthen invasive 

species management in Florida. 

ERG. (2004). Analysis of UNDS Bilgewater Data. Memo from Joy Abel, Eastern Research 

Group, to Ron Jordan, EPA. September 10, 2004. 

Etkin, D.S. (2010). Worldwide analysis of in-port vessel operational lubricant discharges and 

leaks. Proc. 33rd Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar: p. 529-554. 

Page 186 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

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., & Moulin, P. (2009). Ferry oily wastewater 

treatment. Separation and Purification Technology, 64(3), p. 296-303. 

Gollasch, S. Lenz, J. Dammer, M. and H.G. Andres. (2000). Survival of tropical ballast water 

organisms during a cruise from the Indian Ocean to the North Sea. Journal of Plankton 

Research 22:923–937. 

Gollasch, S. (2011). Final report of the shipboard tests of the Ecochlor® Ballast Water Treatment 

System for Type Approval according to Regulation D-2 and the relevant IMO Guideline 

(G8). Retrieved from 

http://www.ecochlor.com/download/Ecochlor_Final_report_shipboard_testing_March_20

11_ECO_v2.pdf. 

Govorushko, S.M. (2007). Effect of Human Activity on Rivers. Proceedings at the International 

Conference on River Basin Management. Retrieved from 

http://www2.dsi.gov.tr/english/congress2007/chapter_2/37.pdf. 

Gracki, J.A., Everett, R.A., Hack, H., Landrum, P.F., Long, D.T., Premo, B.J., Raaymakers, S.C., 

Stapleton, G.A., & Harrison, K.G. (2002). Critical review of a ballast water biocides 

treatment demonstration project using copper and sodium hypochlorite. Lansing, 

Michigan: Michigan Environmental Science Board. Retrieved from 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Ballast_Water_Report_43716_7.pdf. 

Gray, D.K., Johengen, T.H., Reid, D.F., & MacIsaac, H.J. (2007). Efficacy of open-ocean ballast 

water exchange as a means of preventing invertebrate invasions between freshwater 

ports. Limnology and Oceanography, 52, 2386-2397. 

Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative (GLBWC). (2010). Report from the Great Lakes Ballast 

Water Collaborative Meeting: Duluth. July 20-21, 2010. Retrieved from 

http://www.greatlakesseaway.com/en/pdf/Ballast_Collaborative_Report_and_WGReports_Duluth(Final).pdf. 

Accessed on 8/03/11 

Gregg, M., & Hallegraeff, G. (2007). Efficacy of three commercially available ballast water 

biocides against vegetative microalgae, dinoflagellate cysts and bacteria. Harmful Algae, 

6, 567-584. 

Gryta, M., Karakulski, K. & A. W. Morawski. (2001). Purification of oily wastewater by hybrid 

UF/MD. Water Research, Vol. 35, Issue 15, October 2001, p. 3665-3669.Habereder, T., 

D. Moore, & M. Lang. (2008). Chapter 26, Eco Requirements for Lubricant Additives. 

Page 187 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

In: Lubricant Additive Chemistry and Applications, 2nd Edition. Leslie R. Rudnick, ed. 

CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 790 pp. 

Hanlon, J. A., Albert, R. J., & Everett, R. A. (2010). Why EPA and U.S. Coast Guard requested 

the National Academy of Sciences study assessing numeric limits for living organisms in 

ballast water. First Meeting of the Committee on Assessing Numeric Limits for Living 

Organisms in Ballast Water, Washington DC. June 2, 2010. 

Haynes, D. & 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. 

Hintzsche, Wolfgang. (2011). Addressing Retrofit and Operational Challenges of BWT Systems. 

4th Ballast Water Management Conference 2011. Amsterdam, Netherlands. 

Horne, A.J., & Goldman, C.R. (1994). Limnology: 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

IENICA. (2004). Biolubricants: Market Data Sheet. Interactive European Network for Industrial 

Crops and their Applications. Retrieved from 

http://www.ienica.net/marketdatasheets/biolubricantsmds.pdf. Accessed Oct. 2010. 

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. 

International Maritime Organization Marine Environmental Protection Committee MEPC. 

(2008). Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8); 

RESOLUTION MEPC.174(58), 10 October, 2008; London, UK. 

International Maritime Organization Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC). 

(2008).Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its fifty-eighth 

session. International Maritime Organization, 58/23 Annex 16. London, UK 

Johnson, L.E., Ricciardi, A., & Carlton, J.T. (2001). Overland dispersal of aquatic invasive 

species: a risk assessment of transient recreational boating. Ecological Applications, 11, 

1789-1799. 

Johnston, E.L., Piola, R.F., and Clark, G.F. (2008). Chapter 7. The Role of Propagule Pressure in 

Invasion Success. In: Rilov, G. and Crooks, J.A. (eds.) Biological Invasions in Marine 

Ecosystems: Ecological, Management, and Geographic Perspectives (Ecological Studies). 

Springer-Verlag, Berlin. pp:133-151. 

Jha M. (2003). Ecological and Toxicological Effects of Suspended and Bedded Sediments on 

Aquatic Habitats - A Concise Review for Developing Water Quality Criteria for 

Suspended and Bedded Sediments (SABS). US EPA, Office of Water draft report, 

August 2003. 

Page 188 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Johengen TH, Reid DF, Fahnenstiel GL, MacIsaac HJ, Dobbs F, Doblin M, Ruiz GM & Jenkins 

PT. (2005). Assessment of transoceanic NOBOB vessels and low-salinity ballast water as 

vectors for non-indigenous species introductions to the Great Lakes – Chapter 5. Final 

Report to Great Lakes Protection Fund. 287 pp. 

Karle, I.M. & D. Turner. (2007). Seawater scrubbing - reduction of SOx emissions from ship 

exhausts. The Alliance For Global Sustainability. Gothenburg, 2007. 

Kasyan, V. (2010). Holoplankton of ship ballast water in the Port of Vladivostok. Russian 

Journal of Marine Biology. 36(3):167-175. 

Katranitsasa, A., Castritsi-Catharios, J., & Persoone, G. (2003). The effects of a copper-based 

antifouling paint on mortality and enzymatic activity of a non-target marine organism. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46, 1491-1494. 

King. D.M., M. Riggio., and P.T. Hagan. (2010). Preliminary Overview of Global Ballast Water 

Treatment Markets. Discussion Paper No. 2, Marine Environmental Resource Center, 

Ref. No. [UMCES]CBL 10-30. June 10, 2010. 

Knight, I.T., Wells, C.S., Wiggins, B., Russell, H., Reynolds, K.A., & 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. 

Kolar, C.S. and Lodge, D.M. (2001). Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends in 

Ecology and Evolution 16:199-204. 

Lamb, T. (Ed.). (2004). Ship design and construction: 3rd edition. Jersey City, NJ: Society of 

Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.

Larson, M., Foreman, M., Levings, C., and Tarbotton, M. (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 

Lawson B. (2010). Personal communication. 

Lee II, H., D.A. Reusser, M. Frazier, & G. Ruiz. (2010). Density Matters: Review of Approaches 

to Setting Organism-Based Ballast Water Discharge Standards. Report # EPA/600/R10/031. Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects 

Research Laboratory – Western Ecology Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC. 

Lloyd’s Register. (2010). Ballast water treatment technology: current status. London, England: 

Lloyd’s Register. February, 2010. 

Page 189 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Lloyd’s Register. (2011). Ballast water treatment technology: current status. London, England: 

Lloyd’s Register. June, 2011. 

Locke, A., Reid, D.M., van Leeuwen, H.C., Sprules, W.G., & Carlton, J.T. (1993). Ballast water 

exchange as a means of controlling dispersal of freshwater organisms by ships. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 50, 2086-2093. 

Lockwood, J.L., Cassey, P., & Blackburn, T. (2005). The role of propagule pressure in 

explaining species invasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20, 223–228. 

Lovell, S.J., & Stone, S.F. (2005). The Economic Impacts of Aquatic Invasive Species (Working 

Paper #05-02). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Lovell, S.J., & Drake, L.A. (2009) Tiny stowaways: analyzing the economic benefits of a 

U.S.Environmental Protection Agency permit regulating ballast water discharges. 

Environmental Management, 43, 546-555. 

Lucas, Z., & 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. 

Mattsson T. (2010). Personal communication. 

McCollin, T., Shanks, A., & Dunn, J. (2007). The efficiency of regional ballast water exchange: 

Changes in phytoplankton abundance and diversity. Harmful Algae, 6, 531-546. 

Medich C. (2010). Personal communication. 

Miller, A. W., M. Frazier, G. E. Smith, E. S. Perry, G. M. Ruiz, and M. N. Tamburri.(2011). 

Enumerating sparse organisms in ships' ballast water: why counting to 10 is not so easy. 

Environmental Science and Technology (in press). Retrieved from 

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es102790d

Minton, M.S., Verling, E., Miller, A.W., and Ruiz, G.M. (2005). Reducing propagule supply and 

coastal invasions via ships: effects of emerging strategies. Front Ecol. Environ, 3(6), 

304-308. 

Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force. (2008). Gulf hypoxia action 

plan 2008 for reducing, mitigating, and controlling hypoxia in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico and improving water quality in the Mississippi River Basin. Washington D.C. 

Mouawad, J. (2011). Ballast-free VLCC vs. ordinary VLCC with a ballast water treatment 

system. Ballast Water Treatment Technology Conference. London, England. July, 2011. 

Murphy, K.R., Ritz, D., and Hewitt, C.L. (2002). Heterogeneous zooplankton distribution in a 

ship's ballast tanks. Journal of Plankton Research, 24(7), 729-734. 

Page 190 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Nagle, D. 2012. Initiation of Formal Consultation on EPA’s Vessel General Permit for 

Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels (VGP) and Small Vessel 

General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessel Less than 

79 Feet (sVGP). Letters to Helen Golde and Gary Frazier. 

National Academy of Sciences National Research Council NAS. (1993). Managing Wastewater 

in Coastal Urban Areas. United States of America: National Academy of Sciences.

National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (NAS). (1996). Stemming the Tide: 

Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous Species by Ships' Ballast Water. Committee 

on Ships' Ballast Operations, Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical 

Systems, NRC. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (NAS). (2000). Clean Coastal 

Waters: Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution. United States of 

America: National Academy of Sciences. Negri, A.P., & Heyward, A.J. (2001). 

Inhibition of coral fertilization and larval metamorphosis by tributyltin and copper. 

Marine Environmental Research, 51, 17-27. 

National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (NAS). (2011). Assessing the 

Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast Water.

Committee on Assessing Numeric Limits for Living Organisms in Ballast Water, 

National Research Council. National Academies Press.

Negri, A.P., Hales, L.T., Battershill, C., Wolff, C., & Webster, N.S. (2004). TBT contamination 

identified in Antarctic marine sediments. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48, 1142-1144. 

Newcombe CP & Jensen JOT. (1996). Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis for 

quantitative assessment of risk and impact. National American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 16, 693-727. 

Nielsen T. (2010). Personal communication. 

Oemke, D. (1999). The Treatment of Ships' Ballast Water. EcoPorts Monograph Series No. 18, 

Ports Corporation of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 102 pp. 

Orange County Coastkeeper. (2007). Lower Newport Bay copper/metals marina study. 

Parson, M.G. and Kotinis, M. (2008). Further Development and Optimization of the Ballast-Free 

Ship Design Concept. Retrieved from http://www.glmri.org/downloads/parsons08.pdf. 

Pavlakis, P., Tarchi, D. & Sieber, A.J. (2001). On the Monitoring of Illicit Vessel Discharges, A 

Reconnaissance Study in the Mediterranean Sea, EC DG Joint Research Center, Institute 

for the Protection and Security of the Citizen Humanitarian Security Unit.

Page 191 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Penny, R. & M. Suominen-Yeh. (2006). Biological Bilge Water Treatment System. Naval 

Engineers Journal, Vol. 118, Issue 3, p. 45-50. 

Phelps, H.L. (1994). The Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) invasion and system-level ecological 

change in the Potomac. Estuaries, 17, 614-621. 

Pollutech. (1992). A Review and Evaluation of Ballast Water Management and Treatment 

Options to Reduce the Potential for the Introduction of Non-native Species to the Great 

Lakes. Pollutech Environmental, Ltd., Sarnia, Ontario, prepared for the Canadian Coast 

Guard, Ship Safety Branch, Ottawa, Canada.

Quilez-Badia, G., McCollin, T., Josefsen, K.D., Vourdachas, A., Gill, M.E., Mesbahi, E., & Frid, 

C.L.J. (2008). On board short-time high temperature heat treatment of ballast water: A 

field trial under operational conditions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56, 127-135. 

Raikow, D.F., Reid, D.F., Blatchley, E.R.I., Jacobs, G., & Landrum, P.F. (2007). Effects of 

proposed physical ballast tank treatments on aquatic invertebrate resting eggs. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 26, 717-725. 

Reid, D.F. (2012). The Role of Osmotic Stress (Salinity Shock) in Protecting the Great Lakes 

from Ballast-Associated Aquatic Invaders. Technical Report. 

Reynolds, K., Knight, I., Wells, C., Pepper, I., & Gerba, C. (1999). Detection of human 

pathogenic protozoa and viruses in ballast water using conventional and molecular 

methods. 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. 

Rigby, G. and A.H. Taylor. (2001a). Ballast Water Treatment to Minimize the Risks of 

Introducing Nonindigenous Marine Organisms into Australian Ports. Ballast Water 

Research Series Report No. 13, Australian Government Department of Agriculture, 

Fisheries, and Forestry, Canberra, Australia, 93 pp. 

Rigby, G. and A. Taylor. (2001b). Ballast water management and treatment options. 

Transactions of the Institute of Marine Engineers 113: 79-99. 

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, G.M. and Carton, J.T. (2003). Chapter 18: Invasion Vectors: A Conceptual Framework for 

Management. In: Ruiz, G.M. and J.T. Carlton (eds.) Invasive Species: Vectors and 

Management Strategies. Island Press, Washington, DC. pp. 459-504. 

Page 192 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Ruiz, G.M., & Reid, D.F. (Ed.). (2007). Current state of understanding about the effectiveness of 

ballast water exchange (BWE) in reducing aquatic Nonindigenous species (ANS) 

introductions to the Great Lakes Basin and Chesapeake Bay, USA: synthesis and analysis 

of existing information (NOAA Technical Memorandum GLERL-142). Ann Arbor, MI: 

NOAA. 

Ruiz, G.M., Fofonoff, P.W., Carlton, J.T., Wonham, M.J., & Hines, A.H. (2000a). Invasion of 

coastal marine communities in North America: Apparent patterns, processes, and biases. 

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31, 481-531. 

Ruiz, G.M., Rawlings, T.K., Dobbs, F.C., Drake, L.A., Mullady, T., Huq, A., & Colwell, R.R. 

(2000b). Global spread of microorganisms by ships. Nature, 408, 49-50.

Ruiz, J.M., Bryan, G.W., & 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. 

Rützler, K., & Sterrer, W. (1970). Oil pollution: Damage observed in tropical communities along 

the Atlantic seaboard of Panama. BioScience, 20, 222-224. 

Sakai, A.K., Allendorf, F.W., Holt, J.S., Lodge, D.M., Molofsky, J., With, K.A., Baughman, S., 

Cabin, R.J., Cohen, J.E., Ellstrand, N.C., McCauley, D.E., O’Neil, P., Parker, I.M., 

Thompson, J.N., & Weller, S.G. (2001). The Population Biology of Invasive Species. 

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 32, 305-332. 

Schiff, K., Diehl, D., & Valkirs, A. (2004). Copper emissions from antifouling paint on 

recreational vessels. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48, 371-377. 

Science Advisory Board (SAB). (2006). SAB Review of EPA’s Draft Risk Assessment of 

Potential Human Health Effects Associated with PFOA and Its Salts. Washington, DC. 

May). Retrieved from 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/A3C83648E77252828525717F004B9099/$Fi

le/sab_06_006.pdf. 

Sekizawa, J., S. Dobson & R. Touch III. (2003). Diethyl Phthalate. World Health Organization, 

Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 52.

Shaw, D.G., Hogan, T.E., & McIntosh, D.J. (1985). Hydrocarbons in the sediments of Port 

Valdez, Alaska: Consequences of five years' permitted discharge. Estuarine, Coastal and 

Shelf Science, 21, 131-144. 

Simberloff, D. (1989). Which Insect Introductions Succeed and Which Fail? In: Drake, J.A., 

Mooney, H.A., di Castri, F., Groves, R.H., Kruger, F.J., Rejmanek, M., and Williamson, 

M. (eds.) Biological Invasions: a Global Perspective. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 

NY. pp. 61-75. 

Page 193 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Smayda, T.J. (2007). Reflections on the ballast water dispersal--harmful algal bloom paradigm. 

Ballast Water, 6, 601-622. 

SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden. (2010). Lubricating greaees which meet 

environmental requirements according to Swedish Standard SS 155470. Retrieved from 

http://www.sp.se/en/index/services/Lubricanting%20grease/Sidor/default.aspx. 

Srinivasan, M., & Swain, G.W. (2007). Managing the use of copper-based antifouling paints. 

Environmental Management, 39, 423-441. 

Stewart, J. and Everett, R. (2011). The effort to synchronize laboratories and methods of 

detection in order to provide an effective framework for the US to use in assessing 

technologies and enforcement issues. Ballast Water Treatment Technology Conference. 

London, England. July, 2011. 

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. 

Sytsma, M., J. Cordell, J. Chapman, & R. Draheim. (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. (October). Retrieved from 

http://www.clr.pdx.edu/docs/LCRANSFinalReport.pdf. 

Tamburri, M.N., Wasson, K., & Matsuda, M. (2002). Ballast water deoxygenation can prevent 

aquatic introductions while reducing ship corrosion. Invasion Biology, 103, 331-341. 

ten Hallers, C., Leppakoski, E., Sassi, J., Granitto, M., Mackey T., & Bjorkendahl, M. (2009). 

Environmental acceptability evaluation of the Hyde GUARDIAN ballast water treatment 

system as part of the Type Approval process, version 3. 

Tomaszewska, M., Orecki, A., & Karakulski, K. (2005). Treatment of bilge water using a 

combination of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis. Desalinization, 185, 203-212. 

Transport Canada. (2008). Standard for 5 ppm Bilge Alarms for Canadian Inland Waters (TP 

12301 E ). Retrieved from http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp12301-menu1494.htm 

Transport Canada. (2011). Approved Pollution Prevention Equipment - CBA (Canadian Bilge 

Alarm 5ppm). Retrieved from http://wwwapps2.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/4/apciicpa/en/APCI_SelectApprovedPollutionPreventionEquipment.asp?cat=APPE 

Trocine, R.P., & Trefry, J.H. (1996). Metal concentrations in sediment, water and clams from the 

Indian River Lagoon, Florida. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 32, 754-759. 

Page 194 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

USCG. (2008). Final evaluation assessment review of the application by Atlantic Container 

Lines for acceptance of the vessel M/V Atlantic Compass and the EcochlorTM Inc. 

Technology into the USCG Shipboard Technology Evaluation (STEP) Program.

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. 

Washington, DC. (August). Retrieved from www.regulations.gov (Docket ID: USCG2001-10486-0139.1. 

US EPA. (1999). Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards for vessels of the armed forces: 

technical development document (Rep. No. EPA 821-R-99-001). Washington DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

US EPA. (2001a). Aquatic nuisance species in ballast water discharges: issues and opinions

(Draft Report for Public Comment). Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

US EPA. (2001b). 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. 

US EPA. (2003). Biological Evaluation for the Issuance of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for 

Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal 

Tributaries. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Chesapeake 

Bay Program Office. Retrieved from 

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_28935.pdf. 

US EPA. (2007). Framework for Metals Risk Assessment. Retrieved from 

http://www.epa.gov/osa/metalsframework/.

US EPA. (2005). National Coastal Condition Report II (EPA-620-R-03-002). Washington D.C.: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

US EPA. (2008). Cruise ship discharge assessment report (EPA-842-R-07-005). Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

USEPA, National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2009. 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/upload/nrwqc2009.pdf

US EPA. (2009). Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from 

Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines. Assessment and Standards Division, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December, 2009. 

EPA-420-R-09-019. 

Page 195 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

US EPA. (2010a). 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, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

US EPA. (2010b). Designation of North American Emission Control Area to Reduce Emissions 

from Ships: Regulatory Announcement. EPA-420-F-10-015, March 2010. Retrieved from 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/420f10015.pdf. 

US EPA. (2011a). Economic and Benefits Analysis of the 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

US EPA. (2011b). Oily Bilgewater Separators. (EPA-800-R-11-007) Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

US EPA. (2011c). Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants. (EPA-800-R-11-002) Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

US EPA. (2011d). Graywater Discharges from Vessels. (EPA-800-R-11-001) Washington D.C.: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

US EPA. (2011e). Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges. (EPA-800-R-11-004) Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

US EPA. (2011f). Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Effluent. (EPA-800-R-11-006) Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

US EPA. (2011g). Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold Cleaning Wastewater Discharge. (EPA800-R-11-005) Washington D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

US EPA. (2012a). Economic and Benefits Analysis of the 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

US EPA. (2012b). Biological Evaluation of the 2013 VGP and sVGP. EPA-830-R-12-001 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

US EPA Science Advisory Board (US EPA SAB). (2011). Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment 

Systems. Report published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science 

Advisory Board. Ecological Processes and Effects Committee.

USGS. (1999). The Quality of our Nation’s Waters: Nutrients and Pesticides. USGS Circular 

1225. Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1225/. 

US Navy & US EPA. (2003a). Characterization Analysis Report. Surface Bilgewater/Oil Water 

Separator (OWS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, 

D.C., and U.S. Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C. 

Page 196 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

US Navy & US EPA. (2003b). Discharge Analysis Report. Surface Vessel Bilgewater.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C., and 

U.S. Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C. 

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

Veldhuis, M.J.W. & Fuhr, F., (2008). Final report of the land-based and ship-based testing of the

SEDNA® -System (April - July 2007). Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research. 

Veldhuis, M.J.W., Fuhr, F., & Stehouwer, P. (2009a). Final report of the land-based testing of 

the Ecochlor®-system, for Type Approval according to regulation-D2 and the relevant 

IMO guideline (April – July 2008). Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research. 

Veldhuis, M.J.W., Fuhr, F., & Stehouwer, P., (2009b). Final report of the land-based testing of 

the Hyde-GuardianTM -System, for Type Approval according to the Regulation D-2 and 

the relevant IMO Guideline (April - July 2008). Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea 

Research.

Verling et. al. (2005). Supplyside invasion ecology: characterizing propagule pressure in coastal 

ecosystems. Proceeding of the Royal Society of London B, 272, 1249-1256. 

Waldbusser et al. (2011). Biocalcification in the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) in 

Relation to Long-term Trends in Chesapeake Bay pH.” Estuaries and Coasts. Volume 34, 

Number 2 (2011), 221-231, DOI: 10.1007/s12237-010-9307-0. 

Wiese, F.K., & Ryan, P.C. (2003). The extent of chronic marine oil pollution in southeastern 

Newfoundland waters assessed through beached bird surveys 1984-1999. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 46, 1090-1101. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). (2010). Wisconsin Ballast Water 

Treatment Feasibility Determination. Prepared by Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources. Retrieved from http://www.greatlakesseaway.com/en/pdf/WI_DNR_2010_BW_Feasibility_Report_12-21-10.pdf. Accessed on 

9/6/2011 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI). (2007). Harmful Algae: What are Harmful Algal 

Blooms (HABS). Retrieved from http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/. 

Wright, D.A. (2009). Shipboard Trials of Hyde "Guardian" System in Caribbean Sea and 

Western Pacific Ocean, April 5th - October 7th, 2008. University of Maryland Center for 

Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory.

Wright S. (2010). Personal communication. 

Wurts, W.A., & Durborrow, R.M. (1992). Interactions of pH, Carbon Dioxide, Alkalinity and 

Hardness in Fish Ponds (Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Publication No. 464). 

Page 197 of 198
Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet

Victoria Environmental and Natural Resources Committee (ENRC). (1997).Report on Ballast 

Water and Hull Fouling in Victoria. Parliament of Victoria, ENRC, Victorian 

Government Printer, Melbourne, Australia. 

Zo, Y., Grimm, C., Matte, M., Matte, G., Knight, I.T., Huq, A., & Colwell, R.R. (1999). 

Detection and enumeration of pathogenic bacteria in ballast Water of Transoceanic 

Vessels Entering the Great Lakes and Resistance to Common Antibiotics. General 

Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology. Chicago, IL: American Society of 

Microbiology.

Page 198 of 198