Response to Comments on the AK Offshore Seafood Processors General Permit 

Introduction 

On September 26, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice of 

proposed reissuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general 

permit for offshore seafood processors in Alaska (General Permit). These facilities discharge 

seafood processing waste into offshore waters in the State of Alaska. The permit that was issued 

for public comment proposed to authorize discharges that would occur from 0.5 nautical miles 

(NM) seaward. The public review and comment period ended on December 10, 2008. 

On October 31, 2008, EPA approved Alaska’s application to administer the NPDES program. 

As such, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) became the permitting 

authority for discharges of seafood processing waste from 0.5 NM to 3 NM from the shoreline or 

closure line. On June 1, 2009, EPA received a letter from ADEC stating that, instead of issuing a 

joint permit with EPA, ADEC intended on issuing a separate NPDES general permit(s) for 

discharges between 0.5 NM and 3 NM. Therefore, this final General Permit only authorizes 

discharges of seafood processing waste into waters located 3 NM or greater from the shore line 

or closure line. This response to comments document refers to waters located greater than 3 NM 

from shore line or closure line as “federal waters” and waters located 0-3 NM from the shore line 

or closure line as “state waters.” 

In addition, many of the provisions in the draft permit cited Alaska State Water Quality 

Standards. Since this final general permit only covers discharges into federal waters, the 

provisions now cite to CWA Section 304(a) marine water quality criteria. This criteria is similar 

to or the same as Alaska State Water Quality Standards so the permit provisions themselves did 

not change significantly. EPA used the CWA Section 304(a) marine water quality criteria 

because, in conducting the Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation, EPA determined that the use of 

this criteria ensured that the discharge would not cause unreasonable degradation of the marine 

environment if applied at the end-of-pipe. See 40 CFR § 125.122. 

Authorization to Discharge At-Sea 

When the General Permit was issued for public comment, it authorized discharges from offshore 

seafood processors and at-sea discharges from barges. EPA has determined that the at-sea 

discharges to federal waters do not fall within the authority of the NPDES program. The NPDES 

program governs the addition of pollutants into navigable waters, the contiguous zone, and the 

ocean from point sources. However, with regard to discharges into the contiguous zone and 

oceans, discharges from vessels or other floating craft being used as a means of transportation 

are not regulated under the NPDES program because they are not point sources. The Ocean 

Dumping Act provides the authority for these types of discharges. 

The purpose of the Ocean Dumping Act is “to regulate the transportation by any person of 

material from the United States ... when ... the transportation is for the purpose of dumping the 

1 
material into ocean waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1401(c). Since the barges who conduct at-sea 

discharges transport seafood waste for the purpose of dumping the waste into ocean waters, the 

discharge of this waste is regulated under the Ocean Dumping Act. Therefore, the final General 

Permit does not authorize at-sea discharges. 

Comments were received from the following: 

Alan Ismond, Aqua Terra Consultants 

Charles McEldowney, Seward Fisheries, Icicle Seafoods, Inc. 

Patrick Wilson, Petersburg Fisheries, a Division of Icicle Seafoods, Inc. 

Kenny Down, Freezer Longline Coalition 

Lori Swanson, Groundfish Forum
 

Stephanie Madsen, At-Sea Processors Association
 

Mary Boggs, Deep Sea Fisheries (Sanko Fisheries, Pavlof Fisheries, and Gulf Mist, Inc.): 

Mike Clutter, Icicle Seafoods, Inc. 

Ryan Hatton, Snopac Products, Inc. 

Marleanna Soto, Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. 

Tim Jewell , Enviro-Tech Diving Inc. 

B. Sachau 

Teresa Jordan 

Beth Pokorny, Egegik, Icicle Seafoods 

The following summarizes the significant comments received and responds to each of them. 

Alan Ismond, Aqua Terra Consultants: 

C1. Section IV.C.7.e (Process Flow Diagram or Schematic) of the draft permit refers to “the 

treatment plant.” Clarification should be provided whether this refers to a schematic showing the 

influent, fish processing operations, treatment unit operations (grinding, pumping, chlorination / 

dechlorination, desalination, sanitary treatment, etc.), effluent, bypasses, and back up systems for 

process and domestic water and wastewater treatment and conveyance. 

R1. The process flow diagram/schematic should consist of a line drawing of the treatment 

system on the processor with a water balance that shows influent, fish processing operations, 

treatment unit operations (grinding, pumping, chlorination/dechlorination, desalination, sanitary 

treatment, etc.), effluent, bypasses and backup systems for process and domestic water and 

wastewater treatment/conveyance. This provision was included pursuant to 40 CFR 

§§ 122.21(g)(2) and (g)(3). 

The permit has been updated to reference 40 CFR §§ 122.21(g)(2) and (g)(3). The regulations 

state: 

(g)(2) Line drawing. A line drawing of the water flow through the facility with a water balance, 

showing operations contributing wastewater to the effluent and treatment units. Similar 

2 
 

processes, operations, or production areas may be indicated as a single unit, labeled to 

correspond to the more detailed identification under (g)(3) of this section. The water balance 

must show approximate average flows at intake and discharge points and between units, 

including treatment units. If a water balance cannot be determined, the applicant may provide 

instead a pictorial description of the nature and amount of any sources of water and any 

collection and treatment measures. 

(g)(3) Average flows and treatment. A narrative identification of each type of process, 

operation, or production area which contributes wastewater to the effluent for each outfall, 

including process wastewater, cooling water, and stormwater runoff; the average flow which 

each process contributes; and a description of the treatment the wastewater receives, including 

the ultimate disposal of any solid or fluid wastes other than by discharge. Processes, operations, 

or production areas may be described in general terms... 

C2. The draft permit requires water balances showing “all treatment units”. Does this refer to all 

unit operations that consume and / or discharge water or wastewater? 

R2. Yes, specifically, 40 CFR § 122.21(g)(2) states “[a] line drawing of the water flow through 

the facility with a water balance, showing operations contributing wastewater to the effluent and 

treatment units....” Please also see response to C1. 

C3. Section IV.C.10 (Submittals with the Notice of Intent (NOI)) of the draft permit refers to 

“near-shore vessels” and “near-shore processors.” Section V.B refers to “Near-Shore seafood 

processors.” Is there a difference between “vessels” and “processors”? Should the permit only 

refer to “processors”? 

R3. The draft permit and fact sheet used vessels and processors interchangeable. The final 

permit uses the term “processor”. 

C4. Section V.B.1.1 (State Authorized Zone of Deposit (ZOD)) of the draft permit states in the 

second paragraph “In decided whether to authorize...” The permit should be revised to state “In 

deciding whether to authorize...” 

R4. This appears to be a typo; however, since this permit provision concerns discharges within 

state waters, it has been removed from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C5. Section V.C.1.m (State Authorized Mixing Zone) of the draft permit has this section labeled 

as “m”, and should be revised to “k”. 

R5. This appears to be a typo; however, since this permit provision concerns discharges within 

state waters, it has been removed from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C6. Section VI.D.1 (Sea Surface Visual Monitoring Requirements) of the draft permit states that 

all permittees must conduct sea surface monitoring. This is contradicted in Section VI.D.4 – 

3 
 

Schedule, which states that only a near-shore permittee must conduct monitoring. The draft 

permit should be revised as required. 

R6. Thank you for pointing this out. Section VI.D. has been renumbered to Section VI.C. All 

processors must conduct sea surface monitoring. As such, Section VI.C.4 has been changed 

accordingly. 

C7. Section X.17 and X.21 (Definitions) of the draft GP states in Definition #17 that showers 

are a part of “Domestic wastes” and definition #21 includes showers as part of “Gray water”. 

Which is correct? 

R7. To clarify the terms used in the permit, the term “domestic waste” has been removed from 

the permit. The terms sanitary waste and gray water will continue to be used, and are defined in 

Section X of the final permit. 

Charles McEldowney, Seward Fisheries, Icicle Seafoods, Inc.: 

C8. This comment pertains to Sections I.A., IV.C.5.c, and V.C. This permit is set up so that any 

shore based processor that wants to send seafood waste out to sea to be discharged in conjunction 

with using a shore-based outfall pipe will need to have two permits. Going through the entire 

permit process to set up an at-sea discharge seems confusing, redundant and onerous. There 

should be a provision for a shore based processor to have the at sea discharge portion of the Offshore Permit to be a part of their shore based permit through a single NOI process. The proper 

discharge site charts and maps and other related information could be included in the one NOI 

process. This would eliminate the need to go through two individual NOI / permit authorization 

by the same facility. It would also eliminate any confusion created by have two permits with two 

permit numbers. 

R8. As discussed on page 1, at-sea discharges are not authorized through this permit. Instead, 

seafood processors who want to conduct an at-sea discharge should obtain authorization under 

the Ocean Dumping Act. As this permit provision also concerns discharges within state waters, 

ADEC will address this comment. 

C9. This comment pertains to Section IV.B.2 of the draft Permit. A permittee who did file an 

NOI prior to July 27, 2006 would have submitted that NOI with the intent of having their current 

permit and all waivers and/ or amendments to that NOI-permit to apply in full. This new draft 

permit may mean that a single facility might have to have two different permits: One Off-shore 

to cover that At-Sea Discharge portion and one Shore-based to cover their outfall. Does the one 

NOI that was submitted prior to July 27, 2006 apply to both the permit systems? 

R9. As discussed on page 1, at-sea discharges are not authorized through this permit. Instead, 

seafood processors who want to conduct an at-sea discharge should obtain authorization under 

the Ocean Dumping Act. The NOI that was submitted prior to July 27, 2006 served, in part, to 

allow the facility to retain coverage under the old administratively extended permit. This NOI 

4 
 

will be used for authorization under this current permit; however, EPA may need to request 

additional information before authorization is granted. ADEC will address this comment for 

purposes of discharges within state waters which includes discharges from shore-based facilities. 

C10. Throughout the permit the standard for grind size is “0.5 inch or smaller in any 

dimension.” In working with this standard it seems odd that a sphere of seafood waste that is 0.5 

inch in diameter is an authorized discharge while a string of intestinal lining that has the cross 

sectional diameter of a hair yet is an inch long would be an unauthorized discharge. 

Commenter suggests that the authorized grind size be a piece of seafood waste that fits through a 

1⁄2 inch mesh. Or pieces which can be formed into a 1⁄2 inch cubic box. 

Commenter also requests information related to the science which was used to determine that a 

0.5 inch piece of seafood waste is less harmful to the environment than any other specific size. 

R10. The federal regulation at 40 CFR § 122.44(a) requires NPDES permits to incorporate 

technology based effluent limitations and standards promulgated under section 301 and 306 of 

the CWA. Technology based effluent limitations and performance standards have been 

established by the EPA for remote seafood processors in Alaska, and were developed based on 

the demonstrated performance of a reasonable level of treatment that is within the economic 

means of the industry. See 40 CFR Part 408. The 1⁄2 inch grind size, in all dimensions, is a 

technology-based effluent limit and the discharge must meet this limit at all times. The 

development documents for 40 CFR Part 408 were published in the 1970’s and 1980’s and may 

be found at: http://nepis.epa.gov/EPA/html/Pubs/pubtitleOAR.htm 

EPA document number 440175041a. 

EPA cannot change a technology-based requirement through a permit. What the commenter is 

suggesting would require a change to the national effluent limitations guidelines. If the 

commenter would like to pursue a change in the effluent limitation guideline they can send their 

request to the Office of Science and Technology at EPA Headquarters. 

C11. In Section II.A.1.a of the draft permit, it is noted that the calcareous shells and tests as well 

as prohibited by-catch are exempted from the grinder size limitation. This provision is good and 

should stay in the permit. 

R11. Comment noted. 

C12. In Sections II.A.1.b and V.B.1.a., near shore processors are limited to 3.3 million pounds 

of discharge annually. There should be some provisions added so that a near shore vessel that 

discharges in energetic waters with appropriate amount of flushing or that have a depth of greater 

than 120 feet are not restricted by the 3.3 million pound limitation. The appropriate amount of 

flushing would have to be defined. 

R12. Since this permit provision concerns discharges within state waters, it has been removed 

from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

5 
 

C13. Section IV.C.7.b (NOI Requirements) of the draft permit requires that the permittee state 

their projected or estimated amount of discharge for each species on a daily basis and then makes 

that amount the maximum that they are allowed to discharge. It seems that this would promote 

permittees to estimate on the very high side of their capacities so they do not exceed the limit 

that they are setting for themselves. If the permittee has a change in his process or gets a vastly 

different species composition than expected in a given day it would seem he could be in violation 

of the permit for that day. Is this truly the intent of the writers of this permit? 

R13. This permit provision is now numbered Section IV.C.6.b. The intent of this permit 

condition is to obtain information concerning the maximum amount of seafood waste that will or 

can be discharged. If the amount of seafood to be processed changes, then the NOI should be 

amended and resubmitted. The “type” of seafood waste helps regulators categorize the discharge 

make-up composition. 

C14. Section IV.C.7.b also requires permittees to submit the projected maximum quantity of 

seafood waste residues by species. Is this intended to mean that all five species of salmon waste 

has to be projected for each day of the season? Permittee suggests that salmon should be lumped 

together as one species. If a plant could process 300,000 round pounds a day of salmon he could 

list 75,000 of waste for reds and 120,000 of waste for chums. It looks like he is saying he could 

discharge 195,000 pounds of waste a day. In reality he will discharge one or the other or some 

combination of the two. Plus some amount of silver and king and pink waste. This requirement 

could be clarified if this provision was re-written so that it is clear that the maximum discharge is 

not related to species or a daily amount but it is only related to the total volume of discharge for 

the year. 

R14. This section is now numbered Section IV.C.5.b. To clarify what information should be 

submitted, Section IV.C.5.b of the final permit has been modified to say: “the name and quantity 

(in pounds) of the raw product(s) by species or family.” 

C15. With regard to Section IV.C.9, refueling information should be left to other regulation 

formats. 

R15. This provision is now numbered Section IV.C.8. It is necessary for EPA to know if a 

vessel has refueling capabilities. If refueling is available it must be evaluated in the Best 

Management Practices (BMP) Plan. No change was made based on this comment. 

C16. The commenter interprets Section V.A.1.e of the draft permit as follows: 

Not meeting the grind size does not fit into “a.” because it does not endanger health or the 

environment. It does exceed a limitation of the permit in that it is over the 0.5 inch size limit but 

it does not seem to be a “Bypass of Treatment Facilities” so it does not appear that ”b.” applies 

as it is written. 

I do not understand the wording in VIII.G enough to determine if the permittee is required to 

comply with this provision if the 0.5 inch grind is not met. 

6 
I am also unclear if one piece of seafood waste, out of a large sample, which is greater than 0.5 

inches in only one dimension, would be a reportable non–compliance. 

I suggest the permit states whether temporarily exceeding grinder size by some portion of a 

sample needs to be reported within 24 hours or if it is ok to just include a summary in the annual 

report as stated: in V.A.1.e., page 15, a summary submitted with the annual report (Part 

VI.B.2.b.). 

R16. The draft permit was incorrect. Section V.A.1.e is now numbered Section V.A.5. The 

reference to Section VII.G in Section V.A.5 has been corrected and changed to Section VII.H 

(Other Noncompliance Reporting). Also please see response to C10 concerning the 1⁄2 inch 

grind size. 

C17. The definition of a single location in Section VI.C.1 of the draft permit should be changed 

to “a single location refers a vessel anchored and processing within a circular area with a radius 

equal to 0.5 NM.” In other words, days of anchorage in which no seafood is discharged should 

not count towards the 7 days in that location. 

R17. Since this permit provision concerns a discharge within state waters, it has been removed 

from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C18. With regard to Sections VI.C.4 and VI.C.7.c, a vessel anchored in waters greater than 120’ 

in depth should be exempt from seafloor monitoring. 

R18. Since this permit provision concerns a discharge within state waters, it has been removed 

from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C19. A vessel that is anchored in Hydrodynamically energetic waters (i.e., Section II.A.1.a.), 

should also be exempt from sea floor monitoring. Hydrodynamically energetic waters would 

also need to be defined. 

R19. Since this permit provision concerns a discharge within state waters, ADEC will address 

this comment. EPA uses the term hydrodynamically energetic waters to mean waters with 

vigorous wave action and quick flushing time to ensure wastes are dispersed quickly without 

buildup. 

C20. Section VI.D.4 specifies that near shore processors have to do sea surface monitoring 

daily. It does not state that the off shore and at sea processors have to do the sea surface 

monitoring daily. Yet in other areas of the permit (i.e., Sections V.A.4, V.B.4, V.C.4, and 

VI.D.1) is appears that all processors have to do the sea surface monitoring. This needs clarified. 

R20. Please see response to C6. 

7 
C21. Section II.A.1.b states that near shore processors are limited to 3.3 million pounds of 

discharge annually. There has not been this type of limitation in the past and it could mean that 

vessels would have to move even if there is no waste build up in an area. Moving operations can 

be dangerous due to tides, currents and weather. It can also cause a loss of production time. The 

NPDES permit should not impede commerce unnecessarily. If there is no justified reason to 

believe that the environment is being adversely effected by a 3.3 million pound discharge then 

there should be no reason to have this limit in place. There may be a limited number of safe 

anchorages in an area. Having vessels move into marginal safe areas unnecessarily may 

endanger lives, property and the environment. 

R21. Since this permit provision concerns a discharge within state waters, it has been removed 

from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C22. With regard to Sections IV.C.7.d and IV.C.7.e, the commenter would like to have a better 

understanding of the intent of a water balance sheet which includes all the disinfectants, daily 

flows, etc. It is a big undertaking to develop a balance sheet that had any kind of real meaning. 

All of these things vary greatly from day to day with the amount of production or lack of 

production. Any type of average daily calculation would not have any meaningful use. 

Vessels often flush a fish tank for a day by running sea water in and out through the sea chest. 

That would have to account for in a “full plan of water balance.” Commenter is not sure how that 

information could be accurately tracked and does not understand the value of this information. 

R22. Please see response to C1. 

C23. With regard to Section VI.A.5.b(3), during the various meal plant processes water and/or 

steam may be added directly to the material and or removed from the material through spinning , 

hot rotary disc contact, air evaporation and other water removal methods. Each of these 

processes is dependent on temperature, pressures, humidity, and contact time amongst other 

variable conditions. Having an exact account of the water vapor balance can be highly 

subjective. 

Knowing how much water is used for the cleaning of fish to a headed and gutted product is 

unreasonable. A processor cannot meter every water portal in every process on the ship or in a 

processing plant. A plant can estimate the total gallons of water used in a year, after the first 

year that it is required to keep such a record. 

R23. This section is now numbered Section VI.A.5.b.3. The permit requires an estimate of the 

water used and water lost. Through previous best management practices (BMP) plans, each 

processor should have an idea of how much water they use and how much pollution is being 

discharged. If a processor does not have accurate numbers, the amount should be estimated for 

the first year. EPA has not changed this provision. 

8 
 

 

C24. With regard to Section V.A.1.m and Section VI.E, if in the event of an emergency, a shore 

based plant may desire to discharge at sea through the at-sea portion of the permit system. As 

this permit is written it would seem that a tender hauling ground up waste off shore would have 

to meet the requirements of the INFLUENT / EFFLUENT monitoring. The tender may only 

transport waste for a few days while the shore based plant is correcting their initial problem. 

Tenders temporarily hauling waste to an at sea site as a back up to normal shore based operations 

should not be required to conduct the INFLUENT / EFFLUENT monitoring portion of this 

permit. 

R24. As explained on page 1, authorization for at-sea discharges has been removed from the 

permit because these discharges are regulated under the Ocean Dumping Act. 

C25. Commenter is concerned that the shore-based processors did not have a chance to review 

the at-sea portion of the draft permit. As such, precedent will be set by this permit that will 

affect the outcome of the shore-based permit. 

R25. Please see response to C24. 

Patrick Wilson, Petersburg Fisheries, a Division of Icicle Seafoods, Inc.: 

C26. The permit verbiage is very redundant, repeating many, many of the same requirements 

and information over and over thus adding to the size, more fluff and confusion. 

R26. Comment noted. 

C27. With regard to Section I.A.1.a and Section V.1.e, it is impossible to meet the 0.5 inch grind 

requirement all the time. Allowance should be made for some sort of percentage outside of that 

specification and/or waste should be measured by the cube (volume) and not length. 

R27. Please see response to C10. 

C28. With regard to Section II.A.1.b, where does the 3.3 million pound limit come from for 

each single location? The focus should be on the deposit/impact left behind, if 30 million 

pounds discharged leaves no deposit or issues then it is not a problem, if 1,000,000 pounds leave 

a huge deposit that causes issues then it may be a problem depending on the situation 

R28. Since this permit provision concerns a discharge within state waters, it has been removed 

from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C29. With regard to Section IV.A.5, shouldn’t this mailing address be Juneau ADEC? 

R29. ADEC will address this comment. 

9 
 

C30. With regard to Section V.A.1.h, incidental foam within or outside a mixing zone must be 

allowed as long as it dissipates and is not an issue. It is impossible to prevent this from occurring 

or drifting out of the 100’ mixing zone in a strong current situation. 

R30. With regard to this offshore permit, EPA has not authorized a mixing zone. As such, 

CWA section 304(a) criteria must be met at the end of pipe. ADEC will address this comment 

with respect to mixing zones inside state waters. 

C31. With regard to Section V.A.1.l, it is dangerous to take photos of the discharge because the 

discharges occur in a high boat traffic location when in season and in use. A photo prior to or 

after season should be suitable and if there is a pile or build up, it will still be there. 

R31. This section is now numbered Section V.A.15. The pictures that are required under this 

section are to be taken from the vessel looking down to the area of the outfall. This type of 

picture should not cause a safety hazard. As such, EPA has not changed this provision. 

C32. With regard to Section V.A.1.m, influent/effluent monitoring is not practical as waste 

transport water is contaminated by city runoff, adjacent boat harbors and industry in many cases. 

Why is this added to the permit? 

R32. This section is now numbered Section V.A.16. Effluent monitoring has been added to the 

permit to determine whether there are metals in the discharges from the facilities to the receiving 

waters and, if present, at what concentration the metals are found. Influent monitoring has been 

added to check for possible contamination due to the influent versus contamination due to 

processing. This provision does not require the processor to sample the receiving water. 

C33. With regard to Section V.B.1.k., the mixing zone of 100 feet is not appropriate in a strong 

tidal area as tides, wind and waves transport the waste stream outside of the mixing zone. The 

mixing zone should exceed 300+. 

R33. With regard to this offshore permit, EPA has not authorized a mixing zone. As such, 

CWA section 304(a) criteria must be met at the end of pipe. ADEC will address this comment 

with respect to mixing zones inside state waters. 

C34. With regard to Section V.1.b.3., why is water vapor volume that is escaping to the 

atmosphere now included in the BMP Plan as a requirement? Why must it be calculated and 

reported in the annual report? Commenter suggests removing this part. 

R34. The permit does not contain a Section V.1.b.3. EPA assumes that the commenter is 

referring to Section VI.A.5.b.3 of the Permit. Water vapor is included to help processors identify 

what and how much they are actually discharging into the receiving waters. See also response 

to comment C23. 

C35. With regard to Section VI.B., the address should be changed to ADEC’s Juneau address. 

10 
R35. ADEC will address this comment. 

C36. With regard to Section VI.C.3, the assumption is made that there is a waste pile to 

measure. It should not be assumed that there will be a waste pile. 

R36. Since this provision concerns a discharge within state waters, it has been removed from the 

permit, and ADEC will address this comment. 

C37. With regard to Section VI.B.5, the annual report submission date should be changed to 

March 1st. 

R37. The final permit requires the permittee to submit the annual report by February 14th. The 

commenter did not provide any justification for changing this submission date. EPA feels that 

this is an adequate amount of time because it gives the permittee 45 days to complete the annual 

report and submit it, which should be enough time to document the discharges from the previous 

year. 

C38. With regard to Section VI.C.5., the burden of diving safety at the outfall is up to the 

contractor doing the dive survey. The commenter is not aware of, trained for, or knows of diving 

precautions that must be taken. Remove the permittee as being responsible for meeting OSHA 

safety and scuba rules for diving surveys. How can this be part of a permit? 

R38. Since this provision concerns a discharge within state waters, it has been removed from the 

permit, and ADEC will address this comment in their response to comments document. 

Kenny Down, Freezer Longline Coalition: 

C39. Commenter suggests that the permit be divided by offshore (i.e., federal waters) and near 

shore (i.e., state waters). Commenter believes that the current draft permit overly complicates 

the permit by including vessels that do not operate within state waters. These vessel types are in 

many instances very different; operations and conditions beyond three miles present a different 

set of environmentally sensitive concerns and should not fall under the same set of regulations. 

Operators that choose to operate in both federal and state waters would file an NOI for each 

near-shore and off-shore permit and abide by both permits. 

R39. As discussed on page 1, this permit only covers discharges to federal waters. ADEC will 

issue a permit(s) that covers discharges within state waters. 

C40. Commenter feels that Sections V.A.1.c, V.B.1.c, and V.C.1.c are unnecessary as the 

requirement is already quite clear that all fish processing waste needs to be routed through a 

waste conveyance system. Adding language for scuppers and floor drains could be confusing 

and our members have great concerns about the wisdom and especially the safety of this type of 

requirement. Having the EPA enter into the requirements that could affect ships safety and 

11 
stability should be done so with much more consultation and a very precautionary approach. As 

this section is unnecessary it should be removed entirely. Commenter attached a letter from 

Doug Wolfe of Elliot Bay Design Group (EBDG). EBDG’s letter expresses agreement that these 

permit sections are potentially dangerous with regard to ship safety and stability. 

R40. Sections V.B.1.c and V.C.1.c are no longer part of this permit as they pertain to 

discharges into state waters. Section V.A.1.c of the permit is now numbered Section V.A.3. 

Section V.A.3 of the permit has been revised to state: “A permittee must route all seafood 

processing waste in scuppers and floor drains through a waste conveyance system to the waste 

treatment system prior to discharge, unless the permittee provides documentation to EPA that 

this would cause safety and/or stability impediments for the vessel. If safety and/or stability 

impediments would occur, the permittee must submit a plan, to EPA, detailing BMPs that will be 

used to deter seafood processing wastes from entering scuppers and floor drains.” 

C41. With regard to Section V.C.1.f, the commenter agrees with the addition to the permit of the 

authorization for discharges at the surface for off-shore seafood processors. With vessel weather 

and rolling conditions this is clearly, from an operational standpoint, a positive addition. 

R41. Comment noted. Section V.C.1.f is no longer part of this permit as it pertains to 

discharges into state waters. However, this comment is also relevant to renumbered Section 

V.A.6. 

C42. With regard to Sections V.C.1.j. and V.C.1.k, (residues and mixing zones), these sections 

are not fully accounting for a vessel processing and moving along at 2-11 knots. A vessel 

moving through the water at a high rate of speed while processing, such as may be the case when 

a vessel is leaving an area after fishing could technically violate section J or section k of section 

V. As there is a requirement for visual monitoring (page 33 of the draft permit) and record 

keeping (page 33-34 of the draft permit) these sections and the interactions between them needs 

further thought and work with industry to structure in a way that will allow the intent of the 

permit to be met with clarity for the person(s) doing the actual on-board monitoring and record 

keeping and allow processing activities to go forward. 

R42. Mixing zones are only allowed in state waters and will be addressed by ADEC. Mixing 

zones are not authorized under this general permit. As a result, the effluent limitations in Section 

V.A. of the general permit must be met at the end-of-pipe. Please see page 1 for a discussion of 

the use of CWA Section 304(a) criteria. 

C43. With regard to Section VI.D. (Sea Surface Visual Monitoring Requirements), this type of 

record keeping (page 33-34 of the draft permit) needs further thought and work with industry to 

structure it in a way that will allow the intent of the permit to be met with clarity for the 

person(s) doing the actual on-board monitoring and record keeping and allow processing 

activities to go forward. This also goes to our original contention that the permit should treat 

vessels operating solely in federal waters with separate regulations. Again vessels operating in 

12 
federal waters beyond 3 NM should not be required to meet State of Alaska water quality 

standards. 

R43. As explained on page 1 and in response to C39, this permit only covers discharges to 

federal waters. Section VI.D has been renumbered to Section VI.C. Section VI.C (Sea Surface 

Visual Monitoring) remains in the permit pursuant to EPA’s authority under Section 308 of the 

CWA. As explained on page 1, CWA Section 304(a) marine water quality criteria have been 

applied in this permit. Example monitoring forms can be found on the EPA website. 

C44. With regard to Section VI.E (Influent/Effluent Monitoring Requirement), the commenter 

feels that this requirement is overreaching and a burden on the industry in an area that does not 

have sufficient evidence to support this type of requirement. While we understand the need in 

some industries to apply Section 308 of the CWA and federal regulation 40 CFR § 122.44(i), the 

off-shore seafood processing industry conducting operations and discharging seafood waste into 

open ocean should not require influent and effluent monitoring for substances such as those 

listed on tables 1, 2, & 3. There is no identified source on board our vessels in any capacity to 

remotely identify as a hazard to the environment we operate in. Also the attempt to identify 

adherence to Alaska WQS’s on vessels operating in federal waters more than 3 NM from shore 

should not be the intent or unintentional outcome of this permit. 

R44. This section is now numbered Section VI.D. The metals monitoring has been included in 

the permit pursuant to CWA Section 308 which applies to all industries and locations. EPA has 

included this monitoring because of high metals reported in samples taken by some seafood 

processors discharging in Alaska and around the country. As explained on page 1, CWA Section 

304(a) criteria have been applied in this permit. Ammonia monitoring has been removed from 

the permit, please see response to C45. 

C45. With regard to Section VI.E.4.b (Monitoring Requirements for Refrigerator Condenser 

Water), while only a few vessels in our fleet are using ammonia this regulation seems to be 

addressing some misunderstanding. Quarterly testing of the condenser water is not likely to find 

an ammonia leak. Even a minor leak in the condenser tube that has allowed some ammonia to 

escape the system and enter into the cooling water outfall would be quickly detected on board by 

the loss of ammonia, the smell of ammonia around the outfall, the loud sound (crackling) that 

occurs when ammonia is in the presence of water and a loss of efficiency at the condenser. A 

much better way to get the intent is to require these types of ammonia leaks to be reported in the 

annual report. Why unnecessarily burden industry with further record keeping and sampling 

when the proposed testing is not likely to provide useful data to EPA or industry. 

R45. EPA agrees that monitoring for ammonia is not the best way to get the information that is 

sought. This section is now numbered Section VI.E.4.b. The permit has been modified at 

Section VI.B.2.j as follows: “Report total pounds of ammonia or Freon used and summarize any 

occurrences of leaks or breaks in the refrigerator condenser system.” 

13 
Lori Swanson, Groundfish Forum and Stephanie Madsen, At-Sea Processors Association 

(GF/APA): 

C46. EPA has delegated NPDES permitting authority for seafood processing to ADEC. 

Because of this delegation, EPA no longer has authority to issue general permits for seafood 

processing discharges into Alaska state waters (within 3 miles). As such, the Proposed NPDES 

Permit should be limited to discharges of seafood processing wastes that occur outside state 

waters. ADEC should be responsible for developing and issuing NPDES permits for seafood 

processing activities within Alaska state waters. 

R46. Please see response to C39. 

C47. The Proposed NPDES Permit inappropriately blurs the federal and state jurisdictional 

authorities and potentially creates confusion for the regulated community. For example, certain 

provisions within the Proposed NPDES Permit (i.e., state-authorized mixing zone and visual 

monitoring requirements) require the permit holder to comply with Alaska Water Quality 

Standards even though the discharges occur outside state waters. 

R47. State authorized mixing zones are only allowed within State waters. Mixing zones are not 

authorized in federal waters. Visual monitoring is still required to ensure compliance with the 

effluent limits and requirements listed in the permit under Section V. Since the final permit only 

authorizes discharges into federal waters, the permit now recognizes that processors that 

discharge into federal waters must meet the requirements of the Ocean Discharge Criteria 

Evaluation, including CWA 304(a) criteria. The permit conditions, however, did not change 

significantly because state water quality standards and Section 304(a) criteria are virtually 

identical. 

C48. Other provisions that require reporting to ADEC appear to apply to activities outside state 

waters, even though the state lacks any regulatory authority over such discharges. If adopted, 

application of these proposed permit provisions to activities outside state waters will result in an 

unlawful delegation of EPA permitting and enforcement authority to a state agency which lacks 

regulatory authority over such activities. 

R48. Please see response to C39. 

C49. The draft Permit must be revised to reflect its application to activities that occur outside 

state waters and must delete all references to the Alaska Water Quality Standards and ADEC 

reporting requirements. 

R49. The permit has been revised to delete all reference to Alaska Water Quality Standards, and 

only references CWA section 304(a) criteria. See response to C42 and page 1 of this response to 

comments document. 

C50. EPA’s reliance on Alaska Water Quality Standards for discharges that occur outside state 

waters creates an unnecessary burden on offshore seafood processors. The processors that 

14 
 

operate outside three miles are, in many instances, very different from vessels that operate within 

three miles. These vessels operate in conditions that present a different set of environmental 

concerns and operational challenges. It is simply inappropriate to lump these types of seafood 

processing operations together with nearshore processors. 

R50. Please see page 1 for an explanation of the application of CWA Section 304(a) criteria. 

C51. The impacts of seafood processing outside three miles are significantly less than those 

operating within Alaska state waters. EPA recognized this distinction in 2001 when it stated: 

 “The size and duration of deposits depends upon the amount and type of offal discharged, the 

mobility of the source, and the depth and hydrodynamic characteristics of the receiving water. 

At one end of the continuum, seafood processing waste residues may be discharged from 

stationary sources as small volumes into moderate currents or large volumes into high currents 

and from mobile sources as large volumes into deep waters, producing deposits that persist for 

periods of hours to weeks. At the other end of the continuum, stationary discharges of tens of 

millions of pounds of offal into low current waters can produce waste piles that cover acres of 

sea floor, rise twenty feet or more above the sea floor, and persist for years to decades. EPA, 

with the concurrence of ADEC, implements and administers an NPDES permitting strategy that 

covers the majority of Alaskan seafood processors which produces small, short-term deposits 

under general permits featuring technology-based limits for remote Alaskan locations and 

ambient monitoring of the sea surface, shoreline and sea floor. 

As noted above, the General Permit will authorize discharges from 80 on-shore, 20 nearshore, 

and 150 mobile off-shore facilities. Based on the data and technical literature available, EPA 

believes that (1) 80% of the permittees have no persistent deposits associated with their 

discharges (40 on-shore, 10 near-shore, and 150 mobile off-shore facilities), (2) 16% of the 

permittees have persistent deposits of less than one-half acre (30 on-shore and 10 near-shore 

facilities), and (3) 3% of the permittees have persistent deposits of between one-half acre and one 

acre (7 on-shore facilities).” 

EPA’s Responses to Comments, Requests, Recommendations, Conditions, and Stipulations 

Pertaining to the Re-Issuance of General NPDES Permit AK-G52-0000 for Alaskan Seafood 

Processors at para. 32 (2001). As such, GF/APA requests that the draft permit be limited to 

discharges that occur outside state waters and that the draft permit delete any Alaska Water 

Quality Standard compliance and ADEC reporting requirements. 

R51. Please see response to C39. 

C52. Section II.A.1.a states “[t]otal pounds of by-catch and prohibited species discharged, and 

location must be reported in Annual Discharge Report per VI.B.2.f and in accordance with 

Alaska State statute 46.03.100.” 

GF/APA is very concerned about the lack of specificity required for compliance with respect to 

this new requirement. As currently drafted, GF/APA believes that it would be very difficult, if 

15 
not impossible, for mobile seafood processors to comply with the technical requirements of this 

provision. 

GF/APA proposes that total pounds of by-catch and prohibited species discharged and location 

be collected and reported on a once-per-day basis. GF/APA proposes that the general location of 

the discharge be described with a daily latitude and longitude description. 

R52. EPA agrees that total pounds of by-catch and prohibited species discharged and location of 

the discharge can be reported on a once per day basis, with a daily latitude and longitude 

description in degrees, minutes, and seconds. This change is reflected in Section VI.B.2.e of the 

permit. 

C53. Section III.A.6 of the draft permit does not authorize the discharge of pollutants into 

spectacled eider critical habitat during certain times of the year. GF/APA believes that the 

proposed restrictions on discharges within critical habitat appear to be overbroad. These 

restrictions appear to go beyond what is necessary to avoid impacting spectacled eider critical 

habitat. The Draft Biological Evaluation for the Proposed NPDES Permit states that the risk that 

critical habitat may undergo adverse modification due to direct or indirect effects of offshore 

seafood processing is minimal because discharges are expected to occur further than one nautical 

mile from shore. Draft Biological Evaluation for the General NPDES Permit for Offshore 

Seafood Processors in Alaska, at 76 (September 2008). Impacts are further minimized by both 

the constant movement of offshore seafood processors and their discharges occurring in areas of 

high tidal activity that will allow for dilution and dispersion of the seafood discharge. Id. at 75 

(“the location of offshore seafood processor vessels 1 nm or more from shore in high tidal areas 

should dilute and disperse the seafood processing waste fairly quickly creating less of an 

attraction for spectacled eiders.”). Based upon these findings, a blanket restriction of discharges 

within spectacled eider designated critical habitat appears to be overbroad and not warranted. 

R53. Thank you for pointing out the typo in the biological evaluation (BE). The BE has been 

corrected to state: 

“However, habitat that may undergo adverse modification due to direct effects of the offshore 

seafood processor permit due to organic waste discharge potentially altering the benthic 

community, used as a prey resource for the spectacled eiders, should be minimal as discharges 

are expected to occur further than 1 nm from critical habitat areas.” 

The Permit does not authorize discharges into critical habitat areas; however, if a processor 

wants to discharge in a critical habitat area they can apply for an individual permit. This will 

allow the permitting authority to tailor an individual permit with specific conditions that will 

protect the critical habitat area. 

C54. Section IV.A.2 of the draft permit states that EPA may require any discharger applying for 

coverage by a general permit to apply for an individual permit. The Proposed NPDES Permit 

states the factors that EPA will rely on in deciding whether to require an individual permit. The 

16 
third factor listed states, “a change has occurred in the availability of demonstrated technology or 

practices for the control or abatement of pollutants applicable to the point source.” Id. 

GF/APA notes that the American Fisheries Act (AFA) restricts the modifications that may be 

made to vessels, which in turn limits the types of technology that our at-sea processors may 

utilize. The AFA, passed by the Congress in 1998, contains strict limits on the ability for 

GF/APA vessel owners to rebuild or upgrade their vessels due to the Act’s clear limits on vessel 

size and horsepower. The AFA’s size limitations do not allow platform changes that would 

allow the addition of machinery and personnel to accommodate new processes in waste 

management. For example, some GF/APA vessels cannot be modified to allow for the addition 

of fish meal plants or for the addition of capacity to enable the production of fish oil. Both fish 

meal and fish oil production would provide more efficient seafood waste reduction. This 

restriction may prevent at-sea processors from using demonstrated technology which may 

become available to processors in other fisheries. GF/APA requests that the EPA clarify that 

availability encompasses both actual availability and legal availability. 

R54. Section IV.A.2 of the draft permit was included pursuant to 40 CFR § 122.28(b)(3) and 

cannot be changed to incorporate exceptions. If an individual permit was required for any of the 

listed reasons, the size restriction should be brought up at that point and incorporated into the 

individual permit. 

C55. Section IV.C.6.e of the draft permit states that a NOI must include projected production 

data based upon historical operations and design capacity. The draft permit includes processing 

locations as the type of production data that must be included within the NOI. These processing 

locations must be reported in either latitude and longitude or ADF&G area(s). GF/APA requests 

that the processing location data include Federal Reporting areas as identified by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

R55. EPA agrees that Federal reporting areas identified by NMFS should be included in this 

permit provision. This section has been renumbered Section IV.C.5.e. The permit now reads: 

“e. processing location(s). Locations should be identified by latitude and longitude or by 

NMFS federal reporting areas, including a map identifying where the discharges will occur in the 

reporting area,” 

C56. Section IV.C.7.e of the Proposed NPDES Permit (NOI Process Flow Diagram or 

Schematic) requires that the NOI include a Process Flow Diagram or Schematic. Proposed 

NPDES Permit at 13. The Proposed NPDES Permit is unclear about the level of detail which 

would be required for the diagram or schematic. 

R56. Please see response to C1. 

C57. Section V.A.1.c (Scupper and Floor Drain Waste) is problematic from the standpoint of 

personnel safety and vessel stability. A waste conveyance system which would capture all the 

water on deck and pump it overboard after chopping or filtration is patently impossible as the 

17 
 

volume of a boarding wave on deck could easily fill the cargo holds. The necessity to rapidly 

discharge the water from boarding seas cannot be overstated. 

In addition, commenter states that the installation of one-half inch mesh screens at scuppers 

would be problematic. The obvious problem with screens is that in cold, windy weather, 

freezing spray will quickly accrete on the mesh, effectively closing the scupper and preventing 

water on deck from draining overboard. 

Commenter states that literal compliance with this requirement may conflict with Coast Guard 

requirements pertaining to scuppers. Commenter requests that the requirement be eliminated 

from the final permit. Commenter suggests that best management practices (BMPs) be required 

to avoid discharges of seafood processing waste through scuppers. 

R57. Please see response to C40. 

C58. Commenter requests that Section V.A.1.i of the Proposed NPDES Permit (Nuisance 

Discharge) be eliminated. Commenter is extremely concerned about this new proposed 

prohibition because it is extremely ambiguous. It is unclear as to what types of activities would 

result in violations of the Final NPDES Permit. 

Additionally, this prohibition appears to be unnecessary. As stated above, EPA has previously 

recognized that the impacts of seafood processing discharges from mobile sources have limited 

short term effects on fish and wildlife. See EPA’s Responses to Comments, Requests, 

Recommendations, Conditions, and Stipulations Pertaining to the Re-Issuance of general NPDES 

Permit AK-G52-0000 for Alaskan Seafood Processors at para. 32-33. In addition, other 

agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have been studying interactions between 

fishing gear and seabirds. At a minimum, commenter requests that this provision be revised to 

require the permit holder to develop and implement best management practice to avoid creating 

such attractive nuisance situations. 

R58. This section is now numbered Section V.A.9. Section V.A.9 prohibits the creation of an 

attractive nuisance situation and further explains that this type of situation is created when fish 

and/or wildlife are attracted to an area in a manner that creates a threat to fish or wildlife as well 

as human health and safety. An example of an attractive nuisance is the creation of a large mat 

of seafood waste that then attracts birds and wildlife. This provision was included in past 

permits for near shore and shorebased facilities and was expanded to encompass all facilities in 

this permit cycle. 

C59. Section V.A.1.k of the Proposed NPDES Permit (Mixing Zone) contains a new definition 

of the allowed mixing zone to aid in the dispersion of discharged seafood waste. In adopting the 

proposed definition, the Proposed NPDES Permit states that the mixing zone of 100 feet from the 

discharge point actually follows the vessel as it moves during processing operation. Proposed 

NPDES Permit at 16. The proposed definition allows for a mixing zone but defines that mixing 

zone in a way that would defeat the purpose of a mixing zone and allow for almost instant 

18 
violations. The mixing zone would not be effective because the waste discharged in each 

location would exit the mixing zone as the vessel moves. In order for the mixing zone to operate 

effectively, the definition in the Proposed NPDES Permit should be changed to define the mixing 

zone to be “100 feet from the point where the discharged material enters the water.” That 

revised definition will allow the mixing zone to operate properly even when the vessel has 

moved onto a different location. 

R59. Please see response to C33. 

C60. Section VI.B.2.d of the Proposed NPDES Permit (Annual Report Discharge Track 

Location) requires the permittee to submit an annual report which contains map(s) of the 

discharge track(s) of the vessel. The commenter believes that it would be extremely difficult to 

comply with this requirement to submit maps of discharge tracks. Additionally, providing such 

detailed information would reveal the proprietary fishing strategies of the vessel. The 

Commenter believes that this information is of little use to EPA because the information in the 

annual report concerns discharges that have already occurred. The Commenter requests that this 

requirement be replaced with a requirement to submit a daily discharge coordinate in the annual 

report. 

R60. EPA agrees with the Commenter and has determined that this provision will be changed to 

reflect that only one daily coordinate (degree, minutes and seconds) is required for the annual 

report. The permit has been updated to incorporate this change. 

C61. The commenter does not understand why EPA has included the sea surface visual 

monitoring requirement in the Proposed NPDES Permit (Section VI.D). This type of monitoring 

is being conducted by the existing observer program operating pursuant to NMFS regulations. 

This monitoring requirement is redundant and should not be included within the Final NPDES 

Permit. It is also unclear whether this provision applies to offshore seafood processors. 

R61. The permit has been amended to clarify that all dischargers must conduct sea surface 

monitoring. Please see response to C6. Daily monitoring is to be done to ensure the permittee is 

complying with the effluent limitations and requirements of the permit. If the same daily visual 

monitoring is already being done for another program, then a copy of the results would satisfy 

this requirement, as long as the monitoring itself is conducted and reported in accordance with 

the NPDES permit requirements. 

C62. The commenter requests that the quarterly monitoring requirement in Section VI.E.4 of the 

Proposed NPDES Permit be clarified to recognize that the permittee is not required to monitor 

during those quarters when the permittee is not operating and discharging. 

R62. Section VI.E.4 has been renumbered Section VI.D.1. Section VI.D.1 of the permit has 

been revised to say “During the term of this Permit all permittees must conduct influent and 

effluent monitoring, in all quarters in which discharge occurs.” 

19 
C63. Sections VI.E.4.a and VI.E.4.c of the Proposed NPDES Permit requires quarterly 

monitoring for Ammonia, Arsenic, Copper, Cadmium, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, 

and Zinc. EPA has indicated that these new monitoring requirements are a consequence of 

“spot” checks conducted at seafood plants in Alaska and other locations throughout the United 

States that revealed unexpectedly high levels of the above-listed metals. Unfortunately, it is not 

possible for GF/APA to evaluate and comment upon EPA’s determination. Through a Freedom 

of Information Act (FOIA) request, industry representatives have previously requested that they 

be provided with the “spot” check data that EPA has relied upon in concluding that high levels of 

the above-listed metals are present. See Pacific Seafood Processors Association October 30, 

2008 FOIA Request regarding General Permit for Offshore Seafood Processing Facilities in 

Alaska. EPA has failed to provide this data. The commentor questions the need for such 

monitoring because, unlike other industries, seafood processing inputs are restricted to 

processing water and raw seafood. 

GF/APA questions the need for such monitoring. The commenter believes it is highly unlikely 

that the above-listed metals will be discharged as a result of seafood processing. The only 

potential source besides processing water and raw seafood for introduction of the above-listed 

metals would be from the processing equipment. Nevertheless, it is extremely unlikely that this 

equipment could be a source for the above-listed metals. 

The commenter has determined that the excessive costs of the proposed testing to the seafood 

processing industry would be prohibitive. Including de-salinization of the sample matrix, each 

test can cost as much as $1,500. By requiring ten tests on a quarterly basis, each facility could 

incur additional expenses up to $60,000/year. A company with ten vessels would incur annual 

expenses of more than half a million dollars and, industry-wide, the expenses will be tens of 

millions of dollars over the life of the permit. As indicated by these estimates, this provision will 

have a significant impact on a substantial number of affected processors. 

Further, the GF/APA is concerned that there is no indication that the EPA has conducted any 

type of cost-benefit analysis for the new testing requirement. The GF/APA notes that the EPA 

has committed to operating in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act’s requirements 

when issuing general permits under the Clean Water Act. See, e.g., 73 Fed. Reg. 58,587, 58,589 

(Oct. 7, 2008). While EPA included a finding of no significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities in the Fact Sheet accompanying the Proposed NPDES Permit, EPA did 

not provide any factual basis justifying that conclusion. Fact Sheet at 32. Based on the 

information available, the GF/APA does not believe that this conclusion is justified and requests 

that EPA conduct an economic analysis regarding the inclusion of the proposed monitoring 

requirements. 

R63. With regard to the basis for the metals monitoring, please see response to C44. With 

regard to the FOIA request, EPA responded to this request in December 2008. With regard to 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, since this permit will not affect more than 100 small businesses, 

EPA concluded that this permit will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

20 
number of small entities. Therefore, they are not legally subject to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. 

C64. The commenter requests that, in lieu of the proposed monitoring requirements in Sections 

VI.E.4.a and VI.E.4.c, EPA conduct a focused study at all or a representative number of the 

seafood processing facilities that exhibited a higher than expected sample of the above-listed 

metals during EPA’s “spot” checks. The commenter believes such a study, designed to 

specifically determine the source of these metals, would seem to be a more logical method of 

producing such information. The study could be designed to consider all possible sources of any 

of the above-listed metals between influent and effluent including product, process chemicals, 

and machinery. Further, this type of study would be far more likely to produce useable data in 

contrast to the testing requirements proposed in the Proposed NPDES Permit. In contrast, the 

monitoring requirements of the Proposed NPDES Permit at best will only raise questions and 

will not be useful in any sort of critical analysis. 

R64. EPA has determined that it is appropriate to retain the monitoring provisions in the permit. 

EPA has the authority to require permittees such as seafood processors to conduct monitoring 

pursuant to its authority under Section 308 of the CWA. Please see response to C44. 

C65. If EPA determines that the metals monitoring is essential, EPA should revise Sections 

IV.E.4.a and VI.E.4.c to eliminate the quarterly monitoring through the life of the permit and 

replace it with reduced monitoring if the initial testing demonstrates that specified pollutants are 

not present. For example, the Final NPDES Permit could require initial one-time or quarterly 

testing in the first or second year of the permit. If this initial testing demonstrates that the 

specified pollutants are not present, the Final NPDES Permit should eliminate the costly and 

unnecessary requirement to conduct quarterly testing. Additional testing could be required at a 

specific operation where there was a significant differential in the levels of influent and effluent. 

R65. EPA agrees to include a reduction in the metals monitoring program for those pollutants 

that show that there is no exceedances of the marine water quality criteria. Section V.A.16 of the 

permit has been changed as follows: 

16. Influent / Effluent Monitoring. The permittee must take quarterly influent and effluent 

samples, while seafood processing is occurring, for all the parameters listed in Part VI. E. 

Quarterly is defined as a calendar quarter (Jan.-Mar., Apr.-Jun., Jul.-Sep., and Oct.-Dec.). If 

no discharge occurs in one or more quarters the permittee must write “No Discharge” on the 

annual report for those quarters. 

Monitoring must begin in the third quarter after receiving authorization to discharge. For 

example, if a processor is authorized in February (the first quarter), monitoring must be 

conducted in the third quarter (July-Sept) of that same year. If the processor does not 

discharge in the third quarter after receiving authorization, then monitoring must start in the 

first quarter the processor begins discharging again. 

21 
 

Each processor must conduct, at a minimum, quarterly monitoring for at least two years. If 

after the two year minimum monitoring is completed, the processor shows no exceedances of 

CWA 304(a) criteria for Marine waters (listed in VI.D), then monitoring may cease. If after 

two years there have been exceedances of the criteria for marine waters, then monitoring 

must continue for those parameters where exceedances have occurred. Monitoring must 

continue until no exceedances occur for two consecutive years, in which processing occurs. 

If a permittee satisfies the paragraph above, then the permittee must submit a letter to the 

Director of the Office of Water and Watersheds, requesting that monitoring cease for all or a 

portion of the parameters. This letter must include a summary of the sampling data for each 

parameter that the permittee proposes to cease monitoring. A permittee must continue 

monitoring until it receives a letter from EPA approving its request. 

C66. Section VI.E.4.b of the Proposed NPDES Permit requires monitoring of ammonia for 

discharges of refrigerator condenser water. This monitoring requirement appears to be based 

upon an inaccurate assumption that all seafood processors rely upon ammonia for refrigeration. 

However, the commenter notes that most of its members rely upon freon for refrigeration. 

If a permittee only relies upon freon for refrigeration, then the permittee should not be required 

to monitor for ammonia. The commenter requests that the ammonia monitoring requirement be 

limited to those permittees who rely upon ammonia for refrigeration. 

R66. Please see response to C45. 

C67. Section VIII.H (Toxic Pollutants—Lack of Reopener) represents a significant revision 

from the existing general permit which provides that the EPA can reopen the permit to 

incorporate those standards or prohibitions. The commenter is concerned that the permit creates 

potential liability for compliance with new standards even though the permit has not been 

modified to incorporate new standards. The commenter requests that the Final NPDES Permit 

adopt the approach from the existing general permit by having new effluent standards addressed 

through a reopener provision within the Final NPDES Permit. 

R67. Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 122, reopener clauses in permits are only authorized in certain 

situations. See 40 CFR § 122.44(c). Section VIII.H is boilerplate permit language that comes 

from 40 CFR § 122.41(a). However, it should be noted that if a toxic effluent standard or 

prohibition is promulgated under Section 307(a) of the CWA, EPA is required to institute 

proceedings to modify or revoke and reissue the permit to conform to the toxic effluent standard 

or prohibition. See 40 CFR § 122.44(b)(1). Therefore, if a new toxic effluent standard or 

prohibition is promulgated, the permittee is required to comply with that provision even if the 

permit has not yet been modified; however, EPA, at the same time, is required to institute 

modification proceedings to incorporate the new standard into the permit. 

Mary Boggs, Deep Sea Fisheries (Sanko Fisheries, Pavlof Fisheries, and Gulf Mist, Inc.): 

22 
C68. Commenter believes that splitting the permit into off-shore and near-shore complicates the 

permit unnecessarily. The majority of the processing has been done offshore and within 3 miles 

on non-stationary vessels, the processing waste (ground fish) is well dispersed as the vessel is in 

constant motion. 

R68. Please see response to C39. 

C69. With regard to Section V.C.1.c, the current permit already specifies that fish processing 

waste must be routed through a waste conveyance system. Adding requirements about scuppers 

and floor drains is confusing and required changes may cause safety and stability issues. EPA 

should not force requirements that could potentially affect vessel’s stability. 

R69. Please see response to C40. 

C70. With regard to Section VI.E. of the draft permit, this requirement seems overreaching and 

burdensome on the industry in an area that does not have sufficient evidence to support this type 

of requirement. Processing and discharging seafood waste into the open ocean should not 

require influent and effluent monitoring. 

R70. Please see response to C44. 

C71. With regard to Section VI.E.b, quarterly testing of the condenser water is not likely to find 

an ammonia leak. Minor leaks are found by smelling the leak and repairing it. 

R71. Please see response to C45. 

From Mike Clutter at Icicle Seafoods Inc.: 

C72. Section V.B.e of the draft permit states that permittees must report any failure to meet 

grind size in accordance with Part VII.G. which requires telephone notification within 24 hours. 

Is this correct? 

R72. Please see response to C16. 

C73. The statement in Section V.B.f. which authorizes the discharge at least minus 60’ depth is 

inconsistent with an earlier statement that precluded discharges into areas less than 60’ MLLW, 

with inadequate flushing. Is this an oversight particularly in the case of locations in Bristol Bay 

where the depth is in the minus 30 – 40’MLLW range but with extremely good flushing due to 

the swift current? 

R73. Since this permit provision concerns a discharge within state waters, it has been removed 

from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

23 
 

 

C74. In response to a question at the October 15th Public Information Meeting in Anchorage we 

were informed that coverage by two permits will be required for vessels operating at locations 

less than 0.5 nm from shore as well as locations more than 0.5 nm from shore. Four of our 

processing vessels operate routinely on an annual basis both inside and outside the 0.5 nm line. 

This permit is already much more complex than the current General permit and we haven’t even 

seen the onshore version of this permit. What are the benefits that justify further complicating an 

already more intricate compliance process by now requiring two annual reports, two BMP plans, 

two NOI’s and other related details that have yet to be discovered? 

R74. As discussed on page 1, ADEC sent a letter to EPA stating that it planned on issuing its 

own permit(s) that would deal with discharges within 3 miles. As such, ADEC will address this 

comment. 

C75. Does EPA/ADEC have any scientific data to support the ecological or environmental 

significance of the 0.5 nm distance from shore or was it chosen arbitrarily? This is a significant 

economic burden on vessels required to operate under both permits. Splitting the General 

Seafood Permit into two sectors and the Offshore permit into three subsectors has created 

economic advantages and disadvantages as the case may be. Seafood companies have each 

chosen their mix of operating scenarios and platforms based on criteria known only to them. 

Was it the intent of EPA/ADEC to upset or distort the natural and proprietary nature of this 

process by creating inequities based on operating platform types? 

R75. This permit covers offshore seafood processing discharges in federal waters. Discharges 

within state waters will be addressed by ADEC. 

C76. Shore plants wanting to maintain the flexibility of discharging offshore as a matter of 

emergency (this happened to our Seward plant when their meal plant had a breakdown during a 

salmon season) would be required to have coverage under this permit in addition to the Onshore 

NPDES General Permit. Is there a net gain that justifies further complicating the compliance 

process by requiring two annual reports, two BMP plans and two NOI processes etc? Since this 

is used only in case of need there will be many years when discharging at sea isn’t necessary. 

R76. With regard to at-sea discharges, please see response to C8. With regard to discharges that 

occur within state waters, ADEC will address this comment. 

C77. What happens when a facility like our Seward plant applies for this permit but then doesn’t 

need to send any waste out to sea - Does it need to abide by all the permit requirements of the 

Off Shore permit or only those related to at-sea discharges? Must a permittee submit an annual 

report in a year when it doesn’t discharge offshore? 

How do we do an NOI for Seward’s possible discharge here? If meal plant breaks we might 

discharge 300,000 lbs/ day at sea. 

24 
 

 

R77. With regard to at-sea discharges, please see response to C8. With regard to discharges that 

occur within state waters, ADEC will address this comment. 

C78. Section III of the draft permit prohibits the discharge of pollutants in specified excluded 

areas. According to the Fact Sheet, facilities wishing to operate in excluded areas must apply for 

an individual permit. This is an extremely complex and far reaching requirement, made more so 

by the lack of an all encompassing set of detailed maps. Only recently we’ve become aware 

through the surfacing of other mapping and chart resources that many of our traditional 

processing areas throughout the state and particularly in Western Alaska are in proximity to the 

Alaska Maritime NWR. 

How will this be handled in the likelihood of the permit becoming effective in midseason? Is 

EPA suggesting that affected facilities stop operations until Individual Permits can be issued? 

This will have an immense cost to the industry in forgone processing opportunities not to 

mention the adverse economic impact to local communities, harvesters, vendors, individual 

seafood employees and the myriad other entities who rely on these resources. Moving to other 

sites is not feasible as traditional processing sites have evolved for many reasons and alternate 

sites are few. Traveling greater distances to suitable sites further away from these areas presents 

a hardship in terms of fuel consumption, freshness of product etc. 

R78. The analysis done for this permit was based on the fact that discharges would not be 

occurring within the excluded areas. These areas are excluded because they warrant more 

specific and restrictive requirements. Please also see response to C53. Because most excluded 

areas occur in State waters, ADEC will also address this comment. 

C79. Commenter is concerned that an individual permit will not be issued in a timely manner 

especially in the context of the new State of Alaska Primacy for the NPDES permits. What is the 

expected time frame for the task of rectifying that situation which will certainly take precedence 

over subsequent permit requests? It is very unlikely the State of Alaska anticipated this added 

permitting and enforcement burden. 

R79. Since ADEC is the permitting authority for discharges within state waters, ADEC will 

address this comment. 

C80. Requiring these Individual Permits greatly complicates what promises to be an already 

complicated compliance environment in terms of NPDES issues alone. We have vessels whose 

typical annual operations will require them to have an Onshore General NPDES General Permit, 

an Offshore NPDES General Permit and now an Individual Permit (or permits) for operations in 

excluded areas not to mention the imminent Vessel General Permit. 

R80. As explained in response to C53, the excluded areas require additional analysis and 

potentially more restrictive requirements than what can be authorized under a general permit. It 

is more appropriate to include these additional requirements in an individual permit for a specific 

processor. Moreover, by allowing processors to discharge in these excluded areas through the 

25 
 

 

granting of waivers (as allowed under the expired permit), the general public is unable to 

comment on whether a specific processor should be allowed to discharge in a specific excluded 

area. 

C81. Using an Individual Permit in this way is not a good option! This process takes 12 – 24 

months. There must be some way within the purview of the permit that would adequately ensure 

the conservation of the concerned areas without dramatically complicating the compliance 

efforts of industry and regulators. Instead of considering them ‘excluded areas’ we suggest they 

be termed as Areas-of-Concern with their own subset of requirements. We would welcome the 

opportunity to work with EPA to develop a mutually satisfactory outcome to this otherwise 

onerous and cumbersome aspect of the draft permit. 

R81. As stated in response to C53 and C80, more restrictive permit provisions for excluded 

areas are more appropriate for individual permits or watershed based permits. For discharges 

that occur within state waters, ADEC will address this comment. 

C82. The many unexpected subtleties and requirements of this permit demand more extensive 

analysis. The second informational meeting for Seattle based stakeholders was only nine 

working days before comments must be received by EPA. Sufficient time was not allowed for 

all stakeholders to adequately contemplate the intricacies of this permit. 

R82. The initial public comment period was 45 days and after receiving requests for an 

extension it was extended an additional 30 days. No requests were received to further extend the 

public comment period. 

C83. It is probable that substantial elements of this permit will be included in the upcoming 

onshore permit. That being the case, stakeholders covered under that permit may be deprived of 

a valid opportunity to comment on issues that have effectively been decided with eventual 

issuance of this offshore permit before the onshore permit even comes up for public comment. 

R83. ADEC is the permitting authority for discharges within state waters. The public will have 

an opportunity to comment on any draft shore-based permit issued by ADEC and will have the 

opportunity to appeal such a permit. 

C84. With regard to Section V.A.1.e, what constitutes a “Failure to meet the 0.5 inch grind size 

limit”? How does EPA/ADEC apply the rule? This creates confusion regarding non-compliance 

reporting depending on how a failure is interpreted. Does EPA/ADEC have scientific data to 

show grinding to 0.5” is ecologically more beneficial than grinding to 0.75” or 1.0”? How can 

by-catch be discarded whole if there is a problem with a small percentage of our waste stream 

being greater than 0.5” and even then, almost always in only one dimension? More to the point: 

Is there any data or analysis showing statistical significance in the difference between 100% 

achievement of the 0.5” grind size criteria and say 95% achievement and if so, relative to what 

standard or goal? 

26 
R84. Please see response to C10 with regard to compliance with the 0.5 inch grind requirement. 

There are some exceptions to the 0.5 inch grind requirement for by-catch with regard to certain 

types of shells as well as a prohibited by-catch provision. The prohibited by-catch provision is in 

the permit pursuant to 50 CFR § 679.21(b)(2)(ii). 

“(2) Prohibited species catch restrictions. The operator of each vessel engaged in directed fishing 

for groundfish in the GOA or BSAI must: 

(i) Minimize its catch of prohibited species. 

(ii) After allowing for sampling by an observer, if an observer is aboard, sort its catch 

immediately after retrieval of the gear and, except as provided below, return all prohibited 

species or parts thereof to the sea immediately, with a minimum of injury, regardless of its 

condition...” 

C85. Discussion at the 10/15/08 Public Information Meeting in Anchorage indicated that a small 

percentage of particles exceeding the specification is not a problem. The industry must have a 

clear understanding of what constitutes a small percentage and it’s in the best interest of EPA 

and ADEC to provide clear guidelines that streamline compliance efforts of the permittees. 

Specifying a range of values (percentages) that are considered de minimis would clear up the 

uncertainty. Freed from ongoing interpretation of what constitutes a “Failure to meet the 0.5 

inch grind size limit”, inspectors and permittees can concentrate efforts on more important 

compliance issues. 

R85. Please see response to C10. 

C86. The commenter believes it would be simpler and result in no loss of effectiveness to 

simply require that a facility maintain properly operating equipment that is designed to grind a 

high percentage of the seafood wastes to 0.5” in any dimension. The 0.5 inch grind requirement 

is a technology based effluent limit. We suggest it be kept within the realm of technology and 

achieve desired oversight through monitoring and reporting on the technology itself. Such 

control could be realized by stipulating minimum specifications of BAT (best available 

technology) and/or provide acceptable examples of BAT, by requiring submittal of maintenance 

logs, and other demonstrations that said equipment continually operates to manufacturer 

specifications. 

R86. See response to C10. 

C87. With regard to the requirement to conduct seafloor monitoring, the river currents in Bristol 

Bay especially in combination with tides and wind are exceedingly effective in dispersing any 

seafood wastes. The sea floor is a very fluid mixture of mud, sand and silt, and is in a constant 

state of flux except for brief intervals at tide changes. The likelihood of any persistent or 

contiguous deposits forming in this environment is effectively nonexistent therefore the need for 

27 
 

seafloor monitoring is also non-existent. This is a new requirement. Does EPA/ADEC have 

scientific data on which this unprecedented requirement was based? 

We consulted with Tim Jewell of Envirotech Diving. Tim has made dives in some Bristol Bay 

rivers but within very limited constraints and only for brief repairs on vessels that were drifting 

thus completely cancelling out the effects of the current. It was explained to me that visibility is 

so poor that any aspect of seafloor monitoring requiring a visual perspective is not possible. 

Because of the current it is impossible to free swim and hold a course which is necessary for 

laying out transects necessary for assessing the outlines of a ZOD etc 

Safety Issues Because of the poor visibility the swift currents and extreme tides it is extremely 

unlikely that anyone would attempt to perform seafloor monitoring even if it were necessary or 

physically possible. 

R87. Since ADEC is the permitting authority for discharges within state waters, ADEC will 

address this comment. 

C88. Seafloor Monitoring at depths greater than 120 feet: 

Dive Surveys With regard to seafloor monitoring at depths greater than 120 feet, 

decompression time is required. Thus, dive contractors begin charging for dive time plus the 

associated decompression time. Because time at depth is limited contractors must increase the 

number of divers in order to accomplish the same amount of work previously done by one and 

each of these must comply with the decompression requirements. Additionally, in order to 

comply with OSHA regulations, contractors must deploy some form of decompression 

apparatus. This equipment is complex, very bulky and heavy requiring a larger (and more 

expensive) support vessel. The requirements of deep dive surveys in combination with often 

adverse weather conditions and remoteness of many seafood processing locations combine in 

ways that greatly increase the cost of seafloor monitoring. Bearing in mind that seafloor 

monitoring at depths beyond 120’ has previously been considered inconsequential, is there 

scientific data indicating that information gained through such surveys is justified by the 

significantly increased costs? 

R88. Since ADEC is the permitting authority for discharges within state waters, ADEC will 

address this comment. 

C89. Changing Positions as an alternative to seafloor monitoring: 

In response to a question at the October 15th Public Information Meeting it was suggested that 

we simply move our vessel at least one (1) nautical mile every seven days in order to avoid the 

requirement for seafloor monitoring. This is problematic for several reasons. The foreign freight 

vessels necessary for our processing vessels to have alongside in order to operate require an 

Alaskan Marine Pilot for any change in position. Processor vessels and freighters are very large 

and prudence dictates that movement of these large vessels, especially in areas subject to 

extreme winds and tides, be kept to a minimum from the common sense perspective of limiting 

the opportunity for accidents to happen. 

28 
Moreover, some locales where we operate simply don’t have enough area with the combination 

of depth, good holding bottom and protection from the wind that is desired for safe operations. 

A good example is Clark’s Point in the Nushagak River in Bristol Bay. That leaves no 

alternative except to leave the vicinity which deprives fishing fleets of their markets etc. 

R89. Since ADEC is the permitting authority for discharges within state waters, ADEC will 

address this comment. 

C90. With regard to Section IV.C, must the NOI be revised if the owner’s Duly Authorized 

Representative changes or for changes in minor administrative details such as a change of phone 

or fax number. 

R90. The NOI must be revised if the owner’s Duly Authorized Representative changes or for 

changes in minor administrative details such as a change of phone or fax number. Without the 

changes to the NOI the permitting authority does not know who to get a hold of (owner’s Duly 

Authorized Representative) or how to get a hold of them (change of phone or fax number). 

C91. With regard to Section IV.C.4, a vessel might move several times in a given season 

depending on weather, tide, proximity to resource, or to address safety issues and this can’t be 

predicted. The only way to comply is to list every location used historically. There are times 

when we may not know whether a vessel will process at a particular location until as little as 30 

days prior to use or we may not process at that location at all. The need for weather induced 

changing of anchorages or other vessels moving in to the position are just two reasons a vessel is 

unlikely to anchor in exactly the same position each year. Furthermore, it is common for 

combinations of tide, river current and wind to cause positions to change dramatically during a 

season. 

R91. If this comment is directed toward Section IV.C.4.c for offshore vessels, EPA requires a 

general area map that identifies where discharges occur. This allows EPA to track where 

pollutants are going to be discharged. This section has been renumbered Section IV.C.5.e. 

If this comment is directed toward Section Section IV.C.4.b for near shore vessels, than this 

permit provision concerns discharges within state waters, and has been removed from the permit. 

Since ADEC is the permitting authority for discharges within state waters, ADEC will respond to 

this comment. 

C92. What does EPA/ADEC mean by “Hydrodynamically energetic waters with higher capacity 

of dilution and dispersion”. (Page 6 top). How is this defined? Also if the waters have a high 

capacity for dispersion, doesn’t this make the 100 ft mixing zone requirement hard to meet? 

R92. In regard to mixing zones please see response to C33. With regard to the definition of 

“hydrodynamically energetic waters,” please see response to C19. 

29 
 

 

C93. Section V.A.1.h, states that the discharge of foam is prohibited but the second sentence of 

that section then states that incidental foam “... must be minimized to the extent practicable as 

described in the best management practices plan...”. This infers that some foam and scum from 

transfer water is allowed but an inference is not appropriate as it leaves too much open to 

interpretation. It should be stated clearly. Also is it better to have some foam or pollute the 

waters by use of a de-foaming chemical to minimize it? 

R93. Section V.A.1.h has been renumbered Section V.A.8. Section V.A.8. has been changed to 

read “A permittee must not discharge any other wastewaters that contain pollutants listed below 

in V.A.9. – 14. The incidental foam and scum produced by discharge of seafood catch transfer 

water must be minimized to the extent practicable as described in the BMP Plan ....” 

For discharges within state waters, ADEC will also respond to this comment. 

C94. With regard to Section V.A.1.m, the cost of this additional sampling will be significant. 

Does EPA/ADEC have any scientific data to suggest seafood discharges pose a problem relative 

to heavy metals? Also, do we know if this kind of sampling is possible from remote areas or 

Alaska? 

R94. Please see response to C44. Sampling is possible for remote areas of Alaska as the 

samples can have long holding times. 

C95. With regard to Section V.B.1.a, what is the basis for the 3.3 million pound limit in any one 

area? Is there data indicating a problem necessitating this requirement? The 3.3 million lbs 

discharge limit is new and could pose some issues; in a place like Bristol Bay if a processor gets 

close to the limit there are many considerations involved with figuring out where to anchor next 

and more than a few are related to vessel safety. 

R95. Since this permit provision concerns discharges within state waters, it has been removed 

from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C96. With regard to Section V.B.1.f, the 60 ft depth isn’t possible in Bristol Bay and maybe 

some areas in Togiak. Typically we anchor barges in the safest spot considering tide, current, 

holding bottom and shelter from winds. 

R96. Since this permit provision concerns discharges within state waters, it has been removed 

from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C97. With regard to Section V.B.1.l, how will ADEC determine the size of the ZOD? Do they 

have any science to support this process? Will an operator be expected to provide a lot of (costly) 

information or studies to ADEC in order to get a ZOD? What has prompted ADEC to change 

this part of the permit? Does EPA have any new information to show it is necessary or is this 

change more or less arbitrary? 

30 
R97. Since this permit provision concerns discharges within state waters, it has been removed 

from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C98. Section V.B.1.o, sounds ominous. What criteria could lead to requiring this additional 

sampling? There must be clearly stated, objective criteria so permittees have some means of 

avoiding what is likely to be very expensive monitoring. 

R98. Since Section V.B.1.o pertained to discharges within state waters, it has been removed 

from the permit. Pursuant to 40 CFR § 122.44(d), however, all NPDES permits are required to 

comply with CWA Section 304(a) criteria. Since state water quality standards do not apply to 

the discharges into federal waters, this permit must comply with the Ocean Discharge Criteria 

Evaluation and Section 304(a) marine water quality criteria. If EPA determines that CWA 

Section 304(a) criteria are not being met, the agency may issue information requests pursuant to 

Section 308 of the CWA. Moreover, if EPA determines that it is appropriate, it may modify the 

permit to include additional monitoring requirements. For discharges within State waters, ADEC 

will further address this comment. 

C99. How specific does the BMP plan need to be in terms of the “materials accounting” part? 

Some of the processes have a fair amount of variation based on such factors as fish condition, 

market requirements, atmospheric conditions (in the case of meal production). 

R99. All of the topics mentioned above should be discussed in the BMP plan. The BMP plan 

should be a very detailed document about your process and how you can avoid discharging 

pollutants. It is best to discuss the variations in the plan and discuss what you would do in each 

case. 

C100. With regard to Section VI.D., we cannot and should not speculate on the cause of death 

of any of these animals unless we actually see it happen. 

R100. This section has been changed to section VI.C. The general cause of death can 

sometimes be determined and, if it can be determined, it should be reported. If the probable 

cause of death cannot be determined, then that can be noted in the monitoring report. 

C101. With regard to Section VII.H, what are the “toxic pollutants”? 

R101. “Toxic pollutants” are listed in 40 CFR § 401.15. 

Ryan Hatton, Snopac Products, Inc.: 

C102. Section II.A.1.b of the draft permit states that processors operating between 0.5 and 1.0 

NM cannot discharge more than 3.3 million pounds of ground waste residues. 

In reviewing the Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation (ODCE) Summary section 3.4 on page 3­

19, the modeling results, including the margin of safety, indicate that floating processors would 

31 
 

comply with the once acre ZOD requirement if they discharged 3.3 million pounds of ground 

waste residue at depths greater than 50 feet. However, the summary also states that processors 

discharging at 50 foot depths could discharge 6.7 million pounds of ground waste residue and 

also meet the required one acre ZOD. The draft GP should be revised to include both of these 

limits in Section II.A.1.b of the GP (the allowance for discharges in less than 60 feet of water is 

discussed in comment #4). 

R102. Since this permit provision concerns discharges within state waters, it has been removed 

from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C103. The draft GP should also be revised to include provisions in the permit to address 

permittees that comply with the approved discharge locations and the discharge limit for seafood 

processing waste residues but still exceed the approved ZOD based on a seafloor survey. This 

should not be considered a permit exceedance or violation, and should only require follow up 

action if the permittee intends to process in the same area the following year. 

R103. Since this permit provision concerns discharges within state waters, it has been removed 

from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. It should be noted, however, that if the 

approved ZOD is exceeded, this would be considered a permit violation. 

C104. With regard to Section II.A.4, the previous GP allowed domestic gray water as an 

authorized “other wastewater” that could be discharged. The current draft GP does not include 

domestic gray water. The permit should be revised as follows: 

“Other wastewater generated in the seafood processing operation, including, [domestic gray 

water omitted and should be added here], seafood catch transfer water, live tank water, 

refrigerated seawater, cooking water, boiler water, cooling water, refrigeration condensate, 

freshwater pressure relief water, clean-up water, and scrubber water.” 

R104. EPA agrees and has added gray water as an “authorized discharge.” Please see also 

response to C7. 

C105. With regard to Section III (Excluded Areas), the previous GP had provisions for waivers 

which permitted the Agencies to review and authorize excluded discharge areas on a site specific 

basis. Tramper requirements, fishing conditions, anchor depths, safety considerations, and 

weather may necessitate fishing in unauthorized areas where operations would not adversely 

impact the environment. The proposed draft GP has no waiver provisions and will require the 

permittee to apply for an Individual Permit (IP). ADEC can take up to 180 days to issue the IP. 

It is also assumed that the IP would be tied to one discharge latitude and longitude. Given 

market dynamics and changing fisheries, it can be difficult to predict exact processing locations 

six months in advance. 

R105. Please see response to C53 and C80. Also note that an individual permit could cover 

multiple discharge areas. 

32 
C106. The draft GP should be revised to include a mechanism for reviewing discharges to 

excluded areas in addition to or instead of applying for an IP. As well, if a permittee elects to 

apply for an IP, the Agencies should provide for a compliance schedule to allow the permittee to 

legally discharge under the proposed GP while the IP application is being reviewed by the 

Agencies. 

R106. Please see response to C53 and C80. 

C107. With regard to Sections V.A.1.c and V.B.1.c, the draft GP currently states: “A permittee 

must route all seafood processing waste in scuppers and floor drains through a waste conveyance 

system to the waste treatment system prior to discharge”, and seafood process waste is defined as 

“the waste fluids (including Stickwater), organs, flesh, bones and chitinous shells produced in the 

conversion of aquatic animals from a raw form to a marketable form.” 

The conversion process is the butchering operation. Is this the waste / wastewater that is 

restricted from being discharged through the scuppers and floor drains? 

R107. The conversion process includes any changes made to the “seafood.” The definition of 

“seafood” is “the raw material...to be processed, in the form in which it is received at the 

processing plant.” 

All water or other substances which touch the seafood, or come from the seafood once it is in 

your possession is process waste/wastewater. Therefore, if any wastewater is generated during 

the conversion process, this would constitute wastewater that is restricted from being discharged 

through scuppers and floor drains. For more discussion of the scupper provision please see 

response to C40. 

C108. In Section III.B.1 (At-Risk Water Resources and Waterbodies) of the draft GP, 

discharges in less than 60 feet of water are permitted if the water body meets the stipulated 

requirements. On page 18 Section V.B.1.f – “Outfall System”, the provisions for discharging in 

less than 60 feet of water were omitted. Section V.B.1.f in the draft GP should be revised to 

include the provisions in Section III.B.1. 

R108. Since Section V.b.1.f concerned discharges within state waters, it has been deleted from 

the permit and ADEC will address this comment. Section III.B.1 remains in the permit 

unchanged. 

C109. Will the State grant a ZOD greater than one acre for one location? Can a permittee have 

a total ZOD allocation greater than one acre for multiple locations? Is it also correct to assume 

that the ZOD applies to the total contiguous and non-contiguous waste piles for one location? 

This should be clarified in this section of the draft GP. 

33 
R109. Since this permit provision concerns discharges within state waters, it has been removed 

from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C110. With regard to Section V.B.4, the proposed draft GP states that seafloor monitoring is 

required for all near shore discharges at locations where discharges occurred for more than 7 

days. Based on the modeling in the ODCE, the draft GP should be revised to delineate the 

matrix of discharge depths and currents where deposition on the seafloor is a concern and 

compliance with the one acre ZOD needs to be verified using seafloor monitoring. This would 

alleviate unnecessary surveys in locations where waste piles would be non-existent or 

significantly less than one acre given the receiving waters. 

R110. Since this permit provision concerns discharges within state waters, it has been removed 

from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C111. If a permittee discharges to the same location and discharges the same tonnage for two 

consecutive years, and surveys indicate full compliance with the allocated ZOD, the draft GP 

should be revised to allow permittees to discontinue monitoring until there is a substantial 

increase in production level. 

R111. Since this permit provision concerns discharges within state waters, it has been removed 

from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C112. With regard to Section V.C., the draft GP should be revised so that at-sea discharges are 

also permitteed 0.5 to 1.0 NM and regulated in the same manner as the Near Shore (0.5 to 1.0 

NM and Off Shore discharge (greater than 1 NM) categories. However, the Near Shore and Off 

Shore criteria that is not applicable for an at-sea discharge vessel (e.g. no need to monitor 

grinders if barging pre-ground waste, no need to monitor influent water if none is present, etc.) 

should be dropped. 

R112. With regard to discharges into federal waters, please see response to C8. With regard to 

discharges within state waters, ADEC will address this comment. 

C113. With regard to Section VI.C.4, the draft GP requires that the seafloor survey report be 

submitted by February 14th. The duration of processing seasons and the time required for the 

survey to be conducted and report completed may not permit meeting this deadline. The draft 

GP should be revised to allow legitimate submissions after February 14th. 

R113. Since ADEC is the permitting authority for discharges within state waters, ADEC will 

address this comment. 

C114. With regard to Section VI.E, the draft GP requires quarterly sampling for the life of the 

permit. The draft GP should be revised to allow dropping the monitoring of streams if after two 

years of monitoring the measured pollutant levels are not of concern. Monitoring would be 

resumed if there were substantial changes to the operation. 

34 
 

 

R114. EPA agrees. Please see response to C65. 

Marleanna Soto, Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. (RDC): 

C115. RDC opposes the need for multiple discharge permits governing the same areas of 

water, and proposes the new permit be specific to federal waters, three or more nautical miles 

from shore. Alaska’s primacy over pollutant discharge elimination systems in Alaska’s waters 

should encompass zero to three miles from shore. Overlapping water jurisdiction results in 

unnecessary complications and burden on Alaska’s fishing industry. 

R115. Please see response to C39. 

C116. Furthermore, the draft NPDES permit describes new and excessive reporting 

requirements for influent/effluent monitoring and testing for metals. The At-Sea Processors 

Association (APA) proposes revisions to these requirements via comment letter (December, 

2008) with which RDC concurs. 

R116. Please see responses to C44 and C65. 

C117. RDC encourages the EPA to remove the revisions regarding scupper blockage and annual 

reporting of discharge tracking and mapping for safety and proprietary purposes. The purpose of 

a scupper is vessel safety, and blocking it would jeopardize the vessel stability in high seas. 

R117. Please see response to C40. 

C118. Mapping and recording of discharge tracks would be overly burdensome and would 

reveal fishing strategies of each vessel. 

R118. Please see response to C60. 

Tim Jewell , Enviro-Tech Diving Inc.: 

C119. PAGE 31 

3. Objective. The seafloor monitoring program must determine the areal extent (reported in 

square feet and in acres to the nearest tenth) of the deposit of sludge, solid or emulsion. The 

survey must use a deposition which is 0.5 inch or thicker on the bottom (seafloor) as the 

minimum detection level. The seafloor monitoring program must also determine the volume and 

thickness of the deposited seafood processing waste 

C. Monitoring must provide at least five representative photos of the area(s) of deposited 

seafood processing waste recorded from a distance of 2 - 3 feet from the surface of the 

deposit(s). 

35 
Suggested change 

C. Monitoring must provide at least five representative scaled photos of the area(s) of 

deposited seafood processing waste recorded from a distance of 2 - 3 feet from the 

surface of the deposit(s) using a standard tidal scale. 

Reasoning and explanation: 

Without a scale in each representative photo there is no way to determine grind size or any scale 

of what the picture represents. The standard tidal gauge is inexpensive and readily available 

from numerous sources. It can be readily give a common reference for all parties. 

R119. Since ADEC is the permitting authority for discharges within state waters, ADEC will 

address this comment. 

C120. SECTION C : Seafloor monitoring 

4. Schedule and submittal. All permittees required to survey deposited seafood processing waste 

must develop and implement a seafloor monitoring survey and submit the report no later than 

February 14th with the annual report. Dive surveys are required at each “single location” the 

vessel discharges for 7 or more days per calendar year. 

Suggested change 

The areas inside the Naknek, Egigik, Ugashik, Nushagak, Kivchak river systems as well as 

Kivchak Bay East of 158°00’ 000” should excluded from dive surveys. 

Reasoning and explanation: 

The tides in this area which range to the 17’ in height and currents which can reach 4 knots 

produce extremely high turbidity and extremely hazardous diving conditions. The turbidity in 

the water column reduces visibility to zero the majority of the time making any quantitative 

measure of any seafood processing byproduct nearly impossible. Further given the depth of the 

water and the speed of the current most discharge well outside the area a diver can reasonably 

search. 

Working dive operations in currents greater that 1.0 knots is exceeding difficult and diving in 

currents greater than 2.0 knots exposes divers to conditions where diver safety compromised. 

This area has very short slack water times (no or little current) as well as different tidal currents 

at different depths in the water column. Conditions may indicate slack water on the surface 

while the bottom current my still be at a high rate. Current rapidly accelerate after slack water 

which would make safe recovery of the diver hazardous. I would be reluctant to expose any of 

my personnel to these diving conditions unless it was a lifesaving operation. 

R120. Since ADEC is the permitting authority for discharges within state waters, ADEC will 

address this comment. 

C121. PAGE 32 

7. Monitoring report. A permittee must submit a report of the seafloor monitoring survey which 

describes the methods and results of the survey. 

36 
•	 current directions and speeds at the site during the time of the survey, 

Suggested change 

 NOAA reported current directions and speeds at the site during the time of the survey 

Reasoning and explanation: 

Very few divers or associated companies carry current meters to do so is an unreasonable 

expense since the current data is readily available from other sources 

R121. Since ADEC is the permitting authority for discharges within state waters, ADEC will 

address this comment. 

C122. 

 the types and quantities of aquatic life observed adjacent to, on, in, or feeding on the pile 

must be reported along with representative photos, 

Suggested change 

 the types and estimate of abundance of aquatic life observed adjacent to, on, in, or feeding on 

the pile must be reported along with representative photos, and an indication of change from 

any previous observations. 

Reasoning and explanation: 

It would be impossible to give an accurate count of marine life on the pile. Most finfish is highly 

mobile and transitory. As the diver travels along the pile doing measurements he will observe 

many fish and it is impossible to tell if this is a fish which has fled on his approach or a new fish 

in the area. General abundance or estimates would be more accurate. 

R122. Since ADEC is the permitting authority for discharges within state waters, ADEC will 

address this comment. 

C123. 

 at least five representative photos of the area(s) of deposited seafood processing waste 

recorded from a distance of 2 - 3 feet from the surface of the deposit(s), 

Suggested change 

 Monitoring must provide at least five representative scaled photos of the area(s) of deposited 

seafood processing waste recorded from a distance of 2 - 3 feet from the surface of the 

deposit(s) using a standard tidal scale. 

Reasoning and explanation: 

See previous. 

R123. Since ADEC is the permitting authority for discharges within state waters, ADEC will 

address this comment. 

37 
 

From B. SACHAU: 

C124. DENY THIS PERMIT. LETTING THAT SLOP INTO THOSE COLD WATERS IS 

CERTAINLY NOT GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. 

GET THE SHIPS OUT OF THERE. THEY TAKE ALL OF THE FOOD FROM THE 

MAMMALS WHO NEED FOOD TO EAT. YOU ARE STARVING THOSE ANIMALS THAT 

NEED THAT FOOD. STOP ALLOWING MANKIND TO TAKE IT ALL. 

R124. This permit regulates the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. EPA 

does not have jurisdiction over fishing regulations. The permit contains provisions to ensure that 

CWA Section 304(a) criteria are being met. 

C125. There should be a complete shut down of all factory processing of seafood at sea. The 

corruption in this practice is notorious. It is criminal and causing starvation in all marine life. I 

demand an investigation of what is going on in this area. Certainly the millions made in a few 

days at sea needs investigation. They are scalping the American public. 

R125. EPA does not have the authority to close any seafood processors. EPA has conducted 

various seafood processor inspections and some of those inspections have resulted in 

enforcement actions. In terms of the fishing practices of the seafood industry, EPA does not 

have jurisdiction over this.
 

From Teresa Jordan: 

C126. The following comments are on the Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) (Please note that the pages are not numbered. ): 

I concur with the statement that these operations “are more appropriately controlled under a 

general permit than under individual permits” (top of page 2) 

I concur with all of the Areas Excluded from Authorization (5 bullet points, Page 5) 

I concur with the 3rd bullet point statement, on Page 6, “Unlike the current permit, the proposed 

permit does not contain a provision allowing for waivers to discharge into otherwise excluded 

areas...”
 

R126. Thank for your comments. Page numbers will be added to the Final FONSI. No other 

changes were made based on these comments. 

C127. The No Action Alternative is not an option since “the current administratively extended 

general permit for seafood processors in Alaska without any changes to its provisions or 

requirements” “would be” reissued by EPA (Page 5, ALTERNATIVE 2: NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE paragraph). 

R127. Pursuant to 40 CFR § 1502.14(d), as well as EPA’s regulations for implementing the 

procedural provisions of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 40 CFR § 

38 
6.205(e)(1)(ii), EPA is required to analyze alternatives to the proposed action, including the no 

action alternative. The no action alternative generally takes one of two forms depending on the 

proposed federal action in question, and does not preclude EPA from taking administrative 

action. When the proposed action alternative involves the modification of an ongoing program 

the no action alternative would be no change to the current program, not the elimination of the 

program. When the proposed action involves new proposals or projects, the no action alternative 

is not to proceed with the action. For this federal action, the proposed action alternative is the 

issuance of the Offshore Seafood Processor General NPDES permit to Seafood processors 

operating at least 3NM from shore at MLLW. EPA considers this a modification of an existing 

program (i.e., the current, administratively extended permit). Therefore, the no action alternative 

is to re-issue the current, administratively extended, General NPDES Permit for Seafood 

Processors in Alaska without any changes to its provisions or requirements. 

C128. Because this general NPDES permit categorizes operations that “Involve same or 

substantially similar types” (7th bullet point, Page 2), an EIS and a public hearing must be 

undertaken. 

Because this general NPDES permit categorizes operations that “Require the same or similar 

monitoring requirements” (6th bullet point, Page 2) an EIS, and a public hearing must be 

undertaken. 

R128. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not warranted for the proposed action. 

Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for 

implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR § 1502), and EPA’s regulations for 

implementing NEPA (40 CFR § 6), EISs are required for proposed federal actions that 

“significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” EPA has determined that the 

proposed action will not result in a significant impact on the human environment and the analysis 

contained in the EA and summarized in the FONSI support this determination. Therefore, an EIS 

has not been prepared for the proposed action. 

C129. It is stated in the 2nd bullet point, on Page 4, that “Sanitary wastewater...EPA and/or 

ADEC may require monitoring...” The statement must read “...EPA and ADEC must require 

monitoring...” 

R129. Comment noted. AKG52400 will now only cover those discharges that occur in Federal 

waters (i.e., outside 3 miles). Therefore, the reference to ADEC will be removed and the 

statement will read “EPA may require monitoring...” EPA will retain discretion over whether or 

not to require monitoring of sanitary wastewater. 

C130. The 4th bullet point, on Page 6 reads “Unlike the current permit which established a 

generic 1-acre zone of deposit (ZOD) for facilities operating within 0.5-1 NM from shore, the 

proposed permit will only allow ADEC to authorize site-specific ZODs for facilities operating 

within 0.5-1 NM from shore.” The statement must read “...will only allow the EPA and ADEC 

to authorize site-specific ZODs...” On September 30, 2008, the article “EPA settles with the 

39 
City of Anchorage for over $40,000 for hazardous waste handling violations” was posted on the 

website http://yosemite.epa.gov. The violations involved “Failure to properly treat hazardous 

wastes” and “Failure to properly label used oil containers”. The DEC’s Division of Spill 

Prevention and Response’s website lists, under Program Specific Statutes and Regulations, a 

Prevention and Emergency Response Program. The State of Alaska to date has not begun 

revising its 2004 Emergency Response Plan—Website information posted as of October 10, 

2008--even though the U.S. DHS has implemented since March 22, 2008 the National Response 

Framework (formerly the National Response Plan). Also, the State of Alaska’s Division of 

Homeland Security and Emergency Management’s Website has posted on its Home Page 

(www.ak-prepared.com, as of 10/10/2008) “National threat Level ELEVATED”, while on the 

Office of Homeland Security’s Website (www.ak-prepared.com/homelandsecurity/, as of 

10/10/2008) the Homeland Security Advisory states “Current National Threat Level HIGH”. 

Contradictory, and misleading. 

R130. AKG52400 will now only cover those discharges which occur in Federal waters. 

Therefore, Alaska State Water Quality Standards, including the authorization of zones’ of 

deposit (18 AAC 70.210), are not applicable to the proposed permit. The proposed permit will 

not authorize any zones of deposit and the FONSI will be revised accordingly. 

C131. Please note that the City and State information, on Page 6, for submittal of comments to 

your attention were not included. 

R131. Comment noted. 

C132. How many businesses, that are currently allowed to operate within the 0.0 to 0.5 NM 

from shore, are impacted by the 0.5 NM from shore proposal (Unauthorized Facilities, Page 3)? 

R132. There are approximately 100 facilities that discharge between 0 – 0.5NM. Since ADEC 

is the permitting authority for discharges within state waters, ADEC will address the substantive 

part of this comment. 

C133. I disagree with the statement on Page 55841, under Executive Order 12866, that “EPA 

has determined that this general permit is not a ‘significant regulatory action’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review”. On the basis of the 

information in the Draft General NPDES Permit, the Environmental Assessment (EA), the Draft 

Biological Evaluation, and the Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation, as well as the fact that all 

comments made and submitted in writing at the two scheduled public meetings are not viewed as 

public testimony (which legally would be made part of the record at a formal public hearing), 

OMB review is called for. 

R133. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the review 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 providing for presidential oversight of the regulatory 

process pursuant to Section 6 of that order. 

40 
C134. Because the Polar Bear’s listing as a threatened species in the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) is passed over, or is noted in the documents mentioned under [the comment above]; the 

State of Alaska has filed a lawsuit against the federal government; the U.S. Department of 

Interior Secretary limited “the economic effect of the decision with the inclusion of 

‘administrative guidance’ that said the listing would not be used to create back-door climate 

policy outside the normal system of political accountability” (www.adn.com/polarbears/vprinter/story/413710.html, May 22, 2008, “State will sue over polar bear listing, Palin says: 

SPECIES STATUS: Unreliable data, threat to energy development cited’); the marine mammal 

is turning to cannibalism (www.usatoday.com, June 13, 2006, “Study: Polar bears may turn to 

cannibalism”); its “Critical habitat has not been designated” “at this time” (September 2008, 

Draft Biological Evaluation, Page 37); the fact that “in anticipation of primacy, DEC has been 

building the Department’s capacity to handle the additional workload and to gain the expertise 

necessary to implement the NPDES program” 

(www.dec.state.ak.us/water/npdes/AboutNPDES.htm, as of 10/10/2008); the fact that Alaska did 

not retaining authority over all NPDES permit waste discharges 

(www.dec.state.ak.us/water/npdes/background.htm, as of 10/16/2008, “NPDES Primacy”, “The 

biosolids component is a small component of the NPDES program in Alaska. Alaska will not 

pursue primacy of this part of the program); the fact that Governor Sarah Palin “through 

Administrative Order 238, established the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet” (DEC, April 18, 2008 

Press Release, “Climate Change Sub-Cabinet Taps Citizens to Build Climate change Strategy”); 

and the fact that this Sub-Cabinet “has selected more than 100 Alaskans to help craft the State’s 

climate change strategy (same DEC Press Release), I formally request that an EIS be undertaken, 

and that a formal public hearing be scheduled on the proposed General NPDES Permit (Number 

AKG524000). 

R134. As stated in the Biological Evaluation: 

In Alaska, polar bears are found in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas located west and north of 

Alaska. Critical habitat has not been designated for the polar bear at this time. Arctic sea ice 

provides a platform for critical life-history functions, including hunting, feeding, travel, and 

nurturing cubs. 

At present, polar bear stocks in Alaska have no direct interaction with commercial fisheries 

activities (73 FR 28312). Therefore, the offshore seafood processors permit should have no 

effect on polar bears. 

C135. The following comments are in relation to the draft permit: 

Page 10 of 50, numbers 4, 5, and 6, are incorrect. The numbers should read “3, 4, and 5.” 

Page 23 of 50, letter m is incorrect. The letter should read “k”. 

R135. Thank you for pointing these out. The changes have been made on the final permit. 

C136. Page 6 of 50, number 3, the second sentence reads “EPA and/or ADEC may require 

monitoring...” The sentence must read “EPA and ADEC may require monitoring...” Also, add 

41 
“(WQS)” after Water Quality Standards. Then, too, include “(USCG)” after the federal agency 

in the first sentence. 

R136. All references to ADEC and Water Quality Standards have been removed from the 

permit. Because we are referring to a location “The U.S. Coast Guard's Command Center” in 

that paragraph, USCG was not added. 

C137. Page 9 of 50, Section A paragraph, the first sentence reads “An applicant wishing 

authorization to discharge under this Permit must submit a timely, and complete Notice of Intent 

(NOI), or equivalent form to EPA and ADEC...” The sentence must read “...submit a timely, 

complete and accurate Notice of Intent...” 

R137. All documents needing a signature under this permit must follow Section IX.E.4 and 

IV.C.10: 

4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this Part must make the following 

certification: 

"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my 

direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel 

properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or 

persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the 

information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, 

and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, 

including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations." Emphasis added. 

10. Signatory requirements. All permit applications must be signed and dated as follows: 

a. For a corporation: by a principal corporate officer. 

b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, 

respectively. 

c. For a municipality, state, tribe, federal or other public agency: by either a 

principal executive officer or ranking elected official. 

C138. Page 10 of 50, number 6 the sentence reads “A permittee must submit its original Notice 

of Intent to be covered under this general NPDES permit to...” The sentence must read 

“...submit its legible, accurate, and certified original...” 

R138. Please see response to C137. The certification requires the permittee to certify that the 

information is accurate under penalty of perjury. 

C139. Page 11 of 50, number 4.b, second bullet point, the first sentence reads “An NOI must 

also include a legible area map(s) of all location(s) of the vessel and all outfall(s)”. The sentence 

must read “An NOI must also include a legible and accurate area map(s) of the location(s)...” 

42 
R139. Please see response to C137 and C138. 

C140. Page 12 of 50, Section c bullet point, top of page, the sentence reads “A general area map 

where discharges will occur”. The sentence must read “An official map of the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) where 

discharges will occur”. If the general area map is left intact, then have the sentence read “A 

legible and accurate general area map...” 

R140. Please see response to C137. 

C141. Page 14 of 50, number 10, first bullet point, the sentence reads “For near-shore vessels, a 

legible area map of the location(s) of the vessel and all outfalls”. The sentence must read “...a 

legible, accurate, and official area map...” 

Also, number 10, third bullet point, the sentence reads “For offshore processors, a location map 

of all discharge areas”. The sentence must read “...a legible, accurate, and official location map 

of all discharge areas”. 

Then to number 11, the sentence reads “Signatory requirements. All permit applications must be 

signed and dated...” The sentence must read “...All permit applications must be signed, dated, 

and notarized...” 

Finally, number 11.c, for a municipality require that the mayor, or county Board of Supervisors 

chairperson (which ever title is appropriate in Alaska) be the signatory. 

R141. Please see response to C137 and 138. Please note, a notary is not required for NPDES 

permits under federal regulations 

C142. Page 15 of 50, Section d, to the “Logs of this daily inspection...” sentence change “EPA 

or ADEC” to EPA and ADEC. Section e, to the “Logs of these daily inspections...” sentence 

change “EPA or ADEC” to EPA and ADEC. Section f, to the “Logs of this check...” sentence 

change “EPA or ADEC” to EPA and ADEC. Section g, to include U.S. before Coast Guard. 

R142. All references to ADEC have been removed from the final permit. U.S. has been added 

before Coast Guard. 

C143. Page 16 of 50, Section k, second paragraph, the “Within the authorized mixing zone...” 

and “All State of Alaska Water Quality Standards...” sentences include “(WQS)”. 

R143. All references to Alaska Water Quality Standards (WQS) have been deleted in the final 

permit because this permit does not authorize discharges within state waters. 

43 
C144. Page 17 of 50, top of page, Section 1, change “four pictures” to twelve (12) in both 

sentences. Section n, to the “EPA and/or ADEC...” sentence change “EPA and/or ADEC” to 

EPA and ADEC. Number 2, the sentence reads “with a Best Management Practices Plan...” 

Include “(BMP)” before Plan. 

R144. EPA has decided that four pictures should be taken not twelve. All references to ADEC 

have been deleted in the final permit. (BMP) has been added before Plan. 

C145. Page 18 of 50, Sections d, e, and f, to the sentences with “EPA or ADEC” change “EPA 

or ADEC” to EPA and ADEC. Section g, include U.S. before “Coast Guard”. 

R145. Since the sections on Page 18 concerned discharges within state waters, they have been 

removed from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C146. Page 19 of 50, top of page, Section h, include (WQS) after “Water Quality Standards”. 

Section k, second paragraph, include (WQS) after “Water Quality Standards” in the last two 

sentences. 

R146. Since the sections on Page 19 concerned discharges within state waters, they have been 

removed from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C147. Page 20 of 50, top of page, Section 1, include (WQS) after “Water Quality Standards". 

Section m, second paragraph, change “four pictures” to twelve (12) in both sentences. Section o, 

to the sentence “EPA and/or ADEC may require...ensure Water Quality Standards...” change 

“EPA and/or ADEC” to EPA and ADEC, include (WQS) after “Water Quality Standards”. 

R147. Since the sections on Page 20 concerned discharges within state waters, they have been 

removed from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C148. Page 21 of 50, number 2, include (BMP) after “Best Management Practices”. 

R148. Since the sections on Page 21 concerned discharges within state waters, they have been 

removed from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C149. Page 22 of 50, Sections d, e, and f, change “EPA or ADEC” to EPA and ADEC. Section 

g, include U.S. before “Coast Guard”. 

R149. Since the sections on Page 22 concerned discharges within state waters, they have been 

removed from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C150. Page 23 of 50, Section k, second paragraph, include (WQS) after “Water Quality 

Standards” in the last two sentences. 

44 
R150. Since the sections on Page 23 concerned discharges within state waters, they have been 

removed from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C151. Page 24 of 50, paragraph before Section m, change “four pictures” to twelve (12) pictures 

in both sentences. Section n, to the “EPA and/or ADEC...” sentence change “EPA and/or 

ADEC” to EPA and ADEC. Number 2, include (BMP) after “Best Management Practices”. I 

disagree with Section VI.A.2. bullet point’s statement. The BMP Plan must be submitted with 

the application, not almost two months after the permittee is authorized to discharge. 

R151. Please see response to C143. BMP has been added after Best Management Practices. 

Each processor must be given time to update their BMP plan once the permit is final, that is why 

they are given the 60 day window. 

C152. Page 26 of 50, Section b, include the words legible and accurate between “any necessary” 

and “plot plans”. To “maps” include the word official. 

R152. Please see response to C137. Not all maps need to be official maps. 

C153. Page 27 of 50, number 8(b), the second sentence reads “These records may include the 

BMP Plan itself, inspection reports, preventative maintenance records, and employee”. Change 

“may” to shall. 

R153. No changes were made based on this comment. 

C154. Page 28 of 50, Section d.(3), change “EPA and/or ADEC...” to read EPA and ADEC. 

R154. Please see response to C142. 

C155. Page 29 of 50, Section d, the sentence reads “Provide area map(s) of the discharge 

track(s) of the vessel”. Include the words legible, accurate, and official between “Provide” and 

“area”. 

R155. Please see response to comments C137 and C152. 

C156. Page 30 of 50, number 3, to the sentence include the information that is included for the 

NOI on Page 14 of 50. The sentence reads “...must ensure that the annual report is signed...” 

The sentence must read “signed, dated, and certified”. Number 5, the sentence reads “A 

permittee must submit its annual report...” The sentence must read “its legible, accurate and 

complete annual report”. 

R156. Please see response to C137 and C138. 

C157. Page 31 of 50, Section C.3.c, change “five representative photos” to twelve (12) 

representative photos. 

45 
R157. Since the sections on Page 31 concerned discharges within state waters, they have been 

removed from the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C158. Page 33 of 50, number 10, change “EPA and/or ADEC...” to EPA and ADEC. 

R158. Please see response to C142. 

C159. Page 34 of 50, number 7, change “EPA and/or ADEC...” to EPA and ADEC. 

R159. Please see response to C142. 

C160. Page 37 of 50, Section B, include the word date between “must sign” and “and certify”. 

R160. Please see response to C137. 

C161. Page 11 of 50, number 4.a, the sentence reads “An NOI must include...if applicable”. 

Why “if applicable”? Don’t all facilities and vessels have the name, address, and telephone 

information? If not, why is this not a requirement? 

R161. Some vessels do not have phones and unless they are docked where they can receive 

mail, they don’t have an address. As a result, EPA did not require the facility to list certain 

contact information if they are not available/applicable. 

C162. Page 11 of 50, number 4.b, second bullet point, second sentence reads “This map must be 

based upon an official map or bathymetric chart of the National Oceanic an Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) or the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)...” Which agency map is 

considered superior in quality? Which agency chart is considered superior in quality? Since the 

maps in the Draft’s Appendix B are from: 1. The Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, 2. The Alaska 

State Division of Parks and Outdoors Recreation, ADNR, 3. The USDA Forest Service, 4. the 

USFWS, 5. the National Geographic’s TOPO mapping software, and 6. the Garmin 

MAPSOURCE software this statement needs clarification. By the way, this document was 

superb. 

R162. Since Section 4.b concerned discharges within state waters, they have been removed from 

the permit and ADEC will address this comment. 

C163. Page 12 of 50, Section d, the sentence reads “For all vessels, an NOI must include the 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) vessel number, the type of vessel, and vessel length”. Did USEPA 

staff mean “must include for the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)’s attention the vessel number, the 

type of vessel, and the vessel length” of the operation’s vessel, and not of the U.S. Coast Guard’s 

monitoring vessel? Surely, more a handful of USCG vessels are patrolling. 

46 
R163. Each vessel is given a unique identification number by the USCG. That is the number 

that is required. 

C164. Where in the Draft is the wording to the effect of “Processors need to make sure that they 

have the necessary spare parts on hand to fix problems with their pollution control equipment” 

(EPA’s Kim Ogle statement in the 04/10/2008 News Release “Alaskan Seafood processor fined 

over $54,000 for Federal Clean Water Act violations”)? I may have missed this information 

after cross-referencing all of the Draft general NDPES permit documents, other draft general 

NPDES permit related documents, and many and various Jordan research information such as on 

ocean wind currents, marine ecosystems, and the California Ocean Plan. Kim Ogle also states 

that “Such proactive measures protect the environment and cost processors less in the long run 

because they will not have to choose between suspending operations and processing out of 

compliance with their permit”. 

R164. Section VIII.E. of the Permit addresses proper operation and maintenance. It states: 

“The permittee must at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of 

treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee to 

achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also 

includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This 

provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are 

installed by the permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the 

conditions of the permit.” 

C165. When the certification is mentioned in the Draft general NPDES permit, does this refer to 

the EPA certifying documents, or certification by another entity—government, legal, municipal, 

etcetera? 

R165. This language has been removed from the permit. It referred to the State of Alaska’s 401 

certification. Because the permit no longer applies in state waters, a 401 certification is not 

required. 

C166. When a municipality submits an NOI application, does the City Council, or County 

Board of Supervisors (or which ever title is appropriate in Alaska) have to first hold a public 

hearing, or adopt a Resolution, or requires a signatory page? 

R166. It is not the responsibility of EPA to ensure that a municipality that owns a seafood 

processing facility complies with its own ordinances. 

C167. Why is it stated on Page 26 of 50, Section b, “...any necessary plot plans, drawings or 

maps...” and not all necessary plot plans, drawings or maps? 

R167. Since each processor is different and may have different “plot plans, drawings or maps” 

for their facility. EPA only required the submittal of necessary documents. 

47 
 

C168. Why would Best Management Practices Plans not be required to include plot plans, 

drawings or maps? 

R168. All the information required must be included, however, the way the information is 

presented could differ. See response to C167. 

C169. Are “drawings” diagrams and/or schematics? 

R169. Information can be presented in different ways, therefore, diagrams and schematics are 

both considered “drawings” as required under the permit. See response to C167 and C168. 

C170. Where in the Draft is the wording to the effect of the number of employees on a vessel 

since these vessels sizes vary? 

R170. Section IV.C.6.c. (Sanitary or domestic wastes). The NOI must identify the type of 

marine sanitation device (MSD), including the date when the USCG approved and certified the 

MSD, when it was installed, its capacity (gal/day) and number of people using the MSD. Identify 

waste streams that combine with the MSD effluent prior to discharge. 

C171. Page 38 of 50, Section F, I concur with the statement “The permittee must retain records 

of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records and all original 

strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required 

by this permit, copies of annual reports, a copy of the NPDES permit, and records of all data 

used to complete the application for this permit, for a period of at least five years”. 

I am not quite sure about the rest of the statement “from the date of the sample, measurement, 

report or application” because samples and measurements can occur at various times while 

reports and applications are time specific set dates. 

I also concur with the statement “This period may be extended by request” “at any time”. 

Change “EPA or ADEC” to EPA and ADEC. 

R171. The statement “from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application,” means 

the discharger must retain the information about each sample, measurement, report, or 

application for five years from the time the information was obtained/taken/prepared. All 

references to ADEC were removed from the permit. 

C172. Page 39 of 50, number 3, I disagree with the statement “The Director of the Office of 

Compliance and Enforcement may waive the written report on a case-by-case basis if the oral 

report has been received within 24 hours by the NPDES Compliance Hotline in Seattle, 

Washington, by telephone (206) 553-1846”. 

R172. The statement comes from 40 CFR § 122.41(l)(6) which is a standard provision that is 

required to be included in all NPDES permits. 

48 
C173. Page 40 of 50, number 3 change “And” to the words and, “a copy to:”. 

R173. Since permittees no longer need to send ADEC documents pertaining to this permit, that 

part was removed from the permit. 

C174. Page 42 of 50, Section C, the sentence reads “It shall not be a defense for the permittee in 

an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity 

in order to maintain compliance with this permit”. Change the sentence to read “In an 

enforcement action, it shall not be a defense for the permittee that halting or reducing the 

permitted activity was necessary in order to maintain compliance with this permit”. 

R174. The statement comes from 40 CFR § 122.41(c) which is a standard provision that is 

required to be included in all NPDES permits. 

C175. Page 43 of 50, Section G.2, the second sentence reads “To establish the affirmative 

defense of upset, the permittee must demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs, or other relevant evidence...” Include words to the effect that besides signing the 

documents the person’s name must also be printed. 

R175. The statement comes from 40 CFR § 122.41(n) Upset. 

C176. Page 44 of 50, Section I, to the paragraph include (OWW) after Office of Water and 

Watersheds”. Section J, include (OCE) after “Office of Compliance and Enforcement”. Section 

IX.C, change EPA or ADEC” to EPA and ADEC in both sentences. 

R176. Because they are titles (Director of the Office of Water and Watersheds and Director of 

the Office of Compliance and Enforcement), OWW and OCE were not added. All references to 

ADEC were removed from the permit. 

C177. Page 45 of 50, Section D, change EPA or ADEC” to EPA and ADEC. Section E, the 

sentence reads “All applications, reports or information submitted to EPA and ADEC must be 

signed and certified...” The sentence must read “be signed, dated, and certified”. Section E.1.c, 

for a municipality require that the mayor, or county Board of Supervisors chairperson (which 

ever title is appropriate in Alaska) be the signatory. Section E.2 change “EPA or ADEC” to EPA 

and ADEC. Section E.2.c, include (OCE) after “Office of Compliance and Enforcement”. 

Section E.3, after “Office of Compliance and Enforcement” include (OCE). 

R177. Please see responses to C137, C142, and C176. 

C178. Page 46 of 50, top of page, Section E.4, I concur with the certification statement made by 

“Any person signing a document under this Part”. Section G, paragraph, include (OCE) after 

“Office of Compliance and Enforcement”. It is unclear if the entities to be allowed by the 

permittee under “Inspection and Entry” includes EPA and ADEC, or EPA and/or ADEC, or EPA 

49 
or ADEC since it is stated “EPA Region 10;ADEC; or an authorized representative (including an 

authorized contractor acting as a representative of the Administrator), upon the presentation of 

credentials and other documents as may be required by law”. 

R178. Please see response to C176. The permit has been revised to say, “EPA Region 10; or an 

authorized representative...” 

C179. Page 47 of 50, top of page, Section I, after “Director of the Office of Water and 

Watersheds” include (OWW). 

R179. Please see response to C176. 

C180. Page 47 to 50 of 50, Definitions, include “Federal waters” or “Navigable waters of the 

U.S.”, “General Permit (GP)”, “Nautical mile (NM)”, “National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA)”, “National Wilderness Area”, “National Wildlife Refuge”, “OSHA”, 

“Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)”, “Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL)”, U.S. Coast 

Guard (USCG)”, U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS)”, “Water Quality Standards (WQS)”, and “Zone 

of Deposit (ZOD)”. 

R180. The definitions section of the permit has been changed to include definitions and 

acronyms. Definitions and acronyms of those terms listed in C180 which appear in the final 

permit have been added. 

C181. Page 48 of 50, Definitions, number 13, include (OCE) after “Enforcement”. Number 14, 

include (OWW) after “Watersheds”. Number 24, include (MSD) after “device”. 

R181. Please see response to C176. Please note definitions under Section X of the permit are no 

longer numbered. MSD has been added after “device”. 

C182. Does the USEPA have a set bar as to how many particular violations merit immediate 

enforcement action, and which ones do not—for some of the fines Region 10 articles it seems 

that years went by before the Agency took the enforcement action? 

R182. EPA can exercise enforcement discretion in determining whether to take an enforcement 

action. 

C183. Do the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) include penalties for government 

employees—USEPA, USCG, etceteras—who knowingly provide false statements, or doctor 

documents on behalf of any offshore seafood processor whether in Federal waters on the West 

Coast, Pacific Northwest, or elsewhere in the United States? 

R183. This is not a relevant comment on the permit or any of the supplemental documents. 

50 
C184. What type of information submitted by any offshore seafood processor may be deemed as 

confidential? 

R184. Information which falls under 40 CFR Part 2, the Confidential Business Information 

regulations. 

Specifically, 40 CFR § 2.208 Substantive criteria for use in confidentiality determinations. 

Determinations issued under §§ 2.204 through 2.207 shall hold that business information is 

entitled to confidential treatment for the benefit of a particular business if— 

(a) The business has asserted a business confidentiality claim which has not expired by its terms, 

nor been waived nor withdrawn; 

(b) The business has satisfactorily shown that it has taken reasonable measures to protect the 

confidentiality of the information, and that it intends to continue to take such measures; 

(c) The information is not, and has not been, reasonably obtainable without the business's 

consent by other persons (other than governmental bodies) by use of legitimate means (other 

than discovery based on a showing of special need in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding); 

(d) No statute specifically requires disclosure of the information; and 

(e) Either— 

(1) The business has satisfactorily shown that disclosure of the information is likely to cause 

substantial harm to the business's competitive position; or 

(2) The information is voluntarily submitted information (see §2.201(i)), and its disclosure would 

be likely to impair the Government's ability to obtain necessary information in the future. 

C185. Since the statement under Section G, on Page 46 of 50, mentions the Director of the 

Office of Compliance and Enforcement, EPA Region 10”, is the “Administrator” referring to the 

ADEC? Is it referring to some other entity? 

R185. As stated in the definition section of the permit: “‘Administrator’ means the 

Administrator of the EPA, or an authorized representative.” There is also a Regional 

Administrator who is defined as “‘Regional Administrator’ means the Regional Administrator of 

Region 10 of the EPA, or the authorized representative of the Regional Administrator.” 

C186. Are all general NPDES permit transfers handled only by the Director of the Office of 

Water and Watersheds, or does this matter also go through the public review and comment 

process? 

51 
R186. During the term of the permit, all transfers are handled by the Director of the Office of 

Water and Watersheds. 

C187. Why did the list on Page 1 [Draft Appendix A] not include “all excluded waterbodies”? 

R187. There are many waterbodies that are excluded due to Section III of the draft permit, so 

each permittee must look at their individual proposed discharge point and compare it to Section 

III. Also, additional critical habitat areas may be added during the term of the permit and those 

areas must be taken into consideration. Appendix A is a partial list of excluded waters where 

permittees have been known to discharge in the past. It is only intended to be used as a quick 

reference check and a more thorough evaluation may be warranted. 

C188. Please note the pages were not numbered [Draft Appendix C]. I disagree with the last 

paragraph on Page 3 with regards to the method used for the seafood monitoring report to be 

descriptive “to a degree allowing DEC and EPA to check the calculation”. 

R188. Since Appendix C relates only to discharges within state waters, ADEC will address this 

comment. 

C189. [Draft Appendix C] The EPA and ADEC should not have to decipher the “degree” of the 

“method used” “in the seafood monitoring report” “to check the calculation”. A set method (up 

to 3 if applicable) must be used, that can be set by EPA since it is stated on Page 1 that “the two 

areas” shown on the seafood cover diagram “easily could be reversed”. If the statement “to 

ensure protection of water quality and human health” is to mean anything, there must not be 

room for any loopholes. (FACT SHEET, Page 1, paragraph, last sentence). 

R189. Please see response to C188. 

C190. Please note that “the tables on the next page “ “To aid in calculation” were not included. 

(Page 3, second paragraph, first sentence [Draft Appendix C]). 

R190. Please see response to C188. 

C191. If “the tables on the next page” were not supposed to accompany the Draft Appendix C, 

why was the statement made? 

R191. Please see response to C188. 

C192. Throughout the text [Environmental Assessment], the first letter(s) of the species’ first 

names are capitalized, but those with additional words do not always have the first letter 

capitalized, and sometimes they are inconsistent. 

R192. American Fisheries Society convention for capitalization of fish species’ names is that 

only words that are proper nouns are capitalized in the name in the text. Capitalization for 

52 
mammalian species followed that used by USFWS and NOAA. EPA will review and edit before 

finalizing the document. 

C193. [Also on the Environmental Assessment] The first letter(s) of the species’ first names are 

capitalized, but those with additional words do not always have the first letter capitalized on 

Table 3.1--inconsistent. (Page 70). 

R193. Please see response to C192. 

C194. [The following comments are on the Biological Evaluation] 

Throughout the text, the first letter of the species’ first names are capitalized, but those with 

additional words do not always have the first letter capitalized, and sometimes they are-­

inconsistency. 

R194. Please see response to C192. 

C195. The first letter(s) of the species’ first names are capitalized, but those with additional 

words do not always have the first letter capitalized in the Tables--inconsistency. 

R195. Please see response to C192.
 

C196. Include the number of Category 1 waterbodies--the number designated waterbodies for 

Categories 2 though 5 are given. (Page 57, sentence “Alaska’s 2006 Integrated Water Quality 

Report...”) 

R196. According to the 2006 Integrated Water Quality Report, there are over 3 million 

waterbodies in the state of Alaska. Waterbodies are placed in Category 1 if there are data to 

support a determination that the water quality standards and all of the uses are attained. The report 

further states that no waterbodies in Alaska have been designated as Category 1 because the state 

does not possess that level of detailed information for any one waterbody. However, the majority 

of Alaska’s waters are not subject to human-caused stressors and are considered unimpaired. 

Therefore, DEC expects that 99.9% of Alaska‘s waters can be classified as Category 1, however 

there are no specific waters identified in this category. Since no waters have specifically been 

designated as Category 1, no number for Category 1 waters was provided in the text. 

C197. I disagree with the “No Effect” conclusion for the Polar Bear with regards to the 

cumulative effects on this species. (Page 87, Table 7.1) 

R197. The commenter did not explain why the commenter disagreed with the “no effect:” 

conclusion. As such, EPA does not have any additional information to evaluate and believes that 

the no effect conclusion should remain unchanged. No changes were made based on this 

comment. Please also see the response to C134. 

C198. Include the population numbers along with the given percentages for rural family 

households that use fish, and those that use wildlife. (Page 85, last paragraph) 

53 
 

R198. While the population numbers were not provided with the percentages, they can be 

estimated based on household numbers and population estimates for Alaska. For 2005 there 

were 234,000 households in Alaska with an average of 2.8 people per household, resulting in a 

total population of approximately 655,200 people. Therefore approximately 602,780 to 655,200 

individuals use subsistence fish and approximately 517,600 to 602,780 individuals use 

subsistence wildlife. This information can be included in the text of the final document. 

C199. [The following comments are on the Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation (ODCE)] 

Throughout the text the first letter of the species’ names are capitalized, but those with additional 

words do not always have the first letter capitalized, and sometimes they are--inconsistency. 

R199. Please see response to C192. 

C200. The page numbering is inconsistent (4-3, and Page 8-1). 

R200. Thank you for pointing this out. It will be changed for the final. 

C201. From Beth Pokorny at Icicle Seafoods, Egegik: 

V.A.1.e Once half inch grind size criteria. 

My question is how is this defined? To be in compliance does this mean 100% of all discharge 

material has [to] be one half inch in all dimensions? From personal experience I think this is 

unrealistic. With the current available technology there will always be a small percentage (2­

5%) of material that escapes, for varies reasons, the grinding or cutting implements. 

R201. Please see response to C10. 

C202. Seafloor Monitoring. 

My plant, located on the Egegik River in Bristol Bay, experiences a 4-5 knot river current, 2-3 

knot tidal influence and zero visibility due to glacial silt and tidal mud. Dive surveys in this 

instance would be useless and dangerous. In addition, my outfall location is clearly visible at 

low tide and can be visually surveyed from my dock. I think it’s unrealistic to expect all 

operations to perform seafloor monitoring via dive surveys. 

R202. Since this provision concerns discharges within state waters, ADEC will address this 

comment. 

C203. Hydrodynamically energetic waters with higher capacity of dilution and dispersion. 

The meaning and application of this idea is not clearly defined. At least I have some problems 

understanding and applying this to my situation. And if I am in an area of “energetic waters” 

what does that mean to me? Who determines this situation? 

R203. Please see response to C19. According to comment 202, this plant is located in State 

waters, therefore, ADEC will determine the situation surrounding this discharge. Offshore 

54 
waters are all expected to meet these criteria as they should have vigorous wave action and 

higher capacity for dilution and dispersion. 

C204. 5.A.I.H. states... foam must be minimized to the extent practicable... 

Define practicable. 

R204. This is left up to each processor to develop in their BMP plan. Please see Section VI.A 

Best Management Practices Plan. 

C205. Mixing Zones. 

At times the strong river current and ebb tides will carry a thin stream of foam beyond the 100’ 

mixing zone, although this instantly disperses. Discharge material in this instance is carried out 

this the tide.
 

R205. Since this provision concerns discharges within state waters, ADEC will address this 

comment. 

C206. 5.A.1.M Heavy metal sampling. 

Is this sampling being required because of contaminants introduced by the processors (i.e.: nuts, 

bolts, knives)? Or is this because of metals contained within the seafood product itself?
 

R206. The sampling will evaluate all metals that are being discharged from the processor, no 

matter their source. Please see response to C44. 

55