Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

2011 Proposed Issuance of

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Vessel General Permit (VGP) for 

Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of 

Vessels

Draft Fact Sheet

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Action: Notice of NPDES General Permit
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.1 Does this Action Apply to Me? ........................................................................................ 1

1.2 Public Comment ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2.1 Submitting Comments .............................................................................................. 2

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

1.2.3 Tips for Preparing Your Comments .......................................................................... 3

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

1.3 Public Hearing, Meetings, and Webcast Information ...................................................... 4

1.3.1 Public Hearing .......................................................................................................... 4

1.3.2 Public Meetings ........................................................................................................ 4

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

1.4 Further Information .......................................................................................................... 5

2. Background ............................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 The Clean Water Act ........................................................................................................ 6

2.2 Legal Challenges .............................................................................................................. 6

2.3 Congressional Legislation ................................................................................................ 7

2.4 General Permits ................................................................................................................ 8

2.5 EPA’s Federal Register Notice Soliciting Information on Vessel Discharges ................ 9

2.6 Economic Impacts .......................................................................................................... 11

3. The Permit ............................................................................................................................. 13

3.1 Geographic Scope of the Permit ..................................................................................... 13

3.2 Structure of the Permit (Part 1.1) ................................................................................... 14

3.3 What is the Vessel Universe Affected by This Permit? ................................................. 14

3.4 Regulation of Constituents in the Discharges Under the Permit .................................... 15

3.4.1 Aquatic Nuisance Species ....................................................................................... 16

3.4.2 Nutrients .................................................................................................................. 17

3.4.3 Pathogens ................................................................................................................ 18

3.4.4 Oil and Grease......................................................................................................... 19

3.4.5 Metals ...................................................................................................................... 19

3.4.6 Toxic and Non-Conventional Pollutants with Toxic Effects .................................. 20

3.4.7 Other Non-Conventional and Conventional Pollutants (Except Fecal Coliform) .. 20

3.5 Coverage Under the Permit ............................................................................................ 21

3.5.1 Eligibility (Part 1.2) ................................................................................................ 21

3.5.1.1 Deck Washdown and Runoff and Above Water Line Hull Cleaning ............... 22

3.5.1.2 Bilgewater ......................................................................................................... 22

3.5.1.3 Ballast Water ..................................................................................................... 22

3.5.1.4 Anti-Fouling Leachate from Anti-Fouling Hull Coatings ................................ 23

3.5.1.5 Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) .............................................................. 23

3.5.1.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown.......................................................................... 23

3.5.1.7 Cathodic Protection ........................................................................................... 23

3.5.1.8 Chain Locker Effluent....................................................................................... 24

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

Interfaces including Lubrication discharges from Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes, 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

ii

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

Lubrication, and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment Subject to Immersion ............. 24

3.5.1.10 Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine .......................................................... 25

3.5.1.11 Elevator Pit Effluent ........................................................................................ 25

3.5.1.12 Firemain Systems ............................................................................................ 25

3.5.1.13 Freshwater Layup ............................................................................................ 25

3.5.1.14 Gas Turbine Water Wash ................................................................................ 26

3.5.1.15 Graywater ........................................................................................................ 26

3.5.1.16 Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge ................................................ 26

3.5.1.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater .................................................................... 26

3.5.1.18 Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge .................................................. 27

3.5.1.19 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (Including Non-Contact Engine 

Cooling Water, Hydraulic System Cooling Water, Refrigeration Cooling Water) .......... 27

3.5.1.20 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention .......................................................... 27

3.5.1.21 Boat Engine Wet Exhaust ................................................................................ 27

3.5.1.22 Sonar Dome Discharge .................................................................................... 27

3.5.1.23 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges ......................................................... 27

3.5.1.24 Welldeck Discharges ....................................................................................... 27

3.5.1.25 Graywater Mixed with Sewage from Vessels ................................................. 28

3.5.1.26 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge ................................................. 28

3.5.1.27 Fish Hold Effluent ........................................................................................... 28

3.5.2 Discharge Types Specifically Not Authorized By This Permit .............................. 29

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 .......................... 29

3.5.2.2 Sewage from Vessels ........................................................................................ 30

3.5.2.3 Used or Spent Oil .............................................................................................. 30

3.5.2.4 Rubbish, Trash, Garbage or Other Materials Discharged Overboard ............... 30

3.5.2.5 Photo Processing Waste .................................................................................... 30

3.5.2.6 Effluent from Dry Cleaning Operations ........................................................... 30

3.5.2.7 Discharges of Medical Waste and Related Materials ....................................... 30

3.5.2.8 Discharges of Noxious Liquid Substance (NLS) Residues .............................. 31

3.5.2.9 Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene) Degreasers or Other Products 

Containing Tetrachloroethylene........................................................................................ 31

3.5.2.10 Discharges Currently or Previously Covered by Another NPDES Permit ...... 31

3.6 Permit Compliance (Part 1.4) ......................................................................................... 31

3.7 Authorization Under the Permit (Part 1.5) ..................................................................... 32

3.7.1 No Requirement to Submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Certain Vessels .............. 32

3.7.2 How to Obtain Authorization (Part 1.5.1) .............................................................. 34

3.7.2.1 Owner/Operators Required to Submit NOIs (Part 1.5.1.1) ............................... 34

3.7.2.2 Owner/Operators Not Required to Submit NOIs (Part 1.5.1.2) ........................ 35

3.7.3 Continuation of the Permit (Part 1.5.2) ................................................................... 36

3.8 Terminating Coverage (Part 1.6) .................................................................................... 36

3.8.1 Submitting a Notice of Termination (NOT) (Part 1.6.1.1) ..................................... 36

3.8.2 When to Submit a Notice of Termination (Part 1.6.1.2 and Part 1.6.2) ................. 37

3.8.2.1 Terminating Coverage for Vessels Required to Submit an NOI ...................... 37

3.8.2.2 Terminating Coverage for Vessels Not Required to Submit an NOI ............... 37
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

iii

3.9 Certification (Part 1.7) .................................................................................................... 37

3.10 Alternative Permits (Part 1.8) ..................................................................................... 38

3.10.1 EPA Requiring Coverage Under an Alternative Permit (Part 1.8.1) ...................... 38

3.10.2 Permittee Requesting Coverage Under an Alternative Permit (Part 1.8.2) ............ 38

3.11 Permit Reopener Clause (Part 1.9) ............................................................................. 38

3.12 Ocean Discharge Criteria ............................................................................................ 39

3.13 Other Conditions (Parts 1.11, 1.12, and 1.13) ............................................................ 41

3.14 Electronic Reporting Requirement ............................................................................. 42

3.15 Additional Notes ......................................................................................................... 42

4. Effluent Limitations .............................................................................................................. 44

4.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 44

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

Represent the Following: ...................................................................................................... 44

4.1.1.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) ................... 44

4.1.1.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) ................................. 44

4.1.1.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) ......................... 45

4.1.2 Numeric Limitations Are Infeasible ....................................................................... 45

4.2 Technology-Based Effluent Limits ................................................................................ 46

4.2.1 Types of Technology-Based Effluent Limits .......................................................... 46

4.2.2 Inclusion of Non-Numeric Technology-Based Limits in NPDES Permits ............ 46

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.......................................................................................................... 47

4.3 Technology-Based Effluent Limits and Related Requirements in the Permit ............... 52

4.3.1 General Effluent Limits (Part 2.1) .......................................................................... 52

4.3.1.1 Material Storage (Part 2.1.1) ............................................................................. 52

4.3.1.2 Toxic and Hazardous Materials (Part 2.1.2) ..................................................... 53

4.3.1.3 Fuel Spills/Overflows (Part 2.1.3) .................................................................... 53

4.3.1.4 Discharges of Oil, Including Oily Mixtures (Part 2.1.4) .................................. 53

4.3.1.5 Compliance with Other Statutes and Regulations Applicable to Vessel 

Discharges (Part 2.1.5) ...................................................................................................... 54

4.3.1.6 General Training ............................................................................................... 56

4.4 Effluent Limits and Related Requirements for Specific Discharge Categories 

(Part 2.2) ................................................................................................................................... 57

4.4.1 Deck Washdown and Runoff Including Above Water Line Hull Cleaning 

(Part 2.2.1) ............................................................................................................................ 57

4.4.2 Bilgewater (Part 2.2.2) ............................................................................................ 58

4.4.2.1 Today’s Proposed Bilgewater Requirements .................................................... 59

4.4.2.2 Request for Comment on Whether to Include More Stringent Bilgewater 

Management Requirements for New Build Vessels and Whether to Provide Existing 

Vessels with Additional Bilgewater Management Options .............................................. 60

4.4.2.2.1 Potential Supplemental VGP Bilgewater Permit Language ....................... 61

4.4.2.2.2 Justification for Potential Supplemental VGP Bilgewater Permit 

Language .................................................................................................................... 62

4.4.2.2.3 Annual monitoring to Assure Accurate Oil Content Monitor Calibration . 67
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

iv

4.4.2.2.4 Why EPA is Considering Annual Monitoring to Assure Accurate Oil 

Content Monitor Calibration .......................................................................................... 69

4.4.2.2.5 Potential Costs of New Bilgewater Requirements ...................................... 69

4.4.3 Ballast Water (Part 2.2.3) ........................................................................................ 70

4.4.3.1 Training ............................................................................................................. 72

4.4.3.2 Ballast Water Management Plans ..................................................................... 72

4.4.3.3 Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices: Management Measures 

Required of all Vessel Owner/Operators .......................................................................... 73

4.4.3.4 Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices for Existing Bulk Carrier 

Vessels ( Commonly Known as Lakers)Built Before January 1, 2009, Confined 

Exclusively to the Great Lakes Upstream of the Welland Canal ...................................... 75

4.4.3.5 Ballast Water Treatment Measures ................................................................... 76

4.4.3.5.1 Ballast Water Management Using a Ballast Water Treatment System ........... 76

4.4.3.5.1.1 Monitoring from Vessels Using a Ballast Water Treatment System ........... 83

4.4.3.5.1.1.1 Ballast Water System Functionality Monitoring .............................. 84

4.4.3.5.1.1.2 Ballast Water Monitoring Equipment Calibration ............................ 86

4.4.3.5.1.1.3 Effluent Biological Organism Monitoring........................................ 86

4.4.3.5.1.1.4 Authorization of Residual Biocides Associated with Ballast Water 

Treatment Systems .................................................................................................. 88

4.4.3.5.1.1.5 Residual Biocide or Derivative Monitoring ..................................... 90

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 .......................................................................................................... 92

4.4.3.5.1.1.7 Ballast Water Treatment System Recordkeeping and Reporting ... 101

4.4.3.5.2 Onshore Treatment of Ballast Water ............................................................. 102

4.4.3.5.3 Use of Public Water Supply Water ............................................................... 104

4.4.3.5.4 No Discharge of Ballast Water...................................................................... 105

4.4.3.5.5 Schedule for when Ballast Water Treatment Becomes BAT (and Therefore 

Required) ....................................................................................................................... 106

4.4.3.5.6 Vessels Not Required to Meet Part 2.2.3.5 Treatment Standards ................. 108

4.4.3.5.6.1 Vessels Engaged in Short-Distance Voyages ........................................... 109

4.4.3.5.6.2 Unmanned, Unpowered Barges ................................................................ 110

4.4.3.5.6.3 Existing Bulk Carrier Vessels (Commonly Known as Lakers) Built Before 

January 1, 2009, Confined Exclusively to the Great Lakes Upstream of the Welland 

Canal .................................................................................................................. 111

4.4.3.5.7 Data Sources and Request for Comment on the Status of Ballast Water 

Treatment Technologies ............................................................................................... 113

4.4.3.5.8 EPA’s Request for Comment on the “California Ballast Water Treatment 

Standards” .................................................................................................................. 113

4.4.3.6 Interim Requirements for Vessels Not Meeting the Ballast Water Management 

Measures in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP .............................................................................. 114

4.4.3.6.1 Requirements for Oceangoing Voyages While Carrying Ballast Water ....... 114

4.4.3.6.2 Vessels Carrying Ballast Water Engaged in Pacific Nearshore Voyages ..... 115

4.4.3.6.3 Mandatory Saltwater Flushing ...................................................................... 116

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

Practicable ....................................................................................................................... 118

4.4.3.6.5 Requirements for Tankers Engaged in the Coastwise Trade ........................ 118
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

v 

4.4.3.7 Vessels Entering the Great Lakes ................................................................... 118

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

(STEP) ......................................................................................................................... 119

4.4.3.9 Narrative Water Quality Based Effluent Limit Applicable to Ballast Water 

Discharges ....................................................................................................................... 120

4.4.3.9.1 EPA’s Charge to the NAS ........................................................................ 120

4.4.3.9.2 Effectiveness of the TBEL at Addressing Water Quality Impacts ........... 122

4.4.3.9.3 Reasonable Potential Determination for Ballast Water Discharges ......... 124

4.4.3.9.4 Ballast Water WQBELs ............................................................................ 125

4.4.3.9.4.1 WQBELs are Infeasible to Calculate ........................................................ 125

4.4.3.9.4.2 WQBELs in Today’s Permit ..................................................................... 126

4.4.4 Antifouling Hull Coating Leachate (Part 2.2.4).................................................... 127

4.4.5 Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) (Part 2.2.5) .............................................. 130

4.4.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown (Part 2.2.6) .......................................................... 131

4.4.7 Cathodic Protection (Part 2.2.7)............................................................................ 131

4.4.8 Chain Locker Effluent (Part 2.2.8) ....................................................................... 132

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). ............................................................................................................................... 133

4.4.10 Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine (Part 2.2.10) .......................................... 136

4.4.11 Elevator Pit Effluent (Part 2.2.11) ........................................................................ 136

4.4.12 Firemain Systems (Part 2.2.12) ............................................................................. 136

4.4.13 Freshwater Layup (Part 2.2.13) ............................................................................ 137

4.4.14 Gas Turbine Wash Water (Part 2.2.14) ................................................................. 137

4.4.15 Graywater (Part 2.2.15)......................................................................................... 137

4.4.15.1 Additional Graywater Requirements for Vessels Operating in the 

Great Lakes ..................................................................................................................... 139

4.4.15.2 Graywater Monitoring ................................................................................... 139

4.4.16 Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge (Part 2.2.16) ................................ 140

4.4.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater (Part 2.2.17) .................................................... 140

4.4.18 Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge (Part 2.2.18) .................................. 141

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

Water; Hydraulic System Cooling Water, Refrigeration Cooling Water) (Part 2.2.19) ..... 141

4.4.20 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention (Part 2.2.20) ........................................... 141

4.4.21 Boat Wet Engine Exhaust (Part 2.2.21) ................................................................ 142

4.4.22 Sonar Dome Discharge (Part 2.2.22) .................................................................... 143

4.4.23 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges (Part 2.2.23) ......................................... 143

4.4.24 Welldeck Discharges (Part 2.2.24) ....................................................................... 144

4.4.25 Graywater Mixed with Sewage from Vessels (Part 2.2.25).................................. 144

4.4.26 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge (Part 2.2.26) .................................. 145

4.4.27 Fish Hold Effluent................................................................................................. 148

4.5 Additional Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits (Part 2.3) ........................................ 149

5. Corrective Actions (Part 3) ................................................................................................. 151

5.1 Purpose of Corrective Action Schedules ...................................................................... 151
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

vi 

6. Inspections, Monitoring, Reporting, Recordkeeping (Part 4) ............................................. 152

6.1 Self-Inspections and Monitoring (Part 4.1) .................................................................. 153

6.2 Drydocking Inspection Reports (Part 4.1.4) ................................................................. 157

6.3 Recordkeeping Requirements (Parts 4.2 and 4.3) ........................................................ 157

6.3.1 Electronic Records ................................................................................................ 158

6.4 Reporting (Part 4.4) ...................................................................................................... 160

6.4.1 Annual Report ....................................................................................................... 160

6.4.2 Combined Annual Reports for Unmanned, Unpowered Barges ........................... 161

6.5 Applicability of Inspection and Recordkeeping Requirement for Vessels Leaving 

Waters Subject to This Permit ................................................................................................ 162

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

(Vessel Class-Specific Requirements) (Part 5) ........................................................................... 163

7.1 Large Cruise Ships (Part 5.1) ....................................................................................... 163

7.1.1 Graywater Management ........................................................................................ 163

7.1.1.1 Pierside Limits ................................................................................................ 166

7.1.1.2 Operational Limits .......................................................................................... 166

7.1.1.3 Limits Applicable to Operation in Nutrient Impaired Waters ........................ 167

7.1.1.4 Graywater Treatment Standards ..................................................................... 168

7.1.1.5 Sculleries and Galleys ..................................................................................... 168

7.1.1.6 Other Materials ............................................................................................... 168

7.1.1.7 Pool and Spa Discharges ................................................................................. 169

7.1.2 Monitoring Requirements (Part 5.1.2) .................................................................. 169

7.1.2.1 Untreated Graywater ....................................................................................... 170

7.1.2.2 Treated Graywater .......................................................................................... 170

7.1.2.3 Initial Monitoring ............................................................................................ 170

7.1.2.4 Maintenance Monitoring ................................................................................. 171

7.1.2.5 Treated Pool and Spa Discharges (5.1.2.3) ..................................................... 171

7.1.2.6 Monitoring Reporting ..................................................................................... 172

7.1.2.7 Reserved Authority ......................................................................................... 172

7.1.3 Education and Training Requirements (Part 5.1.3) .............................................. 172

7.2 Medium Cruise Ships [Part 5.2] ................................................................................... 173

7.2.1 Differences Between the Requirements for Large Cruise Ships and Medium 

Cruise Ships ........................................................................................................................ 173

7.2.1.1 Different Requirements in Nutrient Impaired Estuaries ................................. 174

7.2.1.2 Differences for Existing Medium Cruise Ships Built Before December 19, 

2008 Unable to Voyage More than 1 nm from Shore ..................................................... 174

7.3 Large Ferries (Part 5.3) ................................................................................................ 175

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

Dry Bulk Cargo Barges) (Part 5.4) ......................................................................................... 176

7.5 Oil and Petroleum Tankers (Part 5.5) ........................................................................... 177

7.6 Research Vessels (Part 5.6) .......................................................................................... 178

7.7 Emergency Vessels (Part 5.7) ...................................................................................... 178

8. State or Tribal Requirements (Part 6) ................................................................................. 179

9. Definitions (Appendix A) ................................................................................................... 179

10. Notice of Intent and Notice of Termination (Appendix E and F) ................................... 179
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

vii 

11. Waters Federally Protected Wholly or in Part for Conservation Purposes 

[Appendix G] .............................................................................................................................. 180

12. Other Legal Requirements .............................................................................................. 180

12.1 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) ................................................................. 180

12.2 Endangered Species Consultation ............................................................................ 180

12.3 Essential Fish Habitat Consultation .......................................................................... 181

12.4 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act .................................................... 181

12.5 Oil Spill Requirements ............................................................................................. 181

12.6 Paperwork Reduction Act ......................................................................................... 182

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

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations .............................................................. 182

13. References ....................................................................................................................... 183

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Estimates of Invasive Species in Several Major Water Systems .................................... 16

Table 2: Summary of Type Approval and Shipboard Monitoring Data for Bilgewater 

Separators .............................................................................................................................. 64

Table 3: 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) ....................................................................... 74

Table 4: AWT Effluent Concentrations and Removals .............................................................. 164

LIST OF FIGURES

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

Government of Japan (MEPC 61/2/17). ............................................................................. 107
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

1 

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

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

changes in response to such comments. 

1.1 DOES THIS ACTION APPLY TO ME? 

This 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 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 covered under 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 PUBLIC COMMENT

EPA is soliciting comment on the draft Vessel General Permit (VGP). Comments on any 

provision of the permit, or comments on the fact sheet discussion, are welcome.2 The comment 

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

permit. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, except for material claimed 

as confidential business information (see Section 1.2.2 below). 

 

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.”

2 Note that in many places, EPA requests comments on specific aspects of today’s draft permit; these specific 

solicitations are meant to highlight for commenters areas on which they may wish to focus, most often because they 

involve provisions not contained in the 2008 VGP. They should not be interpreted as discouraging comment on 

other provisions of the draft permit.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

2 

1.2.1Submitting Comments

Comments may be submitted to EPA in the following ways:

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

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

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

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

0141. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know 

your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. 

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

Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW- 2011-0141. In contrast to EPA's electronic 

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

an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic 

public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. Email addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included 

as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available 

in EPA's electronic public docket. 

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

the mailing address identified below. These electronic submissions will be accepted 

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

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

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

encryption. 

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

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

Washington, DC, 20460, Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW- 2011-0141. 

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

Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 

20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW- 2011-0141. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified below. Special 

arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. 

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

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

EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part of all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then electronically identify within the disk or CDROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the 

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

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

marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

3 

1.2.3Tips for Preparing Your Comments

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

address them in a timely manner.

1. Identify the permit by docket number and other identifying information (subject 

heading, Federal Register date, and page number). 

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

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

draft NPDES Vessel General Permit for discharges incidental to the normal operation 

of commercial and large recreational vessels (VGP), also proposed today, for further 

information on issues associated with permitting vessel discharges. 

3. Describe any assumptions, and provide any technical information and/or data that you 

used. 

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

sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 

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

6. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline. EPA is not 

obligated to accept or consider late comments.

1.2.4 How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

comments. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water Docket is (202) 566-1744. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

4 

1.3 PUBLIC HEARING, MEETINGS, AND WEBCAST INFORMATION

1.3.1 Public Hearing 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.3.2Public Meetings

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

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

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

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

• Monday January 23, 2012, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. CST or until all comments have been heard, 

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

60604. 

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

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

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

scheduled to occur. 

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

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

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

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

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

address listed under ADDRESSES in Section 1.2.1 above. 

1.3.3Webcast

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

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

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

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

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

EPA also plans to make a recording of this webcast available on its webpage for future playback. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

5 

1.4 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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

6 

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). 

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.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

7 

In response to the court decisions, EPA issued the VGP in December 2008.3 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 draft permit or may be obtained at: 

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

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, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14996, Page 20 (D.C. Cir. July 

22, 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 

 

3 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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

8 

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. 

In addition, the statute’s NPDES permitting moratorium does not extend to ballast water 

discharges. That moratorium also does not extend to other discharges, which on a case-by-case 

basis, EPA or the State, as appropriate, determine contribute to a violation of water quality 

standards or pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. 

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 3.7of 

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 proposed reissuance 

of the VGP includes a 4-year permit term. EPA is proposing a 4-year permit term for this draft 

VGP as a way to ensure that the permit keeps pace with developing technologies, especially for 

ballast water treatment. EPA is specifically seeking comment on the merits of a shortened 

permit term. EPA also requests comment on a 5-year permit term (the maximum allowed under 

the CWA) and may adopt either a 4-year or a 5-year term in the final permit. The 2008 VGP 

runs for a 5-year term.

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

9 

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. 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 III(a)(v) 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 EPA’S FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE SOLICITING INFORMATION ON VESSEL DISCHARGES 

On October 29, 2010, EPA issued a Federal Register notice announcing the opportunity to 

participate in a public listening session on December 15, 2010. The purpose of the public 

listening session was to seek the views of the interested public on requirements currently 

included in the 2008 VGP and any changes or additions recommended for the next VGP. The 

notice sought public input on potential improvements for the next VGP. 

In addition, EPA specifically requested comment on the following topics: 

(1) Were parts of the 2008 VGP confusing? Do certain sections need to provide 

additional guidance? 

(2) Are there any guidances, supporting documentation, or other communication 

strategies that you would recommend EPA develop to help vessel owner/operators 

better understand and comply with the next VGP? If so, please suggest your 

approaches.

(3) Did the 2008 VGP accurately identify and capture all the categories of discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of a vessel in the vessel universe? Are there 

additional discharge categories EPA should explore for the next VGP? 

(4) Are there effluent limitations or best management practices in the 2008 VGP you 

would recommend revising and if so, what are your suggestions and why do you 

suggest making those revisions? 

(5) Are there reporting, monitoring, and inspection requirements you would recommend 

revising, and if so, what are your suggestions? Are there additional forms or 

guidances EPA should consider in assisting permittees in meeting their reporting, 

monitoring, and inspections requirements? 

(6) Did EPA accurately identify and capture additional requirements needed for specific 

vessel classes and if not, what are your suggestions? Are there additional specific

vessel classes EPA should explore for the next VGP and why? 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

10 

(7) Are there additional Federal, State, or international permits, rules, or guidances EPA 

should consider using to inform decisions for the next VGP and why? 

Between 100-150 people participated in the listening session in person or by phone. In 

addition to comments received at the listening session, EPA received written comments from 

more than 4,500 stakeholders. All comments submitted by the public are available at 

www.regulations.gov and can be found under docket number "EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141". 

The majority of comments received were from a mass mailer campaign sponsored by the 

National Wildlife Federation and the Alliance for the Great Lakes. There were also three smaller 

campaigns led by three different shipping industry groups. Overall, the majority of comments 

focused on developing ballast water discharge standards for the next VGP, improving the VGP’s 

efficiency, and improving the VGP’s consistency with state, federal, and international 

regulations and standards. 

Developing Ballast Water Standards for the Next VGP

The majority of comments focused on the development of ballast water conditions for this 

iteration of the VGP. Many commenters asserted that any ballast water conditions should be 

based on science, including results from National Academy of Science and EPA Science 

Advisory Board studies commissioned by EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard. Several commenters 

also noted that EPA should consider the availability of ballast water treatment technologies. 

Many environmental groups and state government agencies called for more stringent ballast 

water standards than those contained in the International Convention for the Control and 

Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (2004), as adopted by the International 

Maritime Organization,4 with many commenters advocating a zero discharge standard. 

Additionally, many commenters expressed a desire that any ballast water standard adopted in 

today’s proposed VGP be equally effective in reducing the spread of invasive species in 

freshwater systems, such as those in the Great Lakes or Saint Lawrence Seaway, as of those in 

saltwater systems. 

EPA considered these comments as it developed the proposed concentration-based numeric 

limits contained in Part 2.2.3 of this draft VGP. 

Improving the VGP’s Efficiency 

Many comments focused on providing vessel owner/operators the option to keep records 

electronically. Commenters pointed out that electronic recordkeeping would reduce the amount 

of paper that would be produced, resolve concerns over where paper records could be kept 

onboard unmanned barges, and ease the transfer of records for unmanned barges which may 

change custody frequently over short periods of time. Other commenters have found the 

reporting of discharges of hazardous substances or oil in excess of reportable quantities (see Part 

4.4.2 of the 2008 VGP) to both the U.S. Coast Guard (through the National Response Center) 

and the EPA Regional Office as unnecessarily duplicative. Commenters suggested that EPA 

 

4 This convention is not yet in force and the U.S. is not a signatory.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

11 

coordinate with the National Response Center so that any reports received at the National 

Response Center are automatically forwarded to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. 

Additionally, several members of the regulated community asked that some of the 

language in the inspections, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping in Part 4 of the permit be 

made clearer. For example, commenters suggested that EPA reduce the administrative burden for 

conducting routine inspections for vessels in extended out of service layups and vessels that go 

on voyages multiple times a day by including specific requirements for those vessels. Other 

commenters expressed a desire for EPA to reduce the 30-day waiting period required for a 

vessel’s Notice of Intent (NOI) to become active. The waiting period in the 2008 VGP caused 

problems for vessels without active NOIs that had to call on U.S. waters unexpectedly. 

EPA considered these comments, and has made several efficiency improvements in today’s 

draft permit, including clarifying that electronic recordkeeping is allowed under the permit, 

eliminating duplicative reporting, reducing the NOI waiting period for NOIs submitted 

electronically from 30 to 7 days, trimming down some of the recordkeeping requirements for 

certain types of vessels, and streamlining routine inspection frequency requirements for ‘fleeted’ 

vessels or vessels in lay-up. Based on comments received, EPA is also proposing to improve the 

eNOI system by creating several time saving tools, which are expected to be available by this 

permit’s effective date.

Improving the VGP’s Consistency with State, Federal, and International Regulations and 

Standards 

Many commenters wanted EPA to improve coordination of the Section 401 certification 

process with the States, especially with those in the Great Lakes region, to increase the 

consistency of vessel discharge requirements, both regionally and nationally. Additionally, there 

was concern that the Coast Guard’s final ballast water discharge standard rule may not be 

consistent with ballast water discharge requirements in today’s permit. Commenters urged EPA 

to work closely with the U.S. Coast Guard to ensure a nationally consistent ballast water 

standard. Finally, members of the regulated vessel community that operates in the Great Lakes 

proposed that EPA develop ballast water standards that are consistent with standards developed 

by Canada and the International Maritime Organization.

EPA is working closely with the U.S. Coast Guard as both agencies develop ballast water 

discharge standards under their respective statutory mandates. Furthermore, EPA intends to 

assist the States in coordinating with each other and EPA as they develop their 401 certification 

conditions for this iteration of the VGP. 

2.6 ECONOMIC IMPACTS

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

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

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

in the docket for this permit. Based on this assessment, EPA concludes that despite a minimal 

economic impact on all entities, including small businesses, this permit will not, if issued have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

12 

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 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,

5

 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 $6.5 and $20.9 million (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 ballast water 

provisions of this permit for domestically flagged vessels are expected to cost between $1.1 and 

$2.5 million annually (excluding the cost of purchasing and maintaining a ballast water treatment 

system: see Section 4.4.3 of this fact sheet and part 4.2.3 of the economic and benefits analysis 

prepared for this permit for additional discussion). The average per vessel cost ranges from $26 

to $3,933. 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 rather than incremental costs incurred by any given vessel 

owner. 

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 Vessel General Permit on 

small entities, EPA used a cost-to-revenue test to evaluate the potential severity of economic 

 

5 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.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

13 

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.

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. The total number of entities expected to exceed 

a 1% cost ratio ranges from 52 under low cost assumptions to 360 under high cost assumptions. 

Of this universe, the total number of entities expected to exceed a 3 % cost ratio ranges from 0 

under low cost assumptions to 11 under high cost assumptions. This is based out of 5,480 total 

small firms. Accordingly, EPA concludes that this permit will not, if issued result in a 

significant economic impact on any businesses, and in particular, small 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 excluded under 40 CFR 122.3 are not “subject to” authorized state 

programs. The vessel discharges that will be covered by the permit are discharges excluded from 

NPDES permitting programs under 40 CFR 122.3. Therefore the discharges at issue are not 

considered a part of any currently authorized state NPDES program. See 40 CFR 123.1(i)(2) 

(where state programs have a greater scope of coverage than “required” under the federal 

program, that additional coverage is not part of the authorized program) and 40 CFR 123.1(g)(1) 

(authorized state programs are not required to prohibit point source discharges exempted under 

40 CFR122.3). 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

14 

3.2 STRUCTURE OF THE PERMIT (PART 1.1)6

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. These additional requirements will be 

incorporated into Part 6 of the permit upon finalization of the VGP (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). 

EPA estimates that the domestic vessel population subject to the Vessel General Permit 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 

 

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

aid to the reader.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

15 

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 (EPA, 2011). 

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 

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

action of chemicals”; and “garbage” as “worthless matter, trash”).7 

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) 

 

7 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.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

16 

(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 Once every 28 weeks

2 1822

Mississippi River System Unknown 1003

San Francisco Bay Once every 14 weeks

4 2344

Lower Columbia River Basin Once every 22 weeks

5 815

Gulf of Mexico Unknown 7046

1 

Ruiz and Reid (2007) suggest that these figures may not reliably represent the true rate 

of introduction, as they are based on discovery data, which may not always track with 

the underlying rate of introduction. 

2 

Ricciardi 2006. 

3 

USCG 2009. 

4 

Cohen and Carlton 1998. 

5 

Sytsma et al. 2004. 

6 Battelle 2000.

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

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

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

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

tourism.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

17 

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). 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

18 

• 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 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

19 

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 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

20 

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). 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

21 

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 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

22 

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 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

23 

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 prohibit 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. 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

24 

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. 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

25 

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. His 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 

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 nonpressurized and are often used for secondary purposes onboard vessels (e.g., deck and equipment 

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

purposes that result in other 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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

26 

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 byproducts 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 draft 

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 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

27 

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. 

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 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, hull 

repair, fiberglass repair, welding, sonar dome repair, non-destructive 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

28 

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 USC §§ 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. 

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 on-board 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

29 

available at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels (US EPA 2010a) and in the docket for today’s draft 

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 proposed 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). 

“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). 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

30 

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 C.F.R. 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. 

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 TCE, perchloroethylene, or PERC, is a highly toxic 

substance primarily used by the dry cleaning industry. When humans are exposed to TCE it can 

cause dizziness, headache, nausea, nervous system problems, unconsciousness, and death. It is a 

probable human carcinogen. TCE is toxic at low levels and can contaminate soil and water. TCE 

discharges associated with dry-cleaning activities on 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

31 

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) Degreasers or Other Products Containing 

Tetrachloroethylene 

Any degreasers containing TCE are not authorized for discharge into waters subject to this 

permit. In developing the 2008 VGP, EPA compared the cost of TCE degreasers to products not 

containing TCE and determined that other viable products are available and use of those products 

is economically practicable and achievable (ABT, 2008). 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

32 

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 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. We request comment on this approach, which is essentially the same as the 

approach used in the 2008 VGP. 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

33 

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. 

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.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

34 

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 today proposing 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.

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

35 

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. The discharge 

authorization date for these vessels is 7 days after the complete electronic NOI is received by 

EPA .

For both new and existing vessels that submit a paper NOI, the discharge authorization 

date is 30 days after the NOI is processed by EPA. 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

36 

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. 

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 proposed 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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

37 

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

3.8.2.1 Terminating Coverage for Vessels Required to Submit an NOI 

If a permittee was required to submit an NOI, and subsequently meets one of the 

conditions identified in Part 1.6.1.2, he/she must submit an NOT, preferably to the eNOI system. 

An NOT is required to be submitted within 30 days after one or more of the following conditions 

has been met: (1) a new owner or operator has assumed 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). 

However, even if the NOT has been posted on the website, the NOT is invalid and the permittee 

must continue to comply with the permit. The permittee has a continuing obligation to comply 

with all permit conditions until a compliant NOT is submitted to EPA and posted on EPA’s 

website. 

3.8.2.2 Terminating Coverage for Vessels Not Required to Submit an NOI 

If a vessel owner/operator is not required to submit an NOI, the vessel’s permit coverage is 

automatically terminated if: (1) a new owner or operator has assumed responsibility for the 

vessel; (2) operation of the vessel has permanently ceased in waters subject to this permit and 

there are no longer vessel 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

38 

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. 

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 

result 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. 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: 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

39 

• 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.

The language in the permit pertaining to what may constitute new information with respect 

to ballast water discharges is included in the draft permit to emphasize the Agency’s intention to 

keep pace with new technologies as they develop. EPA specifically requests comment on 

including this new language in the next VGP.

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. It thus is subject to the Ocean 

Discharge Criteria regulation with respect to discharges incidental to the normal operation of 

such vessels into the territorial seas. For purposes of this evaluation, the territorial seas means the 

belt of the seas measured from the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast 

which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland 

waters, and extending seaward a distance of three miles (33 U.S.C. 1362(8)). 

Under 40 CFR 125.123(a), if EPA, on the basis of available information determines prior 

to permit issuance that the discharges authorized will not cause unreasonable degradation of the 

marine environment, EPA may issue an NPDES permit, which may be conditioned as necessary 

to assure that the discharge will not cause unreasonable degradation. 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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

40 

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 C.F.R. 125.122(a). In addition, the 

Ocean Discharge Criteria establish a presumption that discharges in compliance with state water 

quality standards will not cause unreasonable degradation with respect to the pollutants subject 

to those standards. 40 C.F.R. 125.122(b). After consideration of the Ocean Discharge Criteria, 

EPA has determined that the discharges authorized by the NPDES permit into the territorial seas 

in accordance with permit requirements will not cause unreasonable degradation of the receiving 

waters. 

The discharges 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. 

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 will prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine 

environment. 

In developing the permit, the Agency has taken into consideration that discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of vessels 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 will prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine 

environment. 

The Agency also has taken into account the biological communities and receiving waters 

that would be exposed to the discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels that will be 

authorized by the permit. This consideration has necessarily been complicated by the fact that 

vessels have the potential to traverse vast distances in the territorial sea while discharging. The 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

41 

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 C.F.R. Part 922 and 50 C.F.R. 

Part 404 (Part 2.1.5), the permit includes other conditions to impose additional controls and 

requirements on covered discharges in 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 

Permit). In addition, EPA will request 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 will be incorporated into Part 6 of the permit, 

pursuant to CWA section 401, CZMA section 307(c), and implementing regulations. Under 40 

C.F.R. 125.122(b), EPA presumes that discharges in compliance with state water quality 

standards will not 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 included will not cause unreasonable degradation of the 

marine environment. 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

42 

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: 

• 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 is specifically requesting comment on whether requiring a waiver to allow for paper 

submissions is appropriate, and whether EPA has established appropriate reasons for allowing a 

waiver.

EPA will 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

43 

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. 

Although EPA is not required to respond to late comments on this draft permit, EPA does 

intend to consider and respond to any comments submitted to the Agency regarding the 

incorporation into this permit of requirements imposed after the close of the comment period but 

before final permit issuance as long as the commenter submits them to the Agency promptly 

after the adoption of the requirement and clearly indicates that the comments address the 

incorporation by reference issue. EPA requests comment on this approach to incorporation by 

reference of other applicable requirements. EPA's proposed approach deviates from the 2008 

VGP approach of incorporating requirements as they were in effect on the date of VGP proposal; 

EPA proposes this change to ensure that the requirements ultimately adopted in the permit are as 

current as possible. EPA also requests comment on the approach of making the referenced 

provisions applicable as they are in effect at the time of discharge (i.e., an approach where the 

permit would automatically incorporate future changes to referenced provisions). EPA seeks 

comment on the pros and cons of such an approach. 

Additionally, EPA specifically requests comment on whether the draft permit appropriately 

addresses the responsibility of the master to ensure the safety and stability of the vessel and the 

safety of the crew and passengers at all times (as EPA intends) and whether the Agency has 

identified all appropriate permit requirements where safety provisions should be specified. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

44 

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 non-conventional 

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). 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

45 

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, nonwater quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements, and other such factors as 

the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in 

assigning the weight accorded to these factors. BAT limitations may be based on effluent 

reductions attainable through changes in a facility's processes and operations. Where existing 

performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher level of performance than is 

currently being achieved within a particular subcategory based on technology transferred from a 

different subcategory or category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal controls, 

even when these technologies are not common industry practice. 

This permit contains effluent limits that correspond to required levels of technology-based 

control (BPT, BCT, BAT) for various discharges under the CWA. Some effluent limits have 

been established by examining other existing laws and requirements. Where these laws already 

exist, it was deemed feasible for the operators to implement these practices as effluent limits in 

this permit. Because these are demonstrated practices, EPA has found that they are 

technologically available and economically practicable (BPT) or achievable (BAT). In some 

cases, such as with 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.8 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 

 

8 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). 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

46 

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). 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

47 

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 Control 

Non-numeric Limits

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

48 

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.9

• 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 

pollutant control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT) and the best available technology 

economically achievable (BAT) for toxic and non-conventional pollutants. EPA has determined 

 

9 These types of effluent limits allow owner/operators to use control measures appropriate for their vessels to meet 

those limits.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

49 

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 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 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

50 

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 $6.5 million and $20.9 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 (EPA, 2011) 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. 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

51 

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 and Request for Comment 

EPA finds establishing technology-based controls that can be required of all commercial 

vessels over a certain size, in many different waters, under many different weather and 

operational situations, to be a very challenging task. EPA expressly solicits comment on whether 

the controls in this permit represent the BPT, BCT and BAT levels of control. After 

consideration of comments received in response to the Federal Register Notice entitled 

“Listening Session Seeking Suggestions for Improving the Next National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation 

of Vessels”, information used in formulation of the proposed permit, and experience 

implementing the first VGP, 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 vessel discharge types, BMPs available for these discharge types, and the effectiveness 

of given BMPs or behavioral practices. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

52 

EPA considered these data and how to design a permit that was environmentally protective 

and included the best practicable technology and best available technology economically 

achievable in formulating the permit. EPA expressly solicits comment on whether the controls in 

this permit represent the BPT, BCT and BAT levels of control. If commenters believe that the 

proposed controls do not, or that other controls would better represent the BPT, BCT or BAT 

levels of control, EPA requests that comments explicitly provide data and information about the 

applicability of such controls to all types of commercial vessels in all weather/operating 

situations, and the costs and non-water quality environmental impacts, including energy impacts, 

of such options. 

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, 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

53 

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 

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. 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

54 

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 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

55 

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 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

56 

oil or hazardous substances into these areas in such quantities as may be harmful. Further, the 

Act states that the President shall, by regulation, determine those quantities of oil and any 

hazardous substances that may be harmful if discharged. 

EPA has defined oil quantities that “may be harmful” as those that violate applicable water 

quality standards or “cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or 

adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the 

water or upon 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 research, approved by the EPA Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides and Toxic Substances, and ensure that the pesticide, when used according to the label, 

can be used so that it will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on humans or the environment. 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

57 

(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, 

chief engineer, and/or any key staff must understand how to properly operate and maintain an 

onboard ballast water treatment system as applicable. 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. 

Because this a new permit condition, EPA specifically requests comment on its inclusion in the 

2013 VGP. 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

58 

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.10 EPA is also 

requiring that vessel operators minimize contamination of deck runoff discharges by debris, 

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 non-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable cleaners and 

detergents, as those terms are defined in Part 7 of the permit. 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. 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 (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 

 

10 A vessel’s class society establishes technical standards related to the design, construction, and survey of a vessel. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

59 

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.

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 9377-2:200011 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 proposes to maintain most of the best 

management practices and numeric limits contained in the 2008 VGP. Additionally, EPA is 

requesting comment on whether to require a 5 ppm oil concentration limit for new build vessels 

greater than 400 gross tons which elect to discharge bilgewater into waters subject to this permit.

4.4.2.1 Today’s Proposed 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 

 

11 This analytical method is “Water quality -- Determination of hydrocarbon oil index -- Part 2: Method using 

solvent extraction and gas chromatography”.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

60 

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.

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 and pierside unless requested to do so by EPA or its 

authorized representative. 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 

unless requested to do so by EPA or its authorized representative. 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 

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 Request for Comment on Whether to Include More Stringent Bilgewater Management 

Requirements for New Build Vessels and Whether to Provide Existing Vessels with 

Additional Bilgewater Management Options 

EPA is specifically seeking 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 has researched the state of 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

61 

bilgewater treatment systems and believes that a targeted reduction in the bilgewater effluent 

limit to 5 ppm oil and grease in U.S. waters may be appropriate, as technology meeting such a 

limit is available for all vessels and economically achievable for at least new build vessels. 

However, EPA is not including this option in today’s draft permit due to concerns that have been 

raised regarding implementation that call into question whether these systems are, in practice, 

“available. In the discussion below, EPA details the option under consideration, explains the 

information it has regarding whether the approach reflects BAT, and specifically requests 

comment on a variety of associated issues.

4.4.2.2.1 Potential Supplemental VGP Bilgewater Permit Language

EPA seeks comment on the specifics of the following potential permit language which 

could be inserted into Part 2.2.2 of the final VGP. That language would read as follows 

(additions from today’s proposed VGP language are italicized): 

• Existing vessels (those constructed on or before December 18, 2013) greater than 400 

gross tons that regularly sail outside the territorial sea (at least once per month) shall not 

discharge treated bilgewater within 1 nm of shore if technologically feasible (e.g., 

holding would not impact safety and stability, would not contaminate other holds or 

cargo, or would not interfere with essential operations of the vessel), unless the vessel 

meets the requirements found in Part 2.2.2.1 of this permit. Any discharge which is not 

technologically feasible to avoid must be documented as part of the requirements in Part 

4.2. 

• New vessels greater than 400 gross tons that are constructed on or after December 19, 

2013 may only discharge bilgewater in waters subject to this permit if they meet the 

conditions found in Part 2.2.2.1 of the permit. 

• For vessels greater than 400 gross tons that regularly sail outside the territorial sea (at 

least once per month), if treated bilgewater is discharged into waters subject to this 

permit, it must be discharged when the vessel is underway (sailing at speeds greater than 

6 knots), unless doing so would threaten the safety and stability of the ship or the 

discharge meets the requirements of Part 2.2.2.1 of the permit. 

2.2.2.1 Bilgewater Effluent Standards for Certain Vessels 

This part applies to vessels that are bound for or departing from a U.S. port or place as 

follows:

• Existing vessels greater than 400 gross tons that regularly sail outside the territorial sea 

(at least once per month) which elect to discharge treated bilgewater within 1 nm of 

shore even though it is technologically feasible to hold; and 

• New vessels greater than 400 gross tons constructed on or after December 19, 2013 

which discharge treated bilgewater into any waters subject to this permit. 

Vessels subject to this Part may discharge treated bilgewater only if their discharge meets 

the following conditions: 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

62 

• The oil content of that discharge must be at or below 5 ppm. 

• The vessel must be equipped with an oily-water bilge alarm that is capable of detecting to 

5 ppm. This alarm must prevent the discharge of any bilgewater with an oil content of 

greater than 5 ppm. 

4.4.2.2.2 Justification for Potential Supplemental VGP Bilgewater Permit Language

The draft VGP permit language on which EPA seeks comment above would allow existing 

ocean going vessels to elect to discharge bilgewater instead of holding it (even if it is 

technologically feasible to do so), if they had the treatment capability to meet the more stringent 

standards in Part 2.2.2.1 of the permit. Though treatment technologies to meet the standards in 

Part 2.2.2.1 are available, EPA believes that requiring existing vessels greater than 400 gross 

tons to install these systems prior to coverage under this permit is not economically achievable 

(EPA, 2011). This is because, although EPA believes that the incremental cost increase of 

purchasing a new bilgewater separator that can achieve 5 ppm versus 15 ppm is not substantial; 

mandating replacement of functional systems adds significantly more cost as the full cost of the 

retrofit plus the cost of the new system must be considered. This extra flexibility for existing 

vessels would allow owner/operators to comply with the requirements of the permit, while 

offering an aggressive treatment alternative (i.e., discharging oil and grease at no greater than 

5ppm) to holding bilgewater for discharge beyond 1 nm from shore. (EPA is seeking comment 

as to whether these requirements, taken as a whole, are technologically available and 

economically practicable and achievable for permittees.12, 13 As discussed above, EPA is 

specifically requesting comment on these determinations.

EPA notes that technologies for oil separators that meet the 5 ppm standard, including 

adsorption and absorption, coagulation, and ultrafiltration have been documented to remove 

other pollutants, including metals, turbidity, and organic pollutants (Ather, 1995; Cheryan and 

Rajagopalan, 1998; Tomaszewska et al., 2005). EPA specifically requests comment on 

additional data which demonstrates the extent to which these technologies remove these 

pollutants. 

 

12 EPA has gathered numerous sources of information regarding the efficacy and costs of bilgewater treatment 

systems. The sources, including peer reviewed literature and data summaries of treated bilgewater effluent taken 

from both type approval tests and from vessels discharging treated effluent, show that several bilgewater systems are 

capable of treating bilgewater effluent to a 5 ppm standard. These sources, many of which have been published 

since proposal and finalization of the first VGP in 2008, are contained in the docket for this permit (Gryta et al. 

2001, ERG 2004, AFCAN 2006, Lawson 2010, Penny & Suominen-Yeh 2006, Nielsen 2010, Ghidossi et al. 2009, 

Mattsson 2010, Wright 2010, Chan 2010, Medich 2010) . 

13 EPA also reviewed bilgewater sampling data for armed forces vessels collected from EPA’s Uniform National 

Discharge Standards program (UNDS) (Navy & EPA 2003a, Navy & EPA 2003b). Specifically, EPA considered 

bilgewater effluent data from treatment systems consisting of primary treatment (i.e., gravity coalescence, 

hydrocyclone, and centrifuge) followed by secondary treatment (i.e., media filter and ultrafiltration). Sampling 

results were expressed as silica gel treated n-hexane extractable material (SGT-HEM) analyzed using EPA Method 

1664. For OWS/media filter, EPA reviewed results for 12 treated bilgewater samples collected from one Navy ship; 

out of these 12 samples, 7 exceeded the 5 ppm level with an average effluent concentration of 13.4 ppm (calculation 

used the detection limit for non-detected results). For OWS/ultrafiltration, EPA reviewed results for 23 treated 

bilgewater samples collected from two Navy ships; out of these 23 samples, 4 exceeded the 5 ppm level with an 

average effluent concentration of 5.5 ppm (calculation used the detection limit for non-detected results).
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

63 

The VGP permit language on which EPA is seeking comment above would allow new 

build vessels (constructed on or after December 19, 2013) greater than 400 gross tons to 

discharge bilgewater into waters subject to this permit only if that discharge contains less than 5 

ppm oil and grease. It would not, however, authorize them to discharge treated or untreated 

bilgewater while the vessel is stationary and pierside. In considering whether a 5 ppm oil and 

grease limit for bilgewater represented a BPT/BAT level of control, EPA researched whether 

bilge separators were available which met these low effluent oil concentrations, including 

gathering information about bilge separator treatment systems and certification test data from a 

number of vendors. Certification test data for certain systems demonstrate that different bilge 

separators can achieve 15 ppm or 5 ppm effluent oil concentrations under controlled conditions. 

This information illustrates that bilge separator treatment systems, based on different treatment 

technologies and combinations of unit operations, can achieve and exceed compliance with the 

Coast Guard certification standards. A number of these systems achieved effluent hydrocarbon 

concentrations below 5 ppm, and several achieved comparable effectiveness during monitoring 

aboard vessels in service. 

Furthermore, some countries have bilgewater discharge requirements that are stricter than 

the international 15 ppm standard. The Canadian Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution 

from Ships and for Dangerous Chemicals requires 5 ppm bilge alarms on inland waters14 (Great 

Lakes), and the Canadian Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act requires zero discharge in 

Arctic waters (all Canadian waters north of 60°). Additionally, Canada type approves bilge 

alarms to 5 ppm (see Transport Canada, 2008 for standards; Transport Canada, 2011 for a 

searchable list of type approved equipment). As of February 2011, Lloyd’s Register Clean 

Shipping Index Verification provides certification of bilge water treatment systems meeting a 5 

ppm discharge standard. This is a verification service to ship owners and operators wishing to 

demonstrate their success in reducing the environmental impact of their activities beyond the 

requirements of classification or statutory rules and regulations. Additionally, Det Norske 

Veritas (DNV) of Norway requires bilge separators to be equipped with a 5 ppm bilge alarm to 

fulfill the DNV Guidance for Clean Design (DNV, 2005). The DNV guidance consists of a set of 

rules which list requirements for vessel design and equipment. These rules are designed to 

reduce the environmental impact from emissions to air, discharges to sea, and deliveries to shore 

from ships. The requirements are in compliance with or more extensive than those found in 

international standards currently in force. The DNV rules aim at attaining a ship with controlled 

environmental standards of design and performance. Compliance with the rules shall be verified 

through inspection, measurements and sampling of defined environmental parameters in 

accordance with the requirements of the rules and in compliance with identified standards and 

 

14 Part 2, Subdivision 4 (Oil and Oily Mixture Discharges ) of the Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution from 

Ships and for Dangerous Chemicals states the following under Authorized Discharge — Section I Waters:

The discharge of an oily mixture from machinery spaces is authorized from any ship in Section I waters if 

... 

(c) the discharge is processed through oil filtering equipment that

(i) produces an undiluted effluent that has an oil content of no more than 15 ppm, and

(ii) triggers an alarm and a discharge-stopping device as soon as the oil content in the effluent exceeds

(A) 5 ppm, where discharged in inland waters of Canada, or

(B) 15 ppm, where discharged in fishing zone 1, 2 or 3 or in those internal waters of Canada that do not include 

inland waters of Canada; (end of citation)
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

64 

guidelines. The class notation Clean Design identifies additional requirements for controlling and 

limiting operational emissions and discharges. In addition, this notation specifies design 

requirements for protection against accidents and for limiting their consequences. 

Of the thirteen systems EPA reviewed as part of its evaluation for this permit, eleven 

achieved effluent hydrocarbon index concentrations below 5 ppm when treating MEPC 107(49) 

test fluid C emulsion during certification tests. One of the systems which did not achieve these 

standards lacked a polishing step as tested: that polishing step is available from the vendor. Of 

the systems that reduced oil concentrations to below 5 ppm in certification tests, two achieved 

comparable effectiveness during monitoring aboard vessels in service. One other produced 

somewhat higher concentrations (5.2-7.6 ppm) aboard vessels in service as measured by an oil 

content monitor. Although the data from vessels in service is limited, it suggests that certification 

tests conducted with the MEPC 107(49) test fluid C emulsion may be representative of real 

world performance, at least for two of the three treatment systems tested. This summary 

illustrates that bilge separator treatment systems, based on different treatment technologies and 

combinations of unit operations, can achieve and exceed compliance with existing Coast Guard 

certification standards. Furthermore, according to system manufacturers, these systems are 

models currently marketed and sold to vessel owner/operators of vessels to meet their existing 

MARPOL 73/78 requirements. See Table 2 below for a presentation of bilgewater separator 

summary data.

Table 2: Summary of Type Approval and Shipboard Monitoring Data for Bilgewater 

Separators

Bilge Separator Treatment 

System

Effluent oil 

concentration 

(ppm) from 

MEPC 107(49) 

testing using 

fluid C emulsion 

Effluent oil & 

hydrocarbon 

index (ppm) 

from vessels in 

service

Effluent oil 

concentration

(OCM ppm) 

from vessels in 

service

System A

(OWS/PS absorber) 0.26 (0.14-0.48) 

System B

(OWS/Biological Reactor/Clarifier) 1.6 (1.3-1.8) 

5.2 (<1-14)

6.0 (<1-14) 

7.6 (<1-20)

System C

(DAF/coag.-flocc./DAF 

skimming/GAC)

<1 < DL (1.0 and 

0.1) 

System D

(OWS/prefilter/UF) 1.75 (1.5-2.5) <1

System E

(Strainer/preheat/centrifuge) 9.5 (8.4-11.0)a

System F

(OWS/filter coalesce/AGM 

adsorber)

<1
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

65 

Table 2: Summary of Type Approval and Shipboard Monitoring Data for Bilgewater 

Separators

Bilge Separator Treatment 

System

Effluent oil 

concentration 

(ppm) from 

MEPC 107(49) 

testing using 

fluid C emulsion 

Effluent oil & 

hydrocarbon 

index (ppm) 

from vessels in 

service

Effluent oil 

concentration

(OCM ppm) 

from vessels in 

service

System G

(Descaler OWS/ coagulationflocculation- flotation/granular 

media filter/ GAC)

<1

0.7 – 2.2 

(monthly 

average values)

System H

(Filter/preheat/OWS) 6.7 (5–10) 

System I

(unknown) 0.22 (0.1-0.42) 

System J

(unknown) 4.1 (3.4–4.7) 

System K

(Oil absorption filter) <0.1 

System L

(Oil absorption filter) 1.7 (0.72–2.7) 

System M

(unknown) 0.8 (0.4–1.1) 

a Data were provided from U.S. Coast Guard certificate of approval for testing of an older 

version of the centrifuge-based bilge separator. This system did not include an organoclay 

polisher. 

Hence, EPA is seeking comment on establishing the numeric effluent limits for bilgewater 

discussed above because data gathered by EPA demonstrate that there are many technologies 

that have the capability of achieving effluent limits of 5 ppm and that meeting that standard 

would be economically practicable and achievable for vessels greater than 400 gross tons that are 

constructed on or after December 19, 2013. As discussed in the economic analysis conducted for 

this permit, EPA found that the incremental cost of installing a 5 ppm bilgewater separator is not 

substantially higher than installing a 15 ppm bilgewater separator for new vessels (US EPA, 

2011). The technology to meet these effluent limits is currently in use by vessels on the Great 

Lakes complying with Canadian Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and for 

Dangerous Chemicals. EPA expects no major physical impediments to installing such 

technology on new vessels. While bilge separator manufacturers and vendors, as well as major 

shipping companies, indicate that there is an increase in the level of effort required to meet a 5 

ppm oil standard versus 15 ppm for bilgewater discharges, vessels that install certified bilge 

separators currently on the market, and conduct proper operation and maintenance, are likely to 

be able to meet a 5 ppm oil standard. In order to meet this effluent limitation, vessel 

owner/operators would also need to use effective bilge separators and oil content monitors. In 

addition, owner/operators may need to follow “best practices” and guidance such as the 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

66 

International Maritime Organization/Marine Environment Protection Committee (IMO/MEPC) 

Integrated Bilge Water Treatment System (IBTS) practices (IMO/MEPC, 2008).

As discussed above, EPA is not including this option in today’s draft permit due to 

concerns regarding implementation that have been raised that call into question whether these 

systems are, in practice, “available.” Specifically, the U.S Coast Guard has questioned whether 

there are bilgewater alarms currently available which can be set to a 5 ppm limit. EPA believes 

that it is important to the implementation of the bilgewater standard to have alarms that are set or 

can be set recirculate to correct the situation when the limit is exceeded. EPA specifically 

requests comment on whether there are currently available and type approved bilgewater alarms 

which can be set at 5 ppm. When commenting, please provide information on whether the alarm 

is type approved (and if so, under which flag administration it is type-approved), whether it is 

type approved in combination with existing bilgewater systems, and whether these systems are 

onboard existing flag vessels. EPA also requests comment as to whether it would be 

technologically feasible to provide a “switch” on existing systems which would allow vessel 

owner/operators to toggle between a 5 ppm and 15 ppm discharge limit and on the Agency’s 

assessment of the importance of having such an alarm.

EPA has estimated the costs for requiring new build vessels greater than 400 gross tons 

who elect to discharge bilgewater into waters subject to the VGP to treat to the 5 ppm limit 

(EPA, 2011). In addition to requesting comment on these estimates in general, EPA is also 

seeking comment on whether using a more effective system will substantially change existing 

bilgewater management practices for vessel operators, and whether EPA should require these 

treatment technologies in different situations than those discussed below. For example, should 

EPA consider also requiring these systems for certain existing vessels, or should EPA create 

additional incentives for those vessels that choose to use these more effective technologies? 

EPA notes that while the Agency believes that technologies exist which are capable of 

treating bilgewater to a 5 ppm limit oil and grease limit, EPA has not made such a BPT/BAT 

determination in this proposal due to the concerns discussed above. However, since the Agency 

believes that 5 ppm- capable systems do exist, EPA, with the support of the United States Coast 

Guard, plans to seek input from our international partners at IMO as to whether that body should 

consider amending MARPOL Annex I to require a phasing in of a 5 ppm oil and grease 

discharge limit for certain new vessels.

EPA is also seeking comment on whether those existing oceangoing vessel operators 

currently prohibited from discharging within 1 nm from shore and in protected waters (unless 

meeting safety exemptions) should be given the additional management option of discharging in 

those currently prohibited areas if the oil and grease limit were set at 5 ppm is appropriate.

As discussed above, EPA plans to discuss this issue with member countries at IMO. 

Recognizing that many member states of IMO have substantial expertise in these matters, EPA 

welcomes comments from those entities on the above information during today’s proposed 

permit’s comment period. The Agency will consider comments, and any new information 

received, before determining whether to incorporate these new limits into the final VGP.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

67 

4.4.2.2.3 Annual monitoring to Assure Accurate Oil Content Monitor Calibration

EPA is also seeking comment on approaches for the monitoring of bilgewater discharges 

that would, if the approach discussed above were adopted in the final permit, be subject to the 5 

ppm standard above in coordination with a vessel’s annual, intermittent, or renewal survey which 

would be designed to assure that oil content monitors are remaining accurately calibrated. EPA 

is specifically seeking comment on the following language, would be inserted into a new 

subsection in Part 2.2.2 of the VGP: 

Bilgewater Monitoring

All vessels to which Part 2.2.2.1 applies (see above) 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. 

Initial Analytical Monitoring

To demonstrate the effectiveness of the oil discharge monitoring system, the vessel 

owner/operator must take at least five (5) samples from the vessel on different days over a 90-

day period that are representative of the treated effluent to be discharged. A vessel which has an 

oil discharge monitoring system that has been type approved by any flag administration to a 5 

ppm standard and has an alarm which prevents the discharge of any bilgewater with an oil 

content of greater than 5 ppm may instead immediately commence maintenance monitoring.

Initial monitoring must be done within the first 120 days of permit coverage (or before), 

within 90 days of oil discharge monitoring system installation onboard the vessel, or before the 

vessel discharges into waters subject to this permit, whichever is later. Samples will be analyzed 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

68 

for 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. If the measured samples meet the 5 ppm 

standard specified in Part 2.2.2.1, then the vessel owner/operator has demonstrated the 

effectiveness of their oil discharge monitoring system for controlling their bilgewater discharge. 

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;

• The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements; 

• The date(s) analyses were performed;

• The individual(s) and laboratory(ies) who performed the analyses; 

• The analytical techniques or methods used; and 

• The results of such analyses.

Maintenance Analytical Monitoring 

Annually, vessels to which Part 2.2.2.1 applies 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. If there is a difference 

between the laboratory result and the oil content meter that is greater than 100 percent, then the 

vessel must recalibrate the oil content meter. Alternatively, vessels can annually detach the oil 

content meter and send the meter to the manufacturer for service and calibration. Following 

manufacturer service and calibration, the meter must be reattached to the bilgewater effluent 

monitoring location. While the oil content meter is being serviced by the manufacturer, the 

vessel cannot discharge bilgewater effluent under the conditions in Part 2.2.2.1. 

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 5 ppm. 

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;
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

69 

• 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

4.4.2.2.4 Why EPA is Considering Annual Monitoring to Assure Accurate Oil Content Monitor 

Calibration

As discussed above, EPA is seeking comment on whether e 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 is considering establishing 

these monitoring requirements for this equipment based on similar operations listed in 33 CFR § 

157.12f and in 46 CFR § 162.050. 

EPA is considering monitoring conditions based upon readily available and generally 

accepted methods. EPA has estimated the additional cost associated with analytical monitoring 

in the economic analysis accompanying this permit, and found that the costs of monitoring may 

be economically achievable for vessels electing to discharge bilgewater within waters subject to 

this permit. Please see EPA (2011) for additional discussion regarding the costs of these permit 

conditions. EPA is specifically seeking comment on these analyses.

4.4.2.2.5 Potential Costs of New Bilgewater Requirements

The 5 ppm bilge water discharge standard could result in incremental costs to existing 

vessels greater than 400 gross tons that currently discharge treated bilge water outside 1 nm from 

shore, and to new vessels greater than 400 gross tons that will discharge treated bilge water 

rather than holding it. 

In the case of existing vessels that currently treat their bilge water, EPA estimates that the 

cost of complying with the bilge water requirements includes costs for oil discharge monitoring 

system, overboard discharge control system, monitoring, sampling, maintenance, and reporting. 

Since EPA assumes that existing vessels would continue to use current practices (treat or hold, 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

70 

depending on the vessel), EPA does not believe these costs would be incremental costs of 

complying with the revised VGP. 

For new vessels, incremental costs would include any higher costs associated with 

installing and operating a treatment system capable of meeting the 5 ppm effluent limit, as 

compared to the cost of a system capable of treating the effluent to 15 ppm, along with the costs 

of the oil discharge monitoring system, overboard discharge control system, monitoring, 

sampling, maintenance, and reporting. 

EPA generated both low-end and high-end estimates for the potential costs of these new 

limits and monitoring requirements. EPA estimated that the costs of these requirements would 

range from $140,000 to $7,000,000 per year. Please see the economic analysis prepared for this 

permit for additional discussion (EPA, 2011). 

4.4.3 Ballast Water (Part 2.2.3) 

Technology-Based Effluent Limitations 

In today’s draft permit, EPA is proposing 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: 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, 

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 draft permit and continues to explore other integrated 

approaches to managing ballast water risk reduction. EPA seeks comment on and suggestions for 

additional approaches for incorporating more integrated approaches to managing ballast water 

risks in the VGP. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

71 

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 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

72 

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 stand-alone 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 requests 

comment on the training requirements in the draft permit.

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 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

73 

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). 

EPA is specifically requesting comment on whether these ballast water management plans 

should be made available to the public. EPA notes that these plans are currently maintained 

onboard the vessel, and therefore, in order to make them available to the public, a new reporting 

requirement would also have to be imposed upon owner/operators. EPA requests comment on 

benefits that might accrue from making the plans available to the public and any increases in 

administrative burdens on both permittees and the Agency that might result from such a 

requirement. 

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 as of November 30, 2011 (found at 33 CFR 151.2025 as of this date), 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.

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. 33 CFR 151.2035(a) (Coast Guard equivalents). 

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. 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

74 

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 3 below. 

Table 3: 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 

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 requirements has posed a problem 

in complying with the 2008 VGP.

EPA has also mandated the use of high suction (i.e., a sea chest for drawing ballast water 

into the vessel located near the water line), if a vessel has high and low suction, on ballast water 

intake to reduce entrained sediment. EPA is incorporating this requirement based on the 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

75 

recommendations of EPA’s Science Advisory Board, which recommended several management 

measures for reducing the overall concentration of living organisms in ballast water discharges 

(EPA SAB, 2011). 

EPA specifically requests comment on whether additional best management practices 

which reduce risks at various stages of ballasting are appropriate to include in the final VGP. 

Specifically, EPA would like information on what additional management measures the VGP 

should include, costs associated with those measures, and how well those measures reduce the 

risk from ballast water discharges. EPA also specifically requests comment on if there were any 

additional measures discussed by the NAS (2011) or SAB (2011) reports that EPA should 

consider incorporating in this permit. Please submit any data or other information supporting 

your recommendations. 

4.4.3.4 Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices for Existing Bulk Carrier Vessels (

Commonly Known as Lakers)Built Before January 1, 2009, Confined Exclusively to the Great 

Lakes Upstream of the Welland Canal 

EPA has established three ballast water management measures specific to existing bulk 

carrier vessels (commonly known as Lakers) built before January 1, 2009, confined exclusively 

to the Great Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal. 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 believes these 

requirements are 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 

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 confined 

exclusively to the Great Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal 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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

76 

4.4.3.5 Ballast Water Treatment Measures 

In developing today’s proposed 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 proposed 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 draft 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 freshwater 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 is proposing technology-based numeric 

effluent limits for the discharge of living organisms equivalent to the U.S. Coast Guard Phase I 

proposed discharge standard (USCG, 2009), which is 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). 15 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; 

GLBWC, 2010; Lloyd’s List, 2010; WDNR 2010). Establishment of a ballast water discharge 

limit at the U.S. Coast Guard proposed Phase I / 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 have been developed for vessels with less than 8 cubic meters (2113 gallons) 

of ballast water. Hence, vessels with a capacity of less than 8 cubic meters of ballast water 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. EPA 

expects that the Coast Guard final ballast water rule will be promulgated before the final VGP. 

 

15 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.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

77 

EPA will continue to work closely with the Coast Guard to ensure that requirements in the final 

Ballast Water Discharge Standard Rulemaking and final VGP are consistent to the maximum 

extent possible. 

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 proposed 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 

represent the most stringent standards that ballast water management systems currently safely, 

effectively, credibly, and reliably meet (US EPA SAB, 2011). 

In the context of this general permit, EPA has determined 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

78 

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 management 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 

management 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. 

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).
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

79 

• 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).16

• The technology had a type approval certificate from a flag administration.

17

• 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 management 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 62nd meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) at 

IMO, 17 systems had been type approved by their flag administrations. Based upon information 

generated by those system vendors and data regarding system 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. 

 

16Under 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.

17 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.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

80 

Based on EPA’s review of available data, the Agency agrees with the SAB’s evaluation 

that ballast water treatment systems are available which meet the limits proposed 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 17 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 

August 2009 proposed rulemaking. The Coast Guard’s 2008 Preliminary 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 between 2012 

and 2021 to be $315,000 per vessel. This figure ranges 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. Capital costs primarily vary with pumping capacity 

and technologies utilized, but are also slightly influenced by differences between the vessel 

categories. The total cost of that rulemaking to U.S. vessels, including both installation and 

operating costs, was estimated at $1,176 million for meeting their phase I standard (for both 

installation and operation of the ballast water treatment equipment). This represents annual costs 

of $167.5 million annually (in 2007 dollars). 

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 Phase I standards, provided that the 

implementation schedule roughly parallels the US Coast Guard proposed Phase I schedule. 

Many operators may also have to install treatment to meet the IMO standards (which are very 

similar to the numeric standards in today’s permit) if they operate in waters of countries that 

have ratified the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention once it enters into effect. The 

Ballast Water Management Convention will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 

countries, representing 35 percent of world merchant shipping tonnage. As of October 31, 2011, 

30 countries had ratified the Ballast Water Management Convention, representing 26.44% of 

world’s merchant shipping tonnage. Those Countries that ratified the convention as of that date 

are: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Brazil, Canada, Cook Islands, Croatia, Egypt, 

France, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kenya, Kiribati, Liberia, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall 

Islands, Mexico, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Republic of Korea, Saint Kitts 

and Nevis, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, and Tuvalu. The 

US proposed Coast Guard rulemaking would require ballast water treatment systems be installed 

roughly on the same schedule as the IMO treaty. EPA expects that the IMO convention will 

enter into force in waters and for vessels flying the flag of ratifying states and/or the US Coast 

Guard rulemaking will be finalized by the time this permit becomes effective on December 19, 

2013. However, if neither of these actions occur before the effective date of this permit, EPA 

believes that installation of these treatment systems is economically practicable and achievable, 

even if costs are fully attributable to this permit issuance alone. This determination considers the 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

81 

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 proposal) 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. 

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 ASB 2010, Lloyds 2010; Lloyds 

2011, USCG 2009). Hence, EPA believes that vessel owner/operators are already planning for 

the installation and use of ballast water treatment systems, or making other arrangements for 

ballast water management as appropriate, and they have factored these costs into their long-term 

operating plans. 

EPA has determined that a more rapid implementation schedule than that in the IMO D-2 

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 due to worldwide 

limitations in drydock capacity and ballast water treatment vendor production capacity to 

manufacture sufficient numbers of systems for all vessels to install within a two year time period 

(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 US 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. 

At the start of the permit term, EPA expects the vast majority of new vessels coming into 

service to have installed treatment systems. 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 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, and 

phasing the installation of systems over time will allow the shipping industry to spread costs over 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

82 

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 

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 proposed today for the next VGP (e.g., 

justification for setting the limits as 100 or 1000 times more stringent than IMO). EPA further 

notes that the Agency is specifically seeking comment on whether to adopt the California 

standards in the VGP later in this fact sheet. 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

83 

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 that proposed for this permit term. EPA believes that the data California 

reviewed for their evaluation of ballast water treatment systems were generally from tests to 

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” proposed 

by California is no more stringent than the IMO standard at this time. This conclusion is 

supported by a recent NAS report, which states that the zero-detectable organism standard “is 

functionally defined by the ability to characterize concentrations of organisms at low densities” 

and that the exact California discharge standard “is largely undefined and contingent on 

sampling protocols” (NAS, 118). 

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.18 The monitoring 

 

18 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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

84 

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 

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, EPA SAB 2011, King and Tamburri 2010; Lee et al., 2010; Miller 

2011). This means that 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, 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

85 

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. 

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 are 

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.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

86 

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., 

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 per year for vessels 

with type approved devices for which high quality type approval data are available, and 4 times 

per year for non-type approved devices or type approved devices for which high quality data are 

not available, no closer than 14 days apart on water treated during separate treatment episodes, to 

verify the system is operating properly. Table 2 in the permit lists the biological indicator 

compliance monitoring sampling analytical methods and effluent limits for treated ballast water.

For today’s proposed 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 specifically requests comment on the practicability of conducting 

monitoring of living organisms in ballast water during the initial, and subsequent regularly 

scheduled annual, intermediate, and renewal surveys as described in Regulation E-1 of the IMO 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

87 

BWM Convention. EPA requests whether this more robust monitoring should be required in 

addition to, or in lieu of, the biological monitoring proposed in today’s permit. 

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 the Agency is not requiring monitoring for Vibrio cholerae. The agency is not 

requiring monitoring for Vibrio cholerae because the Agency has found this test to be expensive, 

and 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), the Agency believes 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 either twice per year or four times per 

year, dependent on whether the system is a type approved device for which high quality type 

approval data are available. 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 

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, or at minimum, will share their full type approval data packages with the 

US government during this permit term. 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; 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 

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 is specifically requesting comment on whether the Agency should also reduce the 

monitoring frequency for vessels which use a treatment system for which all type approval data 

have been made available to the Agency and whose data was taken at a 3rd party facility, but the 

data was not taken in accordance with ETV protocol. 

EPA’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, 

2001, page 29). In addition, the SAB reported, “New or improved methods will be required to 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

88 

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 proposed 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 (EPA, 2010) can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r10146/600r10146.pdf. Information on EPA’s ETV program 

can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/index.html. EPA believes that development 

of more sensitive testing protocols is a desirable goal and requests comment on other information 

that would inform EPA’s understanding of the potential availability of more sensitive test 

methods that could support a more protective numeric standard. 

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 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

89 

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.

EPA has also proposed 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

90 

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 

proposed limitations. 

EPA is specifically requesting comments on the appropriateness of these biocide discharge 

limits. In particular, EPA is requesting comment on whether the limit for peracetic acid is 

adequately protective of coldwater environments. EPA is also specifically requesting comment 

on the achievability of these limits using shipboard technology. 

Additionally, EPA is specifically requesting comment on whether the Agency should 

establish additional effluent limits for residual biocides or residuals, including, but not limited to, 

menadione. Please supply any supporting information with your comments, including available 

toxicology data and information on appropriate methods. 

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 1986 Quality Criteria for 

Water [the Gold Book] and subsequent revisions published prior to issuance of today’s permit. 

The Gold Book and updates can be found at 

www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/library/goldbook.pdf. Those numeric criteria were developed 

by EPA under authority of 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

91 

neutralizing agent may be applied before ballast water discharge.19 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 4, the residual biocide 

may not exceed acute water quality criteria listed in EPA’s 1986 Quality Criteria for Water [the 

Gold Book], and any subsequent revision, at the point of ballast water discharge.20 

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 

 

19USEPA, Science Advisory Board (SAB), Ecological Processes and Effects Committee, Efficacy of Ballast Water 

Treatment Systems, June 2011.

20 USEPA, Quality Criteria for Water [Gold Book], 1986. www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/library/goldbook.pdf.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

92 

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 2.2.3.5.1.1.1of 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 Gold Book 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. EPA specifically solicits comment with respect to 

information about any other biocides currently in use or under development that are not 

authorized in Section 2.2.3.5.1.1.1. Should EPA become aware of such biocides, or the 

derivatives of such biocides, during the comment period, EPA may, if appropriate, take steps to 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

93 

develop limitations or otherwise authorize those biocides, and/or their derivatives in Section 

2.2.3.5.1.1.1 in the final permit. Such specific authorization of the discharge of biocides, and/or 

their derivatives, is EPA’s preferred method of addressing the discharge of biocides not 

otherwise addressed in the permit. 

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 EPA’s Gold Book, 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 specifically requests comment on whether the 120 

advance notice requirement is appropriate, and whether the discharge should be prohibited until 

the vessel owner/operator receives a response from EPA (e.g., should the vessel owner/operator 

be allowed to proceed if they do not hear back within a specified time).

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 is proposing in this permit to not include 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. 

In addition to seeking comment on the proposed approach discussed above, EPA seeks 

comment on the specifics of the following potential permit language from the 2008 VGP which 

could be inserted into Part 2.2.2 of the final VGP. That language would read as follows: 

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Monitoring 

“If the biocide used or produced by your system and its derivatives are not 

listed in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.5.1 or found in EPA’s Gold Book, you must conduct 

whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing on samples of the discharges from 

shipboard ballast water treatment systems. Samples are to establish and annually 

verify the appropriateness of methods for treating ballast water with biocides 

lacking EPA Water Quality Criteria or known to produce chemical biocides or 

derivatives lacking EPA Water Quality Criteria. 

The procedures for such WET testing are set forth in Appendix K of this 

permit. The annual verification testing must demonstrate, for each organism 

tested, that the WET in the ballast water discharges, without allowance for 

mixing, does not exceed a chronic toxicity of 1.6 TUc as a daily maximum or 1.0 

TUc as a monthly median. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

94 

If the toxicity of the treatment system results in a discharge which exceeds 

1.0 TUc as a monthly median or 1.6 TUc as a daily maximum, EPA may require 

the owner/operator to cease discharging from the treatment system until they 

obtain coverage under an individual NPDES permit. 

For vessels subject to this section, you must initially conduct WET testing 

consistent with Appendix K of this permit using samples from the ballast water 

treatment system at the end of pipe for assessing the environmental safety of the 

resulting ballast water discharges. Two sets of WET tests must be done as set 

forth in Appendix K using different ballast water discharge events separated by at 

least 14 days, for initial testing followed by annual verification testing for each 

year of permit coverage. Initial WET testing must be done in the first 90 days of 

permit coverage or the first 90 days of using the ballast water treatment system 

after permit issuance. 

Thereafter, you must conduct maintenance sampling and analysis of the 

vessel ballast water discharge at least once per year in order to demonstrate 

continued compliance with the standards of this part. This sampling can be 

conducted as part of the vessel’s annual, intermediate, or renewal survey.

If any of the initial or maintenance samples exceed the standards specified 

in this Part, then the owner/operator must immediately undertake steps necessary 

to achieve compliance and take and submit samples demonstrating such 

compliance.”

Justification for Potential Supplemental Whole Effluent Toxicity testing and monitoring 

language

EPA requests comment on the following fact sheet language, which EPA would include if 

it adopted the alternative WET approach discussed above: 

“As with the 2008 VGP, today’s VGP establishes WET testing. This 

WET testing is a requirement for VGP coverage for ballast water treatment 

systems using biocides, or which have derivatives from such biocides, for which 

there are not acute water quality criteria. This approach is based on existing EPA 

WET methods and WET testing for ballast water discharges adopted by the State 

of Washington, and relies primarily on the methods specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 

136. The principal public comment on WET referenced the Washington State 

WET testing provisions for ballast water, which can be found at 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/9580.pdf, appendix H. EPA used this manual as a 

reference in addition to WET tests consistent with past Agency practice 

(including Denton et al. 2007). 

The WET testing provisions in the final VGP are used to assess the 

potential environmental effects of the resulting ballast water discharges. The 

WET testing end-points adopted in the final VGP are deliberately conservative in 

nature (e.g., applied as end-of-pipe limits without allowance for mixing) because 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

95 

the WET test results are to be used as a screening mechanism to determine initial 

and continuing eligibility for VGP coverage. Discharges of ballast water that are 

subject to WET testing under this VGP and that do not meet the end-points 

specified in the VGP would still remain eligible to secure coverage for that 

discharge through an individual NPDES permit from EPA. EPA cautions that 

WET testing should be conducted by laboratories familiar with such testing 

procedures. 

EPA has established chronic toxicity effluent limits for this discharge. The 

chronic WET permit limits are any one test result greater than 1.6 TUc (during the 

monthly reporting period), or any one or more test results with a calculated 

median value greater than 1.0 TUc (during the monthly reporting period). Results 

shall be reported in TUc, where TUc = 100/EC25. EC25 is a point estimate of the 

toxicant concentration that would cause an observable adverse effect in the 25% 

of the test organisms. 

WET testing under the VGP is not applicable to systems for which EPA 

acute water quality criteria exist with respect to the biocides used and also for all 

derivatives of such biocides. In addition, ballast water treatment systems using 

solely physical ballast water treatment methods such as filtration, centrifugation, 

ultraviolet irradiation, or inert gas oxygen stripping methods are not subject to 

WET testing or the other requirements of Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.6 of the VGP because 

these processes should not significantly increase the medium or long term toxicity 

of the ballast water discharges. 

Detailed specifications on how to conduct the WET testing and use the 

WET test results are included in Part 15 (Appendix J) of the permit. EPA expects 

that only limited numbers of vessels will be subject to WET testing under this 

provision, and in addition, vessels with ballast water treatment systems subject to 

the VGP WET testing provisions may opt not to conduct such testing and 

evaluation under the VGP WET test end-points but instead apply for an individual 

NPDES permit for such ballast water treatment system discharges.”

EPA also requests comment on the use of the specific WET testing protocols (included as 

an appendix in the 2008 VGP) that follow below:

Procedure for Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing of Ballast Water 

This appendix would apply to any vessels subject to WET testing in today’s proposed 

permit.

A.1 Required Toxicity Testing 

A. For all ships which discharge salt water ballast into salt water or fresh 

water environments, or fresh water ballast into salt water environments, the 

testing for all ballast water biocides must include the chronic WET testing 

contained within this section. The permittee must conduct tests on at least 1 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

96 

vertebrate, 1 invertebrate, and 1 plant of the species listed for each of the 

following groups:

Group A: 

• 7-day survival and growth test with silverside minnows (Menidia 

beryllina in EPA/821-R-02-014), 

OR

• 7-day survival and growth test with topsmelt (Atherinops affinis in 

EPA/600-R-95-136 ). 

Group B: 

• 7-day survival and growth test with a mysid (Americamysis bahia 

in EPA/821-R-02-014), 

OR

• 7-day survival and growth test with a the Pacific mysid 

(Holmesimysis costata in EPA/600-R-95-136), 

OR

• 48-hour bivalve fertilization with the Mussel (Mytilus sp. in 

EPA/600-R-95-136) or Oyster (Crassostrea gigas in EPA/600-R95-136),

OR

• 1-hour fertilization with the Purple Urchin (S. pupuratus in 

EPA/600-R-95-136) or Sand dollar (Dendraster excentricus in 

EPA/600-R-95-136).

Group C: 

• 72-hour growth inhibition test with a marine diatom (Skeletonema 

costatum according to ISO 10253), 

OR

• 48-hour germination and germ-tube length test with the Giant kelp 

(Macrocystis pyrifera in EPA/600-R-95-136). 

B. If you have not completed testing under Part A above, ships which 

discharge fresh water ballast into fresh water environments (e.g. Lakers), the 

testing for all ballast water biocides must include the following chronic WET 

testing:

• 7-day survival and growth test with fathead minnows (Pimephales 

promelas in EPA/821-R-02-013) 

• 7-day survival and reproduction test with a cladoceran 

(Ceriodaphnia dubia in EPA/821-R-02-013) 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

97 

• 96-hour growth inhibition test with the n algal species 

(Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (historically referred to as 

Selenastrum capricornutum) in EPA/821-R-02-013) 

A.2 Testing and reporting instructions: 

A. Definition of Whole Effluent Toxicity 

Whole effluent toxicity measures the effect (e.g., mortality, reduced 

growth, reproduction) to test organisms exposed to an effluent compared to 

control organisms. The goal of the chronic test is to determine if an effluent 

contains toxic materials in chronically toxic concentrations. In addition to 

mortality, these tests test help identify sublethal effects on test organisms such as 

reduced reproduction and growth. Effect concentration (EC) is a point estimate of 

the toxicant concentration (expressed as a percent) that would cause an observable 

effect (e.g., death, reduced growth) in a given percent of test organisms, 

calculated from a continuous model (e.g. Probit Model). EC25 is a point estimate 

of the toxicant concentration that would cause an observable adverse effect in 25 

percent of test organisms. Chronic test results shall be reported in TUc, where 

TUc = 100/EC25. For a discharge evaluated for chronic toxicity, toxicity is 

defined by an exceedance of this permit condition is defined by of a chronic 

toxicity discharge value of 1.0 TUc as a monthly median or 1.6 TUc as a daily 

maximum. If the toxicity of the treatment system results in a discharge which 

exceeds 1.0 TUc as a monthly median or 1.6 TUc as a daily maximum, EPA may 

require the owner/operator to cease discharging from the treatment system until 

they obtain coverage under an individual NPDES permit.

B. General Test Instructions

Unless modified for reasons identified below, the effluent must be 

sampled and whole effluent toxicity testing conducted according to methods at 40 

CFR Part 136.3, Table 1A, or via EPA/821-R-02-13, EPA/821-R-02/014, or 

EPA/600-R-95-136. 

1. Biocide solutions should be stored in the dark at 8 ± 1oC with 

minimal headspace. The storage container should be made out of a 

substance to which the biocide would not adsorb or react. 

2. If the biocide concentration can be analyzed reliably in the toxicity 

testing lab, then it should be done in one test chamber (or a 

surrogate) at each test concentration at the beginning and end of 

the test. If it can't be measured reliably, then the concentrations 

should be assumed to be as prepared. If the concentration cannot 

be easily measured, do not attempt Option 16.2.C, below. 

3. 7-day chronic tests should be started with freshly prepared biocide 

solution and renewed with biocide solution that is freshly prepared 

during the 7 days of the test. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

98 

4. All samples of ballast water taken for testing shall be composites 

of at least 4 grab samples, taken at approximately equal intervals 

during a ballast water discharge event, and shall include water 

discharged near the beginning and near the end of the discharge 

event.

5. Holding times from completion of sample collection until toxicity 

test initiation shall not exceed 36 hours. 

C. Quality Assurance

• A series of five dilutions and a control shall be tested. A dilution 

series of 12.5%, 25%, 50%, 62.5, and 100% from the ballast water 

treatment system shall be provided. These will provide data that 

are comparable among the submissions.

• If organisms are not cultured in-house, concurrent testing with 

reference toxicants shall be conducted. Where organisms are 

cultured in-house, monthly reference toxicant testing is sufficient. 

• If either the reference toxicant tests or the effluent tests do not 

meet all test acceptability criteria as specified in the test methods 

manual, then the permittee must re-sample and re-test within 

approximately 14 days or during the first discharge event upon 

reentering waters subject to this permit, whichever is later.

• Reference toxicant tests shall be conducted using the same test 

conditions as effluent toxicity tests (i.e., same test duration, etc.). 

• Control and dilution water should be laboratory water, as described 

in the test methods manual. If the dilution water used is different 

from the culture water, a second control using culture water shall 

also be tested.

• When effluent monitoring frequencies for whole effluent toxicity 

and priority pollutants are concurrent, then chemical analyses for 

priority pollutants shall be performed on a split of the sample 

collected for whole effluent toxicity testing.

D. Reporting

Test reports must meet the reporting requirements in the EPA toxicity 

testing manuals (EPA/821-R-02-13, EPA/821-R-02-014, or EPA/600-R-95-136), 

and describe test conditions such as test chamber size, solution volume, 

temperature, dilution water source, exact test start time, exact test end time, etc. 

Test reports must contain a readable copy of all hand-written bench sheets. The 

bench sheets must include both the toxicological and water chemistry data for the 

biocide tests. The bench sheets must contain actual counts (not percentages) in 

order to be acceptable. Start counts must be clearly recorded on the bench sheet. 

The test report must include computer printouts of test data and statistical 

analyses. Test organism source, age, and unusual conditions must be reported. 

Each test report must contain a section where all deviations from test protocols 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

99 

must be accurately listed or the absence of such deviations noted. The results of 

range-finding tests must also be included if they were used to determine the most 

sensitive species prior to definitive testing. 

A.3 Ballast Water Treatment System Options

The testing and report must support one of the two options below 

depending on the nature of the treatment system and biocide. Performing more 

than one of the testing options described below may make sense. A combined 

strategy, for example, could allow approval conditions for biocide neutralization 

if discharge must happen earlier than the approved minimum time needed for 

biocide degradation. Please anticipate all circumstances before choosing one or 

more of the testing options: 

A. Biocide Toxicity Testing to Demonstrate Zero Toxicity at Ballast 

Water Discharge 

A convenient type of ballast water treatment system is one which uses a 

biocide which begins as highly toxic and gradually becomes nontoxic due to 

volatilization, reaction, or degradation during a voyage. The ship operator will not 

need to measure the biocide concentration in the ballast water at discharge but 

will only need to document the biocide dose and the time elapsed from treatment 

to discharge. Toxicity testing will be used to determine the minimum time 

allowed between treatment and discharge. The steps in this determination are: 

1. Determine a maximum biocide concentration which will be used. 

2. Add the biocide to the water to be used as ballast up to that 

concentration and hold under conditions that are as close as 

possible to actual use in a ballast tank. 

3. These storage conditions would include 8 ± 1oC in the dark. 

4. The surface area to volume ratio of the storage container should be 

as small as practical in order to resemble a ballast tank. The 

storage container should be made out of a substance to which the 

biocide would not adsorb or react. 

5. Separate toxicity tests must be conducted on each sample drawn 

from the storage container every four hours over a 24-hour time 

period chosen so that the estimated time for the disappearance of 

toxicity is near the end of the 24 hours. 

6. A pretest may be needed to estimate the time for disappearance of 

biocide toxicity. The pretest may also determine the most sensitive 

species so only that species needs tested with all of the samples. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

100 

Concentration series are not required since a time series is the 

testing goal. 

7. An alternate approach is to prepare separate volumes of biocide 

treated water at 4-hour intervals and subsequently initiate all of the 

toxicity tests at the same time on samples drawn from each 

volume. 

8. An example of an efficient method for the alternative approach is 

to setup a schedule similar to the following: 

i) Prepare biocide-treated water at 4:00, 8:00, 12:00, 16:00, and 

20:00 on one day. 

ii) At 16:00 on a subsequent day predicted to be the beginning of the 

last 24 hours of toxicity, use the treated water prepared at 4:00, 

8:00, 12:00, and 16:00 to start tests. 

iii) Start tests at 12:00 on the next day using the treated water prepared 

at 12:00, 16:00, and 20:00, and then do the daily renewals, etc. as 

soon as possible for the tests begun on the first day. 

iv) Conduct daily renewals, etc. at 14:00 for the duration of the 

testing. 

9. Exercise caution in setting an alternative testing schedule so that 

the minimum time needed before ballast water discharge is not 

overestimated and ship operators are not needlessly 

inconvenienced. 

10. The earliest sample to produce no statistically significant toxicity 

relative to a concurrent control test will be the indicator of the 

minimum time needed before discharge. 

B. Toxicity Testing to Verify Biocide Neutralization 

Another type of ballast water treatment system that would be protective of 

the environment is one which uses a biocide that would stay toxic during the 

voyage and could be neutralized just prior to discharge. The neutralizing chemical 

might also have some toxicity but this toxicity would be less than the toxicity of 

the biocide that it neutralizes. Toxicity testing should focus on determining the 

margin between the concentration of the neutralizing chemical which effectively 

eliminates biocide toxicity and the toxic threshold of the neutralizing chemical 

itself. Any toxic reaction byproducts produced by the neutralization will be 

discovered during the toxicity testing. 

The general process is: 

11. The 25% effect level is used by EPA as an estimate of the toxic 

threshold. The IC25 should be used for continuous (e.g., growth, 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

101 

reproduction) and the EC25 for quantal endpoints (e.g., survival, 

larval development, fertilization). 

12. Once the toxicity testing has been done, then a plan must be 

written and submitted describing how the neutralizing chemical 

will be used to be both effective in removing biocide toxicity and 

stay below its toxic threshold. 

i) If the toxic threshold is above the maximum concentration needed 

to neutralize the biocide, then monitoring of the chemical dosing 

relative to the ballast water discharge volume should be adequate 

to demonstrate maintenance of the safety margin. 

ii) If the toxic threshold is below the maximum concentration needed 

to neutralize the biocide, then a removal or reaction rate needs 

determined for relevant concentrations of both the neutralizing 

chemical and biocide. Careful monitoring of neutralizing chemical 

dosing relative to biocide dosing will be needed for maintaining 

environmental safety. 

iii) If the concentration of the biocide and neutralizing chemical can be 

reliably measured onboard on a routine basis, chemical monitoring 

can be used for demonstrating safety when the threshold is below 

the maximum concentration. A small residual of neutralizing 

chemical can be an indication of effective biocide removal. 

A.4 Approval and Exceptions 

If the WET option set forth above is chosen, the permittee must submit the 

results of the initial testing and an explanation of the appropriate methods of 

ballast water treatment to EPA. 

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: 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

102 

• 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;

• 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 C.F.R. 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.

21

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, 

 

21 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.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

103 

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 

occurs (i.e., the state in most cases22). 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.” (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). EPA seeks 

comment on the potential role that such treatment facilities might play in reducing the 

introduction of invasive species associated will ballast water, the levels of treatment of 

organisms attainable at such facilities, whether those facilities are currently available, the role 

such facilities might play in specific regions, and other issues related to use of onshore facilities 

to manage ballast water.

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 

 

22 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 C.F.R. 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.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

104 

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 

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 commenters23 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), 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 

 

23 See docket number USCG-2001-10486 for all comments submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard as part of their 

proposed rulemaking. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

105 

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 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. EPA requests 

comment on the conclusion that use of public water supply water that satisfies the drinking water 

standards discussed above does not pose a significant threat of introducing or spreading invasive 

species. 

However, many vessels use onboard reverse osmosis treatment or other treatment 

processes to generate potable drinking water. Reverse osmosis is a highly effective treatment 

approach to treat lower quality water to a very high standard. EPA is specifically requesting 

comment on whether the use of potable water generated by such shipboard treatment systems on 

vessels which use small quantities of ballast water, for example utilizing potable water ballast to 

offset fuel consumption on research vessels, is an appropriate approach to meeting the 

technology-based effluent limits of the 2013 VGP. 

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.

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; see). 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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

106 

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. 

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 draft permit (see Bacher, 

2011; Hintzsche, 2011), EPA has proposed 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. 

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, after making the necessary 

drydocking and inspection and approval arrangements, 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 wellknown that the IMO standards will imminently come into effect (and USCG ballast water 

rulemaking has been proposed and slated to be 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 schedule in the draft 

VGP, the Agency decided against doing so, based on concerns that altering the anticipated 

schedule at this late a date could disrupt the industry’s prior planning and perhaps even result in 

further delays. Given the magnitude of the task for 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) 

estimated that there were 119 ballast water treatment systems installed worldwide. As of June 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

107 

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: EPA expects that most existing vessels will need to enter drydock 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 (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. Hence, it is not feasible 

to expect all existing vessels which operate within US waters to install ballast water treatment 

systems within a short period of time (e.g., one or two years). 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

108 

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 the IMO schedule 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. 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 even include 

installing ballast water treatment systems during 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. 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

109 

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 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 water-quality 

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 is proposing a definition which makes use of US Coast Guard COTP zones and 

distance travelled. For the first option of what constitutes 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 option for what constitutes 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 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

110 

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. 

EPA is specifically soliciting comment on this definition of short distance voyage. Are 

these the appropriate definitions of such a voyage? Are these definitions workable for vessel 

operators? Are there alternative suggestions? For instance, is there an existing approach to 

defining geographic boundaries based upon ecological criteria which would be appropriate? If 

so, why are these appropriate? Please provide any supporting data and rationale with your 

comments.

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 (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 

proposed numeric treatment limits for unmanned, unpowered barges. 

EPA is specifically seeking comment on the appropriateness of this determination and 

whether unmanned, unpowered barges have technologies available to meet numeric ballast water 

treatment limits. EPA also is specifically seeking comment as to how these vessels utilize ballast 

water, and whether the Agency’s understanding of their ballasting patterns is correct. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

111 

4.4.3.5.6.3 Existing Bulk Carrier Vessels (Commonly Known as Lakers) Built Before January 1, 

2009, Confined Exclusively to the Great Lakes Upstream of the Welland Canal 

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. . . SAB 2011, 40. 

Due to the challenges of installing ballast water treatment systems currently available on 

the confined Laker fleet, and the lack of currently available ballast water treatment systems 

appropriate for these vessels, 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 confined Laker. As of issuance of the draft permit, the 

results of this test are not yet available. 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 to 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 the confined Lakers. EPA will closely follow the 

state of technologies currently being tested for the confined Lakers and will consider revising 

permit requirements during the term of the permit when such technologies do become available. 

For today’s permit, EPA proposes that existing confined Lakers would 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 condition that addresses EPA’s ability to 

modify the permit to require installation of ballast water treatment systems when 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

112 

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 is specifically requesting comment on whether “existing confined Lakers” built 

before January 1, 2009 that operate exclusively in the Great Lakes upstream of the Welland 

Canal should be required to use a ballast water treatment system to meet the ballast water 

discharge standards found in Part 2.2.3.5 of this permit under the implementation schedule found 

in Part 2.2.3.5.2 of this permit. EPA is specifically requesting information about the 

applicability and availability of ballast water treatment systems for existing confined Lakers built 

before January 1, 2009. Specifically, given the constraints noted by the SAB discussed above, 

can the confined Lakers implement the technologies evaluated by the SAB? Are there in fact 

unique technologies that are available or that would potentially be available during the permit 

term for the confined Lakers? Are there other treatment technologies and/or methods that can be 

implemented by confined Lakers that can reliably treat ballast water to reduce the concentration 

of living organisms upon discharge? Please provide appropriate supporting documentation, 

including applicable data and sources for your information. 

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].24 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 the confined 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.

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. 

 

24 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.”
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

113 

4.4.3.5.7 Data Sources and Request for Comment on the Status of Ballast Water Treatment 

Technologies 

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 proposed 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 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 proposed 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 requests comment on SAB’s conclusions with regard to these issues. 

Please provide any supporting data or other rationale with your comment. 

EPA has proposed the numeric concentration based limit contained in the 2013 VGP based 

on these analyses. EPA finds that establishing technology-based ballast water controls that can 

be required of all commercial vessels over a certain size, in many different waters, under many 

different weather and operational situations, to be a very challenging task. EPA is specifically 

requesting comment on the appropriateness of the limits proposed in today’s VGP. Additionally, 

EPA is seeking comments that provide data sources which indicate that certain ballast water 

treatment systems reliably exceed the limits established in this permit. EPA is also specifically 

seeking comment on whether the numeric discharge limits can be applied to those vessel classes 

discussed above for which limits are not currently applicable.

As discussed below, EPA is requesting comment on alternative treatment limits used by 

other regulatory agencies, specifically limits promulgated by the State of California. California 

has utilized a “no detectable living organism” approach for the largest size classes of organisms, 

with numeric standards for smaller size classes. 

4.4.3.5.8 EPA’s Request for Comment on the “California Ballast Water Treatment Standards” 

As part of today’s proposal, EPA is specifically requesting comment on whether the 

following numeric limits for ballast water discharges should be included in the VGP. These 

standards are from the Performance Standards for the Discharge of Ballast Water For Vessels 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

114 

Operating in California Waters, California Code of Regulations Title 2, Division 3, Chapter 1, 

Article 4.7 §§2293-2294 as codified as of March 4, 2011. The standards are: 

No detectable living organisms that are greater than 50 micrometers in minimum 

dimension; 

Less than 0.01 living organisms per milliliter that are less than 50 micrometers in 

minimum dimension and more than 10 micrometers in minimum 

dimension; 

For living organisms that are less than 10 micrometers in minimum dimension:

Less than 1,000 bacteria per 100 milliliter 

Less than 10,000 viruses per 100 milliliter 

Concentrations of microbes that are less than:

126 colony forming units per 100 milliliters of Escherichia coli; 

33 colony forming units per 100 milliliters of Intestinal 

enterococci; and 

1 colony forming unit per 100 milliliters or 1 colony forming unit 

per gram of wet weight of zoological samples of 

Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and O139) 

4.4.3.6 Interim Requirements for Vessels Not Meeting 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. Hence, they are mandatory requirements in 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 require vessels transiting 

to U.S. waters with ballast water that was taken on within 200 nautical miles of any shore into 

waters of the United States after operating beyond the U.S. EEZ to 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; 

• Retain the ballast water on board while in U.S. waters; or 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

115 

• Use a Coast Guard approved alternative environmentally sound method to manage the 

ballast water. 33 CFR 151.1510(a) and 151.2035(b). 

The regulations also contain a safety exception, providing that the master of a vessel will 

not be prohibited from discharging unmanaged ballast water, in areas other than the Great Lakes 

and the Hudson River north of the George Washington Bridge, if the master decides the practices 

would be unsafe for the vessel. 33 CFR 151.2030(b). In addition, the Coast Guard regulations 

provide vessels will not be required to deviate from, or delay, their voyage in order to conduct 

exchange. 33 CFR 151.2036. Vessels that operate solely within one COTP zone are exempt from 

certain requirements, as described in 33 CFR 151.2010(b). 

As in the 2008 VGP, EPA has incorporated these requirements as technology-based 

effluent limits. The 2013 VGP also 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: 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

116 

• In general, ABWEA’s should be established no closer than 50 nm from shore and in 

waters at least 1000 m in depth. 

• Establishment of ABWEA’s should avoid 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 

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 proposed 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 do not 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

117 

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 

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. 

Environment 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 to all 

waters subject to this permit (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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

118 

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 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

119 

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 the Coast Guard 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. 

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 U.S. Coast Guard proposed 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). EPA is specifically seeking comment on whether vessels enrolled in STEP 

should be required to meet the other monitoring requirements found in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1 of the 

VGP or whether the monitoring requirements imposed by the US Coast Guard to test the efficacy 

of the ballast water treatment systems are sufficient. EPA notes that the biological efficacy 

monitoring imposed by the Coast Guard for STEP vessels is significantly more expansive (and 

costly) than that proposed in today’s VGP by EPA. 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

120 

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.

EPA is specifically requesting comment on whether these requirements are appropriate for 

vessels involved in the STEP and other future USCG shipboard testing programs. 

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 

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 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1). Such limits may be expressed non- numerically where 

numeric limits are “infeasible to calculate.” 40 C.F.R. 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

121 

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. 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

122 

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,” 

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) 

(emphasis added). EPA is in this permit establishing numeric effluent limitations at the IMO D2 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 proposed 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

123 

and mode values presented in Minton et al. (2005),25 99.63% from median values presented in 

Bailey et al. (2011),26 99.994% from mean values presented in David et al. (2007),27 95.15% 

from mean values presented Murphy et al. (2002),28 and 99.93% from mean values presented in 

Verling et al. (2005).29 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 mean30 and upper 1.1% of 

density values presented in Minton et al. (2005),31 99.96% from the range of median values 

presented in Bailey et al. (2011),32 99.999% from the range of mean values presented in David et 

al. (2007),33 99.41% from the range of mean values presented Murphy et al. (2002),34 and 

99.97% from the range of mean values presented in Verling et al. (2005).35 

 

25 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). 

26 Bailey et al. (2011) notes the mean abundance of invertebrates recorded from ballasted ships using 53 μm mesh 

plankton nets.

27 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. 

28 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 

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.

29 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,

30 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.

31See Footnote 25. Additionally, the max value is the number of zooplankton in the upper 1.1% density of all 

samples collected in unmanaged ballast water. 

32See Footnote 26. Additionally, the maximum density of zooplankton identified in unmanaged ballast water based 

on visual estimates of Figure 2 of Bailey et al. (2011)

33See Footnote 27. 

34See Footnote 28. Additionally, the maximum density values presented here are from both bivalve larvae and crab 

zoea identified in ballast water tanks. 

35See Footnote 29. 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.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

124 

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 

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 proposed 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

125 

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.36 EPA requests comment on its proposed 

determination that there is reasonable potential for ballast water discharges, after being 

controlled by the technology based limits in this draft permit, to cause or contribute to violations 

of water quality standards.

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 C.F.R. 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 a precise quantification of the risk associated with ballast water 

discharges (emphasis added). 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.

37 EPA specifically requests comment on the determination that 

 

36 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 

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. EPA requests comment on this conclusion.

37 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

126 

numeric water quality-based effluent limits for ballast water discharges are infeasible to calculate 

at this time. 

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 

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. EPA is specifically requesting 

comment on whether there are any additional generally applicable BMPs available for these 

vessels and on the sufficiency of the narrative WQBEL in ensuring that applicable water quality 

standards are met. 

In Part 2.2.3.7 of the VGP, EPA proposes to maintain 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.38 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 ppt39). 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 the freshwater of the Great 

Lakes. This BWE exchange requirement, in combination with the treatment requirements, is 

 

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.

38 EPA notes that regulation of the discharge of ballast water mid-ocean is beyond the scope of this permit.

39 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).
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

127 

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 and is specifically requesting comment on whether the Agency should consider 

including additional management measures for vessels entering the Great Lakes. 

EPA is specifically taking comment on the requirement for vessels entering the Great 

Lakes from freshwater and brackish ecosystems to continue to conduct ballast water exchange or 

saltwater flushing in addition to treatment with a ballast water treatment system. EPA also 

requests comment on whether continuing this measure would be an appropriate requirement for 

all or some categories of vessels operating outside the Great Lakes. EPA is also taking comment 

as to whether BWE should continue to be required for all vessels entering the Great Lakes that 

are subject to the numeric TBEL, regardless of origin. Additionally, EPA requests comment on 

whether this requirement should continue to be considered for other freshwater destinations in 

US waters. EPA also requests comment on whether this requirement should be maintained for 

other destinations in U.S. waters, regardless of whether those vessels took on ballast water from 

saltwater or freshwater ports.

40 EPA specifically requests that you provide any specific 

information and supporting data on the efficacy, practicability, and costs of such measures. 

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 

 

40 EPA understands that should the International Ballast Water Convention enter into force, such 

a requirement would mean that, for vessels subject to the Convention, discharge of ballast water 

taken on during mid-ocean exchange would need to meet the Convention’s discharge standard. 

In addition, treatment might be required under the Convention for ballast water that is discharged 

during mid-ocean ballast water exchange. EPA requests comment on any implementation issues 

or environmental benefits that would be associated with vessels being required to both conduct 

exchange and apply treatment for discharges mid-ocean in addition to treatment at ports of call. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

128 

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 

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 

have been phased-out due to concerns about its environmental impacts. 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 Antifouling Systems on Ships.41 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 played a leadership role in drafting the treaty, but has not yet ratified the 

agreement, although implementing legislation (Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, Title X) 

was enacted in January 2010 and the treaty has received the advice and consent of the Senate. In 

addition, 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). 

EPA clarifies that for the purposes of this permit, EPA has prohibited the use of antifouling 

paints containing TBT (for any purpose) or any other organotin compounds (for purposes of a 

biocide). 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. 

 

41 The Clean Hulls Act of 2010 replaced the 1988 Organotin Anti-Foulant Paint Control Act. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

129 

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 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

130 

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 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

131 

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. 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

132 

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 

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. 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

133 

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 of vessels built after December 19, 2013 to use environmentally acceptable 

lubricants for oil to sea interfaces. In addition, all other vessel owner/operators must use 

environmentally acceptable lubricants for oil to sea interfaces when technically feasible, and all 

vessel owner/operators must apply lubricants and maintain all seals so that discharges do not 

result in quantities of oil that may be harmful. For all applications where lubricants are likely to 

enter the sea, environmentally acceptable lubricant formulations using vegetable oils, 

biodegradable synthetic esters or biodegradable polyalkylene glycols as oil bases instead of 

mineral oils can offer significantly reduced environmental impacts across all applications. 

Furthermore, 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. 

Constituents of hydraulic oil 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 

situations, major maintenance should occur in dry dock 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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

134 

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). 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 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 

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 EcoLabel can be found at http://www.eco-label.com/default.htm.

The new requirements in this proposed permit will increase the use of EALs by vessels 

operating in waters of the United States. Part 7 of the permit defines environmentally acceptable 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

135 

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. 

EPA has proposed that new build vessels (those constructed after December 19, 2013) 

must use EALs in their oil-to-sea interfaces. An existing vessel (one constructed before 

December 19, 2013) must use an EAL in their oil-to-sea interfaces unless it is technically 

infeasible to use it in existing equipment (The permit does not require that vessel machinery or 

equipment be retrofitted to accept EAL). If an existing vessel 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 their recordkeeping documentation, and must note the use of a nonenvironmentally acceptable lubricant in the vessel’s Annual Report. EPA notes that the use of 

EALs would not be technically feasible if those lubricants significantly degrade the performance 

of the propulsion or navigation systems. 

EPA has found that use of EALs in all new build vessels and all existing vessels (unless 

technically infeasible) represents BAT. EALs are available and their use is economically 

achievable (see US EPA, 2011). 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 found that the use of EALs for all new build 

vessels is economically achievable. New build vessels can select equipment during design and 

construction which is compatible with EALs. Furthermore, they 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. 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

136 

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. 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

137 

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 

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, 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

138 

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.

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 non-toxic and phosphate-free, and should be biodegradable where possible 

unless there is evidence that they would be harmful to the aquatic environment. Not all 

biodegradable soaps are appropriate for all aquatic environments, but EPA believes that nonharmful varieties will be available in most situations and should be used when they are available. 

Non-toxic soaps are those that do not exhibit potentially harmful characteristics as defined by the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission regulations found at 16 CFR Chapter II, Subchapter C, 

Part 1500 and are not required to be labeled Toxic or Highly Toxic. Phosphate free soap is 

considered to contain 0.5% by weight or 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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

139 

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 

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. EPA requests comment on 

whether this conclusion. 

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 10 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 10 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 10 crew and 

overnight accommodation to monitor because 1) these vessels tend to produce less graywater and 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

140 

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. 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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

141 

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 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

142 

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 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

143 

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 

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 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 non-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 vessels is in the water, certain practices can reduce the 

potential risks associated with those activities.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

144 

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 

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. 

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. 

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 

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.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

145 

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 

(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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

146 

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 proposed 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. 

EPA has also proposed 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

147 

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, 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 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. However, the concept of phenanthrene equivalents is not well 

established and needs to be explained or replaced (AEA, 2009). 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. 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

148 

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 it is caught. 

Most seafood is either dead when brought onboard or is killed shortly thereafter, before being 

stored in a refrigerated seawater holding tank, with the exception of certain shellfish (e.g., crab, 

lobster), which must be kept alive. The two most common methods of cooling seawater are by 

mechanical refrigeration or by adding ice. Mechanical refrigeration is common on tenders, purse 

seiners, and trawlers, while chipped and slurry ice tanks are more common on trollers, longliners, 

gillnetters, and some trawlers. 

Fish holds are also often cleaned or disinfected by vessel crews between catches. To rinse 

the tank, vessel crews use either municipal water from the pier or dock or they pump water from 

the surrounding ambient water. Cleaning may simply involve rinsing the tanks with this water, or 

crews sometimes add detergents or disinfectants. Crews also often use scrub brushes to clean the 

walls and floor of the fish hold to maximize the removal of organic material. Fish hold cleaning 

effluent is a combination of residual fish hold water and ambient or municipal water and often 

contains soaps or detergents. 

Fish hold effluent may contain waste fish parts or other materials generated by fish 

cleaning, unused bait, solids, oils, nutrients, bacteria and viruses. Fish hold effluent can create 

scum and foam, produce a visible slick or sheen on surface waters, generate odors, and exert 

oxygen demand in receiving waters. This discharge also has the potential to introduce ANS into 

receiving waters. 

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” (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 designed to reduce the amount of 

fish hold effluent discharged into enclosed, sensitive, or heavily trafficked water bodies and to 

lessen the environmental impact of fish hold effluent that is discharged. The requirement to 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

149 

physically separate excess fish waste from fish hold effluent prior to discharge will reduce the 

amount and concentration of the discharge. Based upon EPA research, this practice is consistent 

with existing vessel practice. For example, most vessels have coarse filters to keep solid fish 

waste from being discharged with liquid effluent (US EPA, 2011). EPA has also prohibited the 

discharge of fish hold effluent pierside where shore based facilities are available: where they are 

available, vessels must utilize these facilities. This requirement will reduce fish hold effluent 

discharges at piers. This permit also prohibits discarding unused bait overboard, unless the bait 

was caught in that waterbody or watershed. This requirement 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, EPA has required that any cleaners or detergents used to clean the 

fish hold must be phosphate-free, non-toxic, and biodegradable. 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 

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.42

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 

 

42 In using the phrase “excursion above,” the permit tracks the language in 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1). There are some 

instances, however, where pollutants would cause nonattainment of the applicable criterion by lowering the water 

quality below the criterion, as with dissolved oxygen. In such situations, such lowering would be considered an 

“excursion above” within the meaning of the proposed permit condition.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

150 

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, as 

explained in Part 4.1.4 of this fact sheet, establishing numeric water quality based limits poses 

many of the same challenges that EPA faced in setting technology-based discharge limits. 

As mentioned, this permit requires that each permittee must control its discharge as 

necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. EPA generally expects that compliance 

with the other conditions in this permit (e.g., the technology-based limits, corrective actions, etc.) 

will result in discharges that are controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality 

standards. If the permittee becomes aware, or EPA determines, that the discharge causes or 

contributes to a standards exceedance, corrective actions and EPA notification are required. In 

addition, at any time EPA may impose additional, more stringent WQBELs on a site-specific 

basis, or require an individual permit, if information suggests that the discharge is not controlled 

as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. The language in Part 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.

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). 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

151 

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 

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 

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, 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

152 

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 re-entering 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 

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, 2009; 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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

153 

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” 

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 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 draft 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. EPA specifically requests 

comment on this provision of the draft permit. 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.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

154 

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). 

The term "voyage" is 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.

The answer above interprets 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." The answer provided 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 in the first paragraph of the answer, 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

155 

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" given in the answer above does not in any 

way serve to relieve permittees of the VGP’s minimum requirement that visual inspection be 

conducted at least once 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 include basic information 

relating to the inspection. This 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 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 of 13 days or greater. The EUP inspection is an alternative 

inspection for fleeted, jacked-up, or similarly situated vessels, which routinely go into temporary 

periods of lay-up. 

A vessel owner/operator 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

156 

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. 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 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 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. 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

157 

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. 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

158 

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 

may be kept in any form provided they can be made available to the EPA. Examples include the 

ship’s official logbook or other official vessel recordkeeping documentation. There do not need 

to be multiple copies of the records. Additional requirements include a record of maintenance of 

specific pieces of equipment that cause 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, the permit expands 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. 

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: 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

159 

(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:43

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 

 

43 EPA notes that it may change this guidance at any time, based upon experience with electronic recordkeeping, or 

any other new information or considerations. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

160 

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. 

EPA specifically requests comment on inclusion of these factors in the VGP and on the 

implementation guidance provided in this draft fact sheet. 

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.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

161 

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. 

6.4.2 Combined Annual Reports for Unmanned, Unpowered Barges

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 barges that are unpowered and unmanned if they meet certain defined criteria. 

Therefore, this permit allows owners/operators of multiple barges 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 barge 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 barges have had any instances of noncompliance or 

identified deficiencies in the previous 23 months, and each barge must have an active NOI to 

identify it. Barges 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 because 

many of these vessels are fundamentally similar and have a limited number of discharges. 

Furthermore, vessel owners/operators may have several thousand barges 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. EPA specifically requests comment on this approach, and whether there 

are any other categories of vessels for which owners/operators should be allowed to submit a 

combined annual report instead of the Annual Report for each of their vessels. When making 

comment, please submit specific information as to why such an approach is appropriate for 

certain vessel types.

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 proposed permit. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

162 

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 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

163 

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. 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

164 

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 

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 2 shows the influent and 

effluent concentrations for these systems for Cruise Ships in Alaska (adapted from US EPA, 

2008a). 

Table 4: 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
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

165 

Table 4: 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

Nitrate/Nitrite as 

Nitrogen

mg/L 0.325* (26 

detects out of 50 

samples)

3.32* (±0.653) 

(66 detects out of 

152 samples)

NC

Total Kjeldahl 

Nitrogen

mg/L 111 (50 detects 

out of 50 

samples)

32.5* (±3.27) 

(169 detects out 

of 170 samples)

70 to 76

Total Phosphorus mg/L 18.1 (25 detects 

out of 25 

samples)

5.05* (±0.460) 

(146 detects out 

of 154 samples)

41 to 98

1

The data presented in Table 2 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

166 

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 

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 2 (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 fact sheet 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

167 

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 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 non-water 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, 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

168 

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. 

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 non-toxic if the degreaser or its 

residue otherwise would be discharged as part of any waste stream. The use of phosphate free 

soaps and cleaners is a simple step toward reducing the amount of nutrients, namely phosphorus, 

present in graywater discharge. Phosphate free detergents and non-toxic detergents are readily 

available for purchase, are comparably priced, and are an affordable management measure for 

reducing phosphates and toxic compounds in waste streams. Based on the economic analysis 

prepared for this permit, the purchase of 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, 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

169 

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. 

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 evaluating comments submitted by public 

commenters which 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

170 

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).

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. 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

171 

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 

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. 

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, 

vessel records must include the location, estimated volume, and concentration of chlorine or 

bromine in the discharge. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

172 

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 the e-reporting system is 

established, it will be available at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/enoi. 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 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

173 

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 a smaller 

number of passengers than large cruise ships, the volume of graywater generated is still 

significantly higher than what is generated by a cargo ship carrying crew only. See Part 7.1 for a 

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 in the 2013 VGP requirements for medium cruise ships that 

correspond to the changes made for large cruise ships. The rationale for the extension of the 

prohibition of the discharge of graywater to 3nm laid out in Section 7.1 above for large cruise 

ships is also to medium cruise ships, As detailed in Section 7.1, EPA made the change to the 

permit requirements for medium cruise ships after considering the six factors under 40 CFR § 

125.3(c), which sets BAT treatment limits and the efficacy of these treatment systems.

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

Ships

The permit requirements for medium cruise ships are identical to those for large cruise 

ships, with two exceptions. These are: 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

174 

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

• Differences for existing medium cruise ships unable to voyage more than 3 nm from 

shore. 

7.2.1.1 Different Requirements in Nutrient Impaired Estuaries 

In nutrient impaired 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. 

7.2.1.2 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 3 nm (e.g., are restricted by their operational certificate to operating only within 

1nm of shore), or otherwise never go beyond 3 nm from shore. A Medium Cruise Ship in 

operation as of the effective date of this permit is not required to meet the graywater 

requirements found in Part 5.2.1.1.1 if the ship is unable to voyage 3 nm from shore, unless the 

ship undergoes a major conversion subsequent to the VGP effective date. Vessels constructed on 

or after the effective date of this permit 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 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 3 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

175 

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 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

176 

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. 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

177 

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 additional inspection. 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 

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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

178 

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. 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

179 

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 C.F.R. § 124.53(e)(1). Pursuant to CWA § 401(d), EPA has 

attached those State and Tribal provisions to the final VGP; those that constitute effluent or other 

limitations or monitoring requirements are 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 C.F.R. § 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,” 

“environmental acceptable lubricants,” and “voyage.” EPA is requesting comment on new 

definitions in the permit.

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 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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

180 

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 draft VGP, EPA will provide the relevant 

state coastal zone management agencies with its national consistency determination regarding 

the enforceable policies in approved state CZM programs for the coastal zones including state 

waters where the VGP would authorize discharges. 15 CFR 930.31(d). Consistent with the 

maximum extent practicable standard in 15 CFR 930.32, the 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

181 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), collectively “the Services,” to ensure that the actions 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

endangered or threatened species (referred to as “listed species”) or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of their designated critical habitats. 

The Services have published regulations implementing ESA section 7 at 50 CFR Part 402. 

The regulations provide that a Federal agency (such as EPA) must consult with FWS, NMFS, or 

both if the agency determines that an activity authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency 

may affect listed species or critical habitat. The kinds of effects that trigger the consultation 

obligation could include, among other things, beneficial, detrimental, direct and indirect effects. 

EPA plans to commence consultation with the Services in the near term. 

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 because the VGP will impose CWA effluent 

limitations on discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels.. 

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 addresses discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels 

that would be regulated under the CWA, and thus not 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 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

182 

penalties for other unauthorized discharges of hazardous substances which are covered by 

Section 311 of the CWA. 

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 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 Vessel General Permit. This information collection is mandatory as 

authorized by Clean Water Act Section 308 and all information collected will be treated as 

Confidential Business Information (CBI). 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB 

control numbers for EPA's regulations 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.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

183 

13. REFERENCES

Aalborg. (2010). EGCS SMM Workshop 2010 presentation. Retrieved from http://www.aalborgindustries.com/scrubber/documents/ExhaustGasCleaning_000.pdf. 

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/pdfs/GP%20Information%20Sheet.pdf. 

Albert, R. and R. Everett. (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. (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. 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

184 

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/BWMAdvisoryNotice. 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://nis.gsmfc.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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

185 

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. 

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. 

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.

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.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

186 

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. (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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

187 

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. 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

188 

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. 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

189 

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. 

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.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

190 

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. 

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. 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

191 

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. 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

192 

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. 

MEPC. (2008). Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8); 

RESOLUTION MEPC.174(58), 10 October, 2008; London, UK. 

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. 

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.
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

193 

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.

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. 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

194 

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. 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

195 

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. 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

196 

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. 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

197 

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. 

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. 

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/oms/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/420f10015.htm. 

US EPA. (2011). Economic and Benefits Analysis of the 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP). 

Washington, DC: 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. 

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. 
Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) Fact Sheet

198 

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. 

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). 

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.